►
Description
To view the agenda, go to https://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=45
A
Last
I
have
730
shall
we
get
started,
welcome
to
the
Arlington
County
Transportation
Commission.
This
is
a
special
meeting
this
evening
for
the
Crystal
City
VRE
station
improvements
item.
One
is
citizen
comment
for
matters
that
are
not
on
the
agenda
and
we
have
no
speakers
for
item
1
item.
2
is
the
VRA
staff
report
in
overview
sonali's
an
eg
here,
it's
here
from
BRE,
to
give
you
this
and
then
staff
will
have
a
few
moments
after
that.
B
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
give
you
another
project
update
on
the
Crystal
City
station
improvements
project.
As
Richard
said:
I'm
Sonali,
Soneji,
I'm,
the
VRE
planning
program
administrator
and
I
serve
as
a
project
manager
for
this
project.
We
also
have
mr.
Tom
Hickey
he's
a
chief
development
officer
for
we
re.
B
We
have
a
short
presentation
for
you
today.
I
know.
You
have
probably
seen
a
lot
of
this
information,
so
I'll
try
to
be
brief,
but
I'm
happy
to
discuss
any
topic
in
more
detail.
If
you
would
like
to
stop
me
now
or
later
in
questions
as
well,
so
the
agenda
for
today
is
just
to
give
you
a
quick
background
of
the
project
where
we
started
in
the
context
for
the
project.
The
proposed
options.
B
So
this
project,
as
you
may
remember,
the
Crystal
City
station-
is
about
400
feet
long.
The
platform
is
400
feet
long
and
and
serves
one
track.
Our
trains
are
now
almost
twice
as
long
as
this
platform,
so
we
need
a
longer
platform
and
also
we
need
to
be
able
to
serve
two
trains
at
once
on
the
platform
more
for
the
future
then
really
currently-
and
this
is
to
respond
to
the
four
track
environment-
that
this
segment
of
the
railroad
is
going
to
be
transformed
into.
B
So
that
was
the
context
of
the
project,
the
reason
for
the
project
and
other
than
that.
We
also
had
some
other
design
objectives
which
were
to
stay
within
the
existing
railroad
right
away
and
also
an
opportunity
to
do
better
in
the
future
than
what
the
current
station
does
in
terms
of
connectivity
to
the
local
network,
as
well
as
the
regional
transportation
networks
and
in
the
area.
We
also
have
an
opportunity
to
fit
in
better
with
Arlington
County's
vision
for
Crystal,
City
and
also
you
know.
B
So
this
is
also
happening
at
a
time
when
there
are
many
other
transportation
projects,
big
transportation
projects
going
on
in
this
and
the
vicinity.
One
is
the
second
metro
rail
entrance
that
is
being
proposed
at
the
corner
of
18th
Street
and
crystal
drive.
The
Crystal
City
multimodal
Center
is
now
built,
the
Crystal
City
Potomac
yard
transit.
We
extension
is
proposed.
The
Commonwealth
of
Virginia
is
putting
in
a
four
track
within
the
CSX
railroad
right
away
and
Reagan.
B
B
But
it's
it's
not
it's
outside
of
our
project,
but
we'll
we
would
like
to
support
it
so
where
we
are
today,
this
project
is
in
the
initial
phase,
and
this
phase
of
the
project
has
been
funded
by
the
Northern
Virginia
Transportation
Authority.
What
we
were
trying
to
achieve
with
in
this
phase
were
to
look
at
all
the
feasible
options
within
the
vicinity
of
the
existing
Crystal
City
station
and
then
evaluate
them
and
then
try
to
pick
one
station
location
to
focus
on
and
do
a
little
bit
of
concept
design.
B
Once
we
came
up
with
those
station
locations,
we
brought
this
information
out
to
the
public
in
in
March
2017.
We
did
a.
We
did
some
community
outreach,
but
we
also
worked
with
other
stakeholders
to
try
to
understand
what
their
perspectives
were,
whether
we
were
looking
at
the
right
locations
or
had
missed
anything,
and
we
also
brought
out
the
design
objectives,
as
well
as
the
criteria
that
we
were
going
to
use
in
the
next
phase
for
evaluating
the
station
locations.
B
B
Once
we
did
that
evaluation,
we
brought
the
findings
out
again
to
the
public
in
June
2017.
As
preliminary
findings.
We
wanted
to
see
if,
if
people
agree
with
that,
if
there
was
some
other
perspectives,
whether
there
was
some
other
information
that
we
should
include
before
we
make
a
final
recommendation.
B
B
So
the
the
summary
you
know,
findings
didn't
change
based
on
this
data,
and
this
is
where
we
are
today
where
the
VRA
staff
recommendation
is
based
next
slide,
please,
the
VRA
staff
recommendation
is
based
on
this
two
step:
technical
evaluation,
and
that
indicated
that
option
two
is
the
preferred
station
location
on
which
to
study.
Further.
B
Now
to
get
to
this
look
to
this
recommendation,
we
did
look
at
various
different
perspectives
and
we
have
engaged
our
Lincoln
County
staff
and
this
commission,
as
well
as
presenting
to
the
Planning
Commission
recently
earlier
this
month
and
n
board
members.
We
also
talked
to
adjacent
property
owners
of
commercial
property,
as
well
as
residential
property
and
the
residents
in
public
forums.
B
So
I'd
like
to
go
over
the
three
proposed
options
that
we
considered
for
the
assessment.
So
in
the
first
step,
as
I
said,
we
looked
at
all
the
possible
station
locations
between
the
existing
Crystal,
City,
Station
and
all
the
way
further
south
to
the
airport
access
road,
and
we
came
up
with
these
three
locations
that
are
marked
on
the
map.
B
This
is
this
is
an
area
that
already
has
a
lot
of
transportation,
networks
and
connections,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
the
context.
There
is
an
existing
metro
rail
station
that
is
marked
on
the
map,
but
the
a
new
material
station
is
proposed
in
the
future
closer
to
the
railroad,
and
so
we
did
look
at
that
as
an
important
factor.
We
also
looked
at
the
Metro
based
stops
that
are
close
by
and
the
multimodal
center.
That
is
on
a
long,
eighteenth
stream.
B
So
option
one
is
located
in
the
general
vicinity
of
the
existing
station,
it's
the
one
furthest
north
and
with
the
existing
station.
We
only
have
one
access
point,
but
since
we
need
a
platform,
that's
twice
as
long,
we
need
to
have
two
access
points
to
the
platform
for
convenience,
as
well
as
emergency
access
and
evacuation,
and
things
like
that,
and
so
we
looked
at
and
because
there
will
be
tracks
on
either
side.
B
These
access
points
are
going
to
be
great
separated,
so
either
they're
going
to
be
overhead,
overpasses
or
they're,
going
to
be
tunnels
or
under
passes
in
the
maps
when
it's
shown
in
blue
those
are
considered
are
being
shown
as
tunnels
and
overpasses
are
being
shown
in
red
at
this
stage
of
the
process
we're
open
to
both
or
either,
but
for
the
sake
of
evaluation.
We
we
try
to
pick
the
one
that
seemed
more
feasible
or
the
more
logical
option,
so
an
option
one.
B
The
in
the
existing
platform
is
shown
in
white
that
will
be
demolished
and
a
new
platform
would
be
built.
The
one
shown
in
orange
and
the
access
to
the
north
is
shown
as
a
tunnel
and
underpass
that
goes
along
the
side
of
the
open
space
and
connects
to
12
Street
near
the
long
bridge.
Park
entrance
on
the
south
end
is
an
overpass
that
is
shown
generally
in
the
location
of
the
existing
access.
B
Option
to
is
located
about
quarter
mile
south
of
option
one
and
in
this
option
on
the
north
and
there's
a
tunnel
that
is
shown
connecting
the
connecting
the
platform
to
the
south
end
of
water
park,
all
the
way
near
to
Crystal
Drive,
and
this
is
the
location
where
the
new
material
entrance
will
is
proposed
across
the
street
on
the
corner
of
18th
and
crystal
drive
on
the
south
and
we're
showing
an
overpass
that
connects
onto
the
terrace
between
the
two
office
towers.
So
the
office
tower
to
the
north
is
2011.
B
Crystal,
Drive
and
there's
another
office
tower
right
next
to
it
as
a
terrorist.
That
is
about
one-story
high
and
we're
showing
a
connection
on
to
that
Terrace.
And
then
we
would
try
to
either
go
with
that
terrorists
out
onto
the
driveway
on
the
other
side
or
through
the
building
2011
crystal
drive,
and
there
is
a
lobby
area
down
there
that
used
to
be
used
for
the
connection
across
Crystal
Drive.
We
would
try
to
reuse
that
to
turn
it
into
an
entrance
to
the
station.
B
Option
3
is
located
further
south
on
the
railroad
completely
behind
the
crystal
Park
office
towers.
The
north
end
of
option
3
is
in
the
same
location
as
the
south
end
of
option
2
and
it's
the
same
condition
where
we
might
either
go
over
the
terrace
or
through
2011
to
get
to
Crystal
drive
on
the
south
and
it's
a
similar
situation
where
there
is
a
terrace
that
we
could
use.
But
there
is
no
Lobby
area
to
go
through
the
building,
so
we
would
either
have
to
reconfigure.
B
You
know
spaces
that
are
leased
or
leasable
spaces
to
try
to
come
down
to
the
ground
level
or
go
over
the
building
and
come
down
to
the
driveway.
So
those
are
the
three
options
that
we
assess
in
step:
2
and
I'd
like
to
go
over
quickly.
The
site
assessment
that
we
conducted
based
on
feedback
that
we
got
and
based
on
the
design
objectives
that
we
had
outlined.
Initially,
we
came
up
with
four
factors
to
assess
the
three
options
against.
B
We
also
had
a
fifth
factor
that
we
did
not
rank,
but
simply
because
it
was
not
really
a
VRE
objective,
but
ever
there
was
a
lot
of
interest
by
other
stakeholders
in
some
of
this
information.
So
we
did
the
analysis
and
provided
that
information,
but
it
wasn't
part
of
the
formal
ranking.
The
four
factors
that
we
did
rank
were
improving
local
transportation
connections,
improving
regional
transportation
connections,
minimizing
community
and
environmental
impacts
and
having
a
reasonable
cost.
So
we
looked
at
major
cost
elements
that
each
of
the
options
would
involve
for
local
transportation
connections.
B
We
looked
at
jobs
within
half
a
mile
from
the
center
of
the
platform,
and
this
is
because
the
VRA
station
is
primarily
a
destination
station
at
Crystal
City.
Today
we
also
looked
at
BRE
rider
destinations
based
on
our
surveys.
We
conduct
annual
surveys
actually
twice
a
year
and
we
have
very
good
information
about
our
current
riders.
So
we
use
that
to
try
to
assess
different
options
based
on
stakeholder
feedback.
B
We
also
included
residents
within
half
a
mile
of
the
center
of
the
platform,
the
idea
being
that
in
the
future
you
know
we
would
love
to
have
Crystal
City
offer
an
option
to
Metro
or
really
be.
You
know,
have
some
trips
originating
in
Crystal
City
to
either
either
going
north
or
maybe
one
day
south
if
we
do
have
bi-directional
service.
So
we
did
include
that
information
as
well,
and
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
bike.
Bicyclists
writing
VRE,
but
we
did
want
to
make
sure
we
provide
that
information
as
well.
B
So
sorry,
based
on
that
so
and
so
why?
Why
is
this
important?
This
is
important
because
almost
70%
of
our
riders
next
slide
sorry,
almost
70
percent
of
our
riders
walk
to
their
final
destination
and
I.
Just
like
to
point
out
that
this
map
was
developed
based
on
community
feedback.
There
was
a
really
good
suggestion
to
color-code
our
dots
by
the
mode
of
access.
B
The
next
factor
was
regional
transportation
connections
and
we
looked
at
proximity
to
metro
rail
and
to
Metro
way.
We
looked
at
the
distance
to
the
existing
metro
rail
station,
but
we
also
looked
at
the
distance
to
the
proposed
new
metro
rail
entrance
that
that
is
closer
to
the
railroad
and
for
both
of
those
option.
Two
that
did
the
best
and
option
one
didn't
do
too
badly
either.
B
B
Sorry,
you
might
have
to
squint
a
little
at
this
map,
but
this
is
important
because
many
people
take
metro
rail
to
access
the
Pentagon
and
Pentagon
City,
and
many
people
also
take
bus,
as
you
can
see,
to
get
to
the
Rosslyn
Boston
corridor
and
there
seems
to
be
a
location,
work,
location
near
the
Foreign
Service
Institute
near
Route
50.
That
people
seem
to
be
accessing.
B
So
while
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
enhance
our
local
and
regional
connections,
we
also
wanted
to
try
to
minimize
any
impacts
on
the
community
and
on
the
environment,
we're
trying
to
fit
a
station
into
an
existing
built
environment,
and
we
want
to
try
to
reduce
our
impacts
where,
wherever
possible.
So
we
did
look
at
several
factors:
noise
and
vibration.
B
We
heard
by
your
was
an
important
factor
at
the
community
and
we
did
conduct
noise
monitoring
during
this
phase
of
the
project,
to
try
to
collect
data
and
to
be
able
to
address
that
concern
adequately.
This
is
not
something
we
would
normally
do
at
this
phase
of
the
project,
but
hearing
the
concerns
and
and
being
able
to
address
them
adequately
was
important
to
us.
B
We
also
heard
you
know,
concerns
that
there
would
be
impacts
to
residential
property
that,
as
well
as
open
space,
they
did
not
want
to
lose
spaces
that
you
know
would
not,
may
not
be
traditionally
considered.
Oh,
you
know
parks,
but
they
are
open
spaces
that
are
being
used
by
the
community
and
once
we
heard
that
we
made
sure
to
try
to
circumvent
or
go
around
them
and
impact
them
as
little
as
possible,
specifically
in
terms
of
Street,
connecting
directly
to
12
feet
and
not
going
through
gateway.
Park.
B
None
of
those
factors
were
significant
enough
to
say
that
one
option
was
better
than
the
other,
so
we
were
not
able
to
pick
an
option
over
the
other
for
any
of
those
factors
and
as
an
example
I'd
like
to
provide
the
the
noise
data
that
the
that
showed
that
option
one
option:
two
an
option:
three:
they
do
have
different
impacts
and
what
you're
seeing
are
graphs
from
the
FTA
transit
noise
and
vibration
impact
assessment
manual.
That
shows
that
there
is
some.
B
You
know
a
project
can
have
a
certain
of
our
impact
before
you
need
to
basically
do
medication
or
be
considered
moderate
impact,
and
it
does
also
consider
that
this
is
a
very
loud
environment,
noisy
environment.
To
begin
with,
and
so
very
small
increases
are
acceptable
as
you
get
as
the
noise
environment
that
you
start
out
with
gets
noisier,
the
amount
of
change
or
increase
that
is
allowed,
gets
lower
and
lower.
B
The
fourth
factor
were
major
cost
elements.
In
the
spirit
of
trying
to
be
fiscally
reasonable
and
responsible.
We
tried
to
assess
some
big-ticket
items
because
we
don't
have
a
design
to
be
able
to
do
a
full
cost
estimate.
We
will
definitely
do
that
as
soon
as
we
get
get
to
some
stage
of
design
as
soon
as
we
get
to
the
concept
concept
design
done,
but
we
looked
at
some
of
the
big-ticket
items
such
as
track
relocation
and,
as
you
can
see,
option
two
and
three:
it
requires
more
much
more
attractive
location
than
option
one.
B
But
the
other
item
was
the
great
separated
access
that
would
be
used
and,
as
I
said
at
this
point,
we
are
open
to
both
either
or
both
of
the
tunnel
or
an
overpass.
But,
for
the
sake
of
this
assessment,
we
looked
at
the
more
feasible
the
more
reasonable
one
and
we've
listed
what
we
have
assessed,
and
in
this
case,
what
it
came
out
to
be
was
were
the
difference
between
options.
Two
and
three.
Where
option
the
south
end
of
option
two
and
the
north
end
of
option.
B
Three
is
the
same
condition
so
because
we're
connecting
to
that
same
terrace
at
the
same
location
so
that
that
is
equal.
So
we
were
trying
to
compare
the
other
ends
of
those
two
options
and
one
end
has
a
tunnel
that
goes
out
to
Crystal
Drive
along
the
south
end
of
water
park
and
the
other
end
has
an
overpass
that
connects
to
a
terrace
between
the
two
office
towers
and
generally,
a
tunnel.
B
Ism
is
more
expensive,
but
in
this
case,
because
the
building
is
set
further
away
from
the
railroad
and
we're
connecting
to
an
existing
building
and
then
we
would
have
to
either
go
over
or
through
spaces
that
are
leased,
or
you
know
the
working
with
an
existing
building.
It
just
ended
up
being
the
more
expensive
option
and
that's
why
option
3
was
rated
the
highest
in
terms
of
cost
least
favorable
and
option.
2
is
rated
medium
option.
1
Acton
was
actually
the
cheaper
one
to
construct.
B
As
I
said,
there
were,
there
was
another
factor
that
we
provided
some
information
on,
but
this
was
not
one
of
the
ranked
factors,
and
so
eventually
we
came
up
with
this
matrix
that
showed
the
summary
of
the
rankings.
This
I'll
go
with
this
quickly.
What
this
shows
is
option.
2
is
the
most
favorable
option,
based
on
our
technical
analysis,
because
it
provides
superior
local
and
regional
transportation
connections
as
well
as
not
showing
any
real
difference
between
the
three
options
on
community
and
environmental
impacts,
and
it's
a
medium
cost
impact
option.
B
Now
we
brought
this
summary
of
rankings,
as
I
said
out,
along
with
all
of
the
detail
assessment
to
the
community
out
in
June,
and
we
collected
data,
a
collective
feedback
on
that
we
had.
We
heard
a
lot
of
concerns
regarding
the
location
of
the
access
that
there
wasn't
enough
information
about
about
the
design
and
what
the
impacts
would
be
of
the
bridge
if
that,
when
the
bridges
were
being
proposed.
B
We
also
heard
concerns
about
noise
and
vibration,
which
we
had
heard
before.
We
had
questions
and
clarifications
about
the
evaluation
methods
and
the
process
and
the
ratings
that
we
were
using,
and
we
also
heard
fears
that
the
community
feedback
would
not
be
considered.
We
we
did
take
those
very
seriously
and,
as
I
said,
we
went
back
and
continued
to
develop
more
design.
B
B
It's
also
on
the
website
and,
as
I
said,
those
specific
questions
that
we
did
more
analysis
on,
worked
with
Arlington
County
and
jbg
Smith
to
try
to
bring
data
whatever
data
they
had
additional
data
to
answer
the
questions
that
were
being
asked,
but
we
did,
but
it
did
not
change
our
recommendation
and
our
recommendation
is
to
consider
option
two
as
the
preferred
platform
location
to
focus
further
analysis
and
design.
I
just
want
to
again
point
out
that
this
is
not
only
based
on
the
technical
evaluation.
We
did
take
community
and
stakeholder
perspectives
into
account.
B
You
will
hear
from
Arlington
County
staff
later
about
the
their
staff
position,
jbg
Smith
and
Equity
Residential.
Those
are
the
property
owners
adjacent
to
the
railroad,
have
put
in
writing
their
support
for
option
two
and
as
well
as
the
Crystal
City
bid.
We
had
a
technical
working
group
that
worked
with
us
throughout
this
process.
B
It
it
had
representatives
from
the
National
Park
Service,
as
well
as
a
moi
and
the
Pentagon
transportation
staff,
since
they
run
the
shuttle
and
a
lot
of
our
riders
go
to
the
Pentagon
for
as
a
work
destination,
and
so
while
they
haven't,
you
know
they
haven't
outrightly
supported.
It
they've
been
part
of
the
evaluation
and
provided
feedback
throughout
the
process.
Now
we've
heard
from
several
individual
residents,
as
well
as
from
the
Crystal
City
Civic
Association,
and
the
crystal
Park
unit
owners
association.
B
B
So,
as
I
said
today,
I'm
here
to
ask
for
your
help
to
try
to
select
the
best
station
location
for
us
to
analysis
on
through
the
next
phase,
the
next
step
here
would
be
to
request
Arlington
County,
the
Darlington
County
Board,
to
endorse
the
VRA
staff
recommendation.
This
would
happen
on
September
19th
and
then
the
VRA
operations
board
would
take
all
of
this
feedback
of
the
residents
of
the
stakeholders
and,
of
course,
the
Arlington
County
Board.
B
But
when
it
adopts
a
preferred
station
location
for
us
to
study
and
then
the
next
step
in
this
phase
of
the
project
just
to
develop
a
concept
design,
at
which
point
we
would
be
able
to
get
a
rough
idea
of
the
cost
that
would
be
involved
in
the
next
phases.
Once
that's
done,
the
next
project
phases
and
all
of
these
need
to
be
completed
before
the
four-track
is
done.
B
The
next
phase
would
be
the
preliminary
engineering
development
of
30%
design,
as
well
as
environmental
documentation,
and
this
would
be
approximately
a
one-year
process
and
would
go
on
throughout
2018.
Now,
during
this
phase,
I
just
like
to
point
out
that
we
will
continue
continue
to
try
to
minimize
Community
Impact
through
design
and,
if
necessary,
through
mitigation.
There
has
been
concerned
that
you
know
this
is
the
end
of
the
process,
and
this
is
the
end
of
when
the
community
will
get
to
be
involved.
That's
not
true.
B
We
may
not
be
able
to
address
everything
at
this
stage,
but
it's
good
feedback
to
continue
on,
and
many
of
these
issues
that
have
come
have
been
brought
forward
can
be
addressed
through
design
which,
which
I
consider
you
know,
is
a
step
prior
to
medication,
but
maybe
some
people
call
that
medication
as
well
and
then
also
want
to
point
out
that
at
the
end
of
30%
design,
that
is
really
when
we
decide
whether
or
not
to
take
that
station
location
into
the
next
phase.
So
we
need
to
know
a
lot
more.
B
C
D
Good
evening
my
name
is
Beiber
Gloria
and
I.
Work
for
the
transit
Bureau
in
Arlington,
County
and
I
would
like
to
highlight
some
of
the
key
elements
of
this
project,
but
it's
in
the
planning,
stays
and
I
would
like
to
summarize
the
staffs
recommendation
which
we've
presented
to
our
County
manager
in
your
packet.
You
received
the
copy
of
the
draft
staff
report
dated
August
31st.
That
is
our
draft
recommendation
to
the
County
Board.
Who
will
be
hearing
that
the
item
on
September
19th.
D
Crystal
city
is
a
regional
station
for
Northern
Virginia's
commuter
rail
system
opened
in
1992.
The
station
is
paid
for
by
the
entire
VRE
system.
The
station
is
a
major
component
of
the
regional
multimodal
transportation
network
in
Crystal
City.
The
station
supports
current
land
use,
particularly
jobs,
and
the
station
is
important
to
the
success
of
the
long-range
land-use
plan
for
Crystal
City.
D
For
many
years
the
station
has
experienced
significant
congestion
and
operational
inefficiencies.
Due
to
the
one-sided
single
platform
configuration
length,
it's
important
to
keep
in
mind
that
any
new
location
will
require
cSX's
approval
before
VRE
can
go
through
the
design
and
construction
of
a
new
station
project.
D
We
staff
support,
option
to
station
location
for
Vieira's
next
phase
of
project
development,
which
will
involve
preliminary
engineering,
environmental
assessment
and
additional
community
engagement.
Our
recommendation
is
based
collectively
upon
a
review
of
the
alternatives,
analysis,
an
assessment
of
how
each
station
location
could
advance
the
vision
set
forth
in
the
Crystal
City
sector
plan,
also
careful
consideration
of
community
input
and,
importantly,
the
investment
of
millions
of
dollars
of
transit
infrastructure
in
the
vicinity
of
the
option.
Number
two.
D
We
believe
option
2
has
the
best
potential
to
most
effectively
meet
VR
ease,
project
goals
and
advance
the
county's
vision
and
goals
for
this
area
as
set
forth
in
the
sector
plan.
Vre
stated
goals
for
this
project
include
improving
intermodal
transfers
to
metro,
rail
and
Metro
way.
Local
bus,
including
art
and
DOD
shuttles,
enhancing
bicycle
and
pedestrian
connectivity
and
minimizing
adverse
impacts
on
the
community
option.
2
is
the
best
option
for
improving
multimodal
connectivity
in
Crystal
City.
D
D
The
newly
open
Crystal
City,
multimodal
Center
and
many
other
transportation
modes,
such
as
the
private
DoD
shuttles
bike
sharing
and
car
sharing
option
tube,
provides
the
best
potential
to
balance
the
goals
of
offering
clear
and
direct
access
between
Crystal
drive
and
the
very
station's
ramps
and
platform,
keeping
the
platform
location
as
centrally
located
within
Crystal
City
as
possible
option.
Twos
northern
entry
point
to
the
platform
would
be
accessible
from
Crystal
Drive
sidewalk,
while
both
option
threes
entry
points
and
option.
D
Two
southern
entry
point
would
require
traverse
traversing
through
or
over
private
commercial
buildings
to
reach
the
platform,
while
both
of
option
one
entry
points
would
be
directly
accessible
from
the
public
rights
away.
This
option
is
less
centrally
located
within
Crystal
City,
when
considering
the
most
direct
access
to
the
station
and
VR
ease
requisites
for
track
configuration
option,
two
appears
to
be
the
best
location
to
expand
the
station
platform
to
the
800
foot
length
option
two
is
anticipated
to
also
be
within
half
a
mile
distance
of
two
to
three
million
square
feet.
D
More
of
the
future
envisioned
redevelopment
in
Crystal
City
over
options.
One
and
three
option
two
provides
the
best
opportunity
to
attract
more
VRE
riders
and
encourage
more
people
to
travel
more
frequently
by
non
sov
trips.
Do
to
better
multimodal
connections
and
closer
proximity
to
the
envisioned
development.
D
Moving
the
VRE
station
to
option
two
will
reduce
the
walk
time
to
and
from
metro
rail,
the
existing
or
the
the
train
platform
for
the
metro
rail
station.
It
will
also
reduce
walk
walking
time
to
a
variety
of
public
bus
services
and
attract
more
VRE
riders,
especially
those
needing
to
transfer
to
other
modes.
The
improved
station
would
provide
opportunities
to
better
align
VRE
service,
with
Arlington
County's
vision
for
future
growth.
D
We
also
believe
the
idea
of
centrality
also
applies
to
its
more
central
location
within
the
Crystal
City
neighborhood
overall,
making
it
the
location
closest
to
the
area's
anticipated
to
be
most
densely
developed
under
the
sector
plan,
especially
with
commercial
office.
In
close
proximity
to
the
metro
station.
My
colleagues
and
I
representing
the
county's
transportation
division
and
planning
division
serve
on
various
technical
working
group
for
the
project.
Along
with
the
other
working
group
members,
we
supported
very
as
a
sounding
board
for
in
progress,
materials
and
discussions.
D
We
advise
very
and
the
community
engagement
activities
and
we
attended
the
community
meetings
pop
up
events
briefings
and
tour.
We
reviewed
VR
ease,
pre
final
draft
report
and
concur
with
VR
ease
staff
recommendation.
We
conducted
Theory
conducted
a
number
of
community
meetings
and
outreach
activities.
We
believe
that
VRE
has
listened
and
responded
to
the
residents
concerns
of
noise
vibration,
visual
impacts,
safety,
emergency
access,
exhaust
VRE
has
stated
its
commitment
to
continuing
community
engagement
in
the
next
phase
of
project
evaluation,
which
will
include
mitigation
as
needed.
D
We
want
to
acknowledge-
and
thank
theory
for
going
above
and
beyond
the
usual
level
of
community
engagement
and
analysis
for
a
planning
study
at
this
stage,
Thank
You
Transportation
Commission
for
the
opportunity
to
present
the
county.
Staffs
recommendation
will
be
available
to
answer
your
questions.
E
Good
evening,
commission
members
Chris
trehala
representing
the
Crystal
City
Civic
Association,
perhaps
only
10%
of
our
Crystal
City
residents,
are
directly
affected
by
train
noise
and
station
location
on
a
much
much
larger
number
of
residents
are
now
up
in
arms
about
the
treatment
to
which
the
county
and
VRE
have
subjected
those
who
are
affected.
It
is
seen
as
an
indication
that
a
county
that
cares
for
its
residents
generally
is
completely
cynical
about
quality
of
life
for
residents
in
mixed
use
area
such
as
Crystal
City
in
Crystal
City.
E
The
county
staff
have
orchestrated
a
perfect
stonewalling
of
an
issue
of
great
importance
to
us.
We
get
canceled
consulted
on
the
location
of
bike
share
locations,
but
not
about
Arlington's
only
railway
station.
Of
course,
we
are
began
to
understand
why
this
is-
and
we
have
heard
it
to
some
extent
here
right
now.
The
county
is
so
aware
that
is
position.
Its
arguments
are
so
weak
that
they
cannot
stand
up
to
scrutiny
and
serious
debate.
It
is
rather
a
matter
of
an
obsession
and
an
absolute
insistence
that
accompanies
preference
must
be
pushed
through
without
further
discussion.
E
We
have
tried
to
implore
the
county
to
work
with
us
on
a
win-win
solution,
which,
for
us
is
option
three
in
the
spirit
at
our
County
would
not
let
what
they
think
is.
The
best
option
become
the
enemy
of
an
option
number
three,
which
is
surely
good
enough,
also
for
the
county's
objectives,
but
obsessions
do
not
allow
apparently
for
win-win
and
a
spirit
of
mutual
respect.
E
And
it
does
not
matter
that
those
of
us
who
live
in
Crystal,
City
and
unlike
travel
traffic
planners
no
delay
of
the
land
or
literally
painfully
aware
that
the
intersection
where
they
want
to
add
Russia
reflows
of
Erie
passengers
is
already
overloaded
for
the
confluence
of
vehicles.
Bikers
also
from
my
demand,
horn
and
trail
other.
E
Converge
in
a
vortex
like
setting
one
year
after
the
Metro,
a
implementation,
planning
and
design
yours
trouble
spots
precisely
among
others.
At
this
intersection
continue
to
haunt
us.
We
do
know
whose
judgment
not
to
trust,
but
the
real
clincher
involves
the
environmental
concerns.
As
your
colleagues
on
the
Planning
Division
Commission
quickly
realized.
They
like.
E
We
cannot
imagine
a
situation
where
the
very
insists
on
a
firm
decision
in
favor
of
only
one
option
when
they
admit
that
they
do
not
yet
have
a
basis
for
the
assertion
that
there
will
be
no
impact
on
residents
right
attestation
and
that
no
environmental
analysis
can
be
undertaken
until
the
station
has
been
fully
designed.
This
cart
before
the
horse
approach
should
in
itself
remove
any
basis
for
recommending
one
specific
option
at
this
time.
E
Clearly,
we
must
have
the
evaluation
and
reassurance
regarding
our
concerns.
Prior
to
a
final
decision,
the
notion
that
theory
would
go
ahead
with
one
option
and
then,
after
track
alignment
to
make
room
for
a
platform
would
go
back
and
choose
another
option
due
to
environmental
concerns
is
totally
lacking
in
credibility.
So
we
do
hope
you
will
agree
with
your
Planning
Commission
colleagues
that
our
recommendation
at
this
time
must
include
the
insistence
of
the
environmentalist
study
of
both
options,
two
and
three
prior
to
a
final
decision.
Thank
you
for
your
understanding
and
support.
Thank.
G
Okay,
great
I'm,
Tania,
Jun,
Oni,
MVP
of
the
board
of
directors
of
the
crystal
Park
unit
owners,
association,
I've
included
with
my
email,
submission
several
exhibits
to
supplement
the
site
information
provided
by
BRE
pictures
worth
a
thousand
words
sort
of
thing.
Now
is
the
time
that
the
county
has
the
best
opportunity
to
influence
the
outcome
of
the
VRE
decision.
The
question
is:
do
we
know
today
with
sufficient
certainty,
based
on
the
analysis
provided
by
VRE?
How
much
better
option
three
is
versus
option
two
to
risk
the
adverse
effects?
G
So
we
have
one
major
ask:
we
refer
to
a
ssin
commission
to
refer
to
the
board
a
recommendation
similar
to
that
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
only
support
the
VRS
at
Crystal
City
Improvement
Project
contingent
on
full
examination
during
the
next
phase
of
both
options:
2
&
3,
so
that
a
relative
assessment
of
environmental
impacts,
the
mitigation
cost
is
undertaken
and
openly
shared
with
all
stakeholders.
We
are
not
trying
to
move
the
rails
or
block
the
project.
G
We
offer
an
analysis
that
comes
directly
from
residents
who
are
sessions,
operational,
analysts
and
engineers
and
who
have
direct
and
daily
experience
with
the
rails.
We
appreciate
the
VRE
wants
to
best
serve
its
riders
and
we
will
command
will
comply
with
all
laws.
However,
without
your
action,
the
VRE
is
on
the
verge
of
prematurely
limiting
its
options.
Why,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
option
2
or
one
geographic
location,
location
with
overlapping
platforms,
it
is
reasonable
conduct
the
assessments
when
then
have
a
real
comparison.
G
So
we
have
three
categories
of
concerns:
concern
one
or
mitigation
costs
and
risks
are
building
18:05
Crystal
Drive
is
option
two.
There
are
several
facts
that
suggest
that
there
will
be
mitigation.
First,
our
building
is
occupied
24/7,
yet
no
sound
barriers
offered
by
VRE.
Even
the
current
station
has
a
sound
barrier.
Our
garage
is
open
to
the
tracks,
but
also
to
future
daily
break
and
exhaust
fumes,
regardless
of
the
probability
of
any
disaster
which
for
options
2,
&
3,
we
recognize
would
be
the
same.
G
The
magnitude
of
harm
from
any
event
would
clearly
be
substantially
lower
to
option
3
emergency
rescue
efforts
can
be
compromised
by
a
lack
of
a
parallel
roadway
access
for
option
two
versus
three
and
can
impose
detours
a
place.
Firefighters,
VRE
passengers
in
the
community
at
greater
risk.
So
what
are
the
mitigation
cost
issues
for
option?
Two
BR?
It
tells
us
either
none
or
we'll
find
out
in
the
next
phase,
but
now
is
the
only
time
we
have
elected
representatives
directly
making
a
decision
on
our
behalf.
G
Assumptions
and
promises
are
not
enough,
while
VRE
has
corrected
a
few
errors.
In
the
report
example,
the
height
of
the
barrier
wall,
there
remains
significant
oversights,
like
the
garage
bre
has
made
the
case
that
there
is
no
real
difference
between
a
station
being
loaded
cated
next
to
our
garage
and
passing
trains.
Br
I's
evidence
is
that
the
VRE
locomotive
would
not
be
at
our
building,
but
that,
but
that
there
is
also
they
recognized
more
noise
during
braking
and
when
accelerating
further
statements
at
the
Planning
Commission,
the
trains
need
approximately
a
quarter-mile
to
accelerate
the
platform.
G
Is
approximately
800
feet
a
quarter-mile
Eagles
1320?
So
we
would
be
affected.
Furthermore,
I
am
pretty
sure
trikes
trains
begin
breaking
before
they
stop
so
I'm,
pretty
sure
that
would
happen
in
front
of
our
building.
There
are
missing
considerations
and
we
what
we
see
as
a
single
issue
decision-making
process
for
VRE
the
VRE
analysis.
As
they've
said
today,
it
doesn't
look
at
health
effects
now
/
on
our
units
on
HVAC
s
and
bedrooms
and
balconies.
G
It
also
doesn't
really
consider
or
explain
any
fire
emergency
vehicle
access
at
this
time,
and
nor
does
it,
nor
do
any
of
their
analysis
include
the
impact
of
two
VRE
engines,
the
station's
servicing
the
platform.
At
the
same
time.
Furthermore,
there's
no
account
for
the
use
of
the
station
by
CSX
and
Amtrak
their
photos.
They
use
the
station
what
they
do.
I,
don't
know,
but
VRE
is
concerned
about
losing
its
riders
for
option.
Three
they've
consistently
say
stated
that
there's
18%
transfer
to
Metro,
but
how
many
riders
put
her
day?
G
Would
they
lose
BRE
hasn't,
provided
that
number
they
haven't
completed
a
full
ridership
survey
for
this
project.
When
asked
why
the
distance
of
meta
Metro
matters
so
much,
they
responded
that
Spotsylvania
riders,
who
they
don't
know,
are
the
ones
using
the
Metro,
have
a
different
understanding
of
how
many
steps
are
too
many.
So
we
support
public
transit.
We've
tried
to
figure
out
how
many
more
steps
it
would
really
be.
G
We
found
that
when
you
compare
what
is
currently
walked
with
the
distance
with,
from
the
north
end
of
option
3
to
the
new
metro
station,
there's
actually
a
very
small
difference,
and
then
also
even
if
you
look
at
the
numbers
on
VR
ease
measurements,
it
is
six
minutes
now
will
be
seven
minutes
for
option
three
for
the
future
Metro
exit.
So
why
not
option
three
option?
Three
has
many
benefits
that
have
not
been
given
due
consideration
in
our
opinion,
if
they
were,
there
would
be
greater
transportation
benefits
fewer
on
Teeter
cost.
G
That's
the
fire
lane
which
to
my
residents.
Will
fellow
residents
will
speak
about
it's
compatible
with
national
airport?
There
is
an
existing
metro
station.
Furthermore,
it
actually
increases
access
to
Potomac
yard,
1
&
2.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is,
is
we
haven't
seen
any
of
the
outreach
that
they've
suggested
they
haven't
included?
Even
our
building
in
the
report
correctly,
so
maintain
that,
if
option
two
stands
alone,
VRE
will
be
prematurely
eliminate
his
options
based
on
assumptions.
Thank
you.
Our.
H
Good
evening
my
name
is
Sheldon
Johnson
nice
to
see
you
all
and
I
hope
you're
having
a
good
day,
coño
1805,
where
the
option
to
station
is
currently
favored.
It
sounds
like
I
am
also
a
retired
Navy
engineer,
who
has
many
safety
hazard
analysis
on
Navy
systems
and
ships
to
make
sure
that
the
events
that
might
occur
on
a
navy
ship
are
considered
early
in
design.
So
mitigation
can
be
taken
into
account
up
front
because
you
wait
till
you
get
downstream
on
a
design.
H
Which
is
used
by
DoD
as
well
as
commercial
enterprises,
so
that
you
can
get
a
feel
for
what's
going
on
in
the
early
stages
of
design.
I
am
very
familiar
with
that
and,
as
I
say,
I
have
done
those
and
I'm
concerned
that
I
haven't
heard.
That
mentioned
in
any
of
the
VRE
presentations
that
this
has
been
done,
and
this
is
broad-based
study.
It
goes
across
all
avenues
and
aspects
of
this
type
of
a
project
entrance
exits,
train
stations,
trains,
parking
people
crossing
over
overpasses
under
tunnels.
H
Many
aspects
that
need
an
analysis
like
this
done
before
you
go
forward
and
get
into
it
later.
So
therefore,
I
believe
that
options,
two
and
three
should
be
studied
in
parallel
and
a
matrix
of
all
potential
events
prepared,
so
that
we
can
all
see
where
we
are
in
a
relative
ranking
by
the
probability
of
an
event
occurring
like
an
explosion
of
a
train,
not
to
say
that
that
happens
frequently,
but
it
could
be
catastrophic,
especially
if
it
was
right
behind
18:05,
Crystal
Drive,
where
it's
occupied
24/7
that's
option.
H
Two
option:
three
moves
the
station
down
further
behind
office
buildings
that
are
not
occupied.
24/7
they're
occupied
during
the
day.
Most
of
the
time
everybody
clears
out,
they
go
home,
so
trains
were
there
and
that's
the
way
it
is.
However,
we
are
not.
We
are
there
all
the
time.
So
I
really
would
like
that
to
be
a
proposed
approach
to
the
system,
as
we
have
it
now
with
the
Ari's
presentation.
H
I
Good
evening
my
name's
are
Purcell.
I
live
in
Crystal,
Park
I've
lived
there
since
the
building
was
built.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
initiative
tonight.
I'm
talking
about
safety
and
security,
and
particularly
the
topics
of
risk
mitigation
and
firefighting
in
evaluating
risk.
You
looked
at
two
separate
elements:
the
probability
of
a
feared
event
and
the
magnitude
of
harm
should
the
event
occur.
They're
separate
issues,
the
product
of
the
two
is
defined
as
the
risk.
I
Sometimes
it
can
be
reduced
to
numbers
other
clients,
it's
qualitative,
they're,
separate
factors
and
often
calm,
conflict
graded
conflated
in
discussion
of
risk
management
with
arguments,
centering,
unlikelihood
or
unlikelihood
of
something
happening,
but
that's
not
the
whole
story.
The
magnitude
of
risk
is
a
separate
consideration
like
where
I
worked,
which
network
goes
down.
How
much
is
the
loss
500
thousand
dollars
an
hour?
So
if
that
was,
we
got
a
number
on
that?
I
What's
the
probability
of
it
going
down,
we're
not
sure
our
impression
is
that,
from
the
perspective
of
safety
and
security
option,
3
is
superior
to
option
2.
The
magnitude
of
harm
posed
by
an
attached
rail
station
is
obviously
higher.
There's
no
way
around
that
up
the
option:
free
station
separated
from
office
buildings
by
a
25
foot
wide
fire
lane
and
a
wall
buildings
are
set
back
from
3
to
50
feet
further
from
the
fire
lane
went
megabit
last
night
accessed
by
firing
in
Venice
to
the
entire
length
of
the
option.
I
3
station,
as
well
as
providing
separation.
Distance
between
the
station
and
building
separation
is
a
critical
issue
we'll
get
to
later.
The
option
to
station
is
against
the
garage
wall
of
1801
1805,
which
is
open
for
the
top
three
feet
and
underlies
in
part
occupied
residential
space,
which
is
as
close
as
22
feet
to
the
back
wall.
I
We
asked
an
experienced
firefighter,
who
has
been
a
fire
marshal
to
look
at
the
options
and
comment
he's
currently
a
lieutenant
in
the
Fort
Worth
fire
department,
and
he
still
works
with
a
fire
code
and
another
job
and
it's
the
same
code
we
use
here.
His
letter
is
in
the
package
that
you
have
before
you
tonight.
While
noting
that
the
proposals
appeared
to
meet
the
fire
code,
he
stated
as
history
demonstrates.
The
site
of
numerous
disasters
complied
with
the
requirements
of
the
model,
codes
and
standards
at
the
time.
I
His
up
his
observations
included
exposure
fire
danger.
You
know
in
urban
areas
where
the
buildings
are
packed
closely
together.
The
fire
transmits
putting
the
putting
the
station
behind
our
building
poses
a
fire
danger
to
our
building
access
from
both
sides
of
a
fire
in
option.
3
a
fire
put
to
get
the
both
sides
to
the
fire.
Assuming
there
was
a
road
that
was
improved
on
on
the
east
side
and
he
noticed
noted
being
able
to
attack
a
fire
from
both
sides
is
very
important.
The
option
to
station
doesn't
afford
that
ability
ability.
I
I
J
Okay,
my
name
is
Bill
Boston
I'm,
an
operations,
research,
analyst
factor
analysis
is
part
of
what
I
do,
and
the
recommendation
that
we
re
presenting
seems
to
be
based
entirely
on
a
frayed
botched
factor
analysis.
The
biggest
obvious
problem
in
it
is
that
there
community
and
environmental
if
impacts
factor
includes
no
consideration
of
impact
on
the
community
or
the
environment
in
which
people
live
and
work.
J
It
does
have
an
element
to
specifically
consider
impacts
on
people
who
expressly
don't
exist,
but
it
does
not
have
any
elements
to
consider
impacts
on
people
who
are
actually
living
both
options,
one
and
option
two:
you
have
a
rail
station
being
built
20
feet
away
from
a
municipal
swimming
pool.
This
is
a
problem
for
people
who
use
the
pool,
including
children,
option
three.
You
have
your
railway
station
built
at
an
office
complex.
This
provides
a
possible
benefit
for
people
who
wish
to
commute
to
and
from
this
office,
complex
I'm,
not
gonna
belabor.
J
The
point
now
since
I'm
not
trying
I'm,
probably
not
to
take
up
too
much
time,
but
in
a
serious
analysis
for
factor
three
option.
One
is
read:
option
two
is
read:
option
three
is
green
local
transportation
connection
is
also
not
well
done
when
you
are
looking
at
locations
400
feet
apart,
the
number
of
people
live
within
a
quarter-mile
radius
or
1/2
mile
radius
is
not
a
meaningful
number.
I
can
explain
that,
but
I'm
trying
to
be
short
here.
J
The
only
thing
in
there
that
has
meaning
is
the
walking
distance
to
the
bicycle
Network,
which
is
something
somebody
could
possibly
use
sometime
since
that's
much
shorter
for
option.
One
on
that
one
option.
One
is
green
option.
Two
is
red
option.
Three
is
red.
However,
this
is
based
entirely
on
people
who
commute
in
by
rail,
walk
over
to
the
bicycle
network
and
then
ride
a
bike
away.
Somebody's
going
to
do
that
someday,
it
probably
doesn't
happen
very
often
so
I
should
think
this
factor
should
be
weighted
very
lightly.
J
The
other
two
factors
I,
don't
have
enough
information
to
know
whether
the
red
or
green
ratings,
the
air
he
has
are
sound
or
not
so
I
simply
cannot
address.
Those
a
factor
which
I
should
think
should
be
considered,
would
be
emergency
vehicle
access
for
option.
3
of
a
road
that
runs
right
along
the
proposed
rail
station
and
if
you
need
to
get
an
ambulance
or
a
fire
vehicle
to
that
station,
it
can
reach
any
point
easily
for
option.
1.
You
have
a
little
bit
of
access
for
option.
2.
J
You
got
nothing
so
for
that
one
emergency
vehicle
access
option,
one
is
yellow
option.
2
is
red
option.
3
is
green.
How
important
that
is
to
you
is
not
immediately
obvious.
That's
the
sort
of
thing
you
need
to
ask
you,
but
correcting
the
ratings,
which
are
obviously
wrong
and
adding
an
emergency
vehicle
access,
applying
my
best
guess
of
weights,
which
I
can
go
through
if
you
like,
but
mountain
30
seconds,
I,
find
that
option.
3
is
by
far
the
preferable
option.
Option
1
is
a
distant
second.
J
An
option
2
is
even
worse,
but
the
factor
analysis
that
they
use.
Basically,
it
doesn't
consider
community
impacts
when
considering
community
impact
and
it's
local
transportation
connection
numbers
I
can
sympathize
with
them
from
not
being
able
to
get
meaningful
data.
That's
always
hard,
but
using
meaningless
data
is
not
a
way
to
improve
artists,
to
throw
out
the
meaningless
and
focus
on
what
you've
got.
That
actually
means
something,
even
if
it's
not
very
much.
K
K
It's
also
important
for
me
to
disclose
I
was
the
bids
representative
on
the
V
Ari's
working
group
for
the
past
eight
months
or
so
so.
The
Crystal
City
bid
was
formed
in
direct
response
to
an
economic
crisis
for
Crystal
City,
and
one
of
our
charges
is
to
change
how
people
see
experience
it
seen
an
experienced
Crystal
City
in
in
that
effort.
A
lot
of
what
we
think
about
and
do
is,
is
how
do
we?
How
do
we
take
the
assets
of
Crystal
City
that
we
have
and
think
about
them?
More
strategically
make
them
better.
K
Active
capacity
concerns
for
what
is
an
important
transportation
mode
in
Crystal
City.
We
like
to
see
beyond
that
immediate
need,
I,
think
all
all
the
options
expand
capacity
and
achieve
that
goal.
But
how
do
we?
How
do
we
come
up
with
that?
More
strategic
vision
for
what
this
transportation
investment
can
actually
yield?.
K
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
really
look
at
for
this
is
is
how
do
we?
How
do
we
create
synergies
that
can
attract
some
of
these
new
modes
of
transportation
that
are
going
to
be
coming
down
this?
This
rail
corridor,
you've
got
mark,
you've
got
existing
Amtrak
and
you've
got
potential
for
high-speed
rail.
All
of
these
things
are
going
to
be
coming
down:
Crystal,
City
and
impacting
Crystal
City.
K
How
about
we
take
advantage
of
their
presence
and
and
have
them
stopped
in
Crystal
City,
so
that
we're
not
just
getting
the
negative
impacts,
we're
getting
the
positives
as
well
as
well,
but
we
have
to
make
a
compelling
case
for
them
to
stop
in
Crystal
City,
and
we
really
see
two
main
decision
points
for
how
to
make
that
happen.
The
first
is
appropriately
citing
the
VRE
station,
providing
the
best
user
experience
while
offering
real
value
for
the
transportation
partners.
K
The
second
is
something
you
may
have
heard
of
it's:
the
new
pedestrian
connection
to
the
airport,
something
we're
exploring
in
a
feasibility
study
with
VHB
they're,
going
to
develop
a
feasible
option
and
produce
a
report
in
the
fall
or
in
December.
Rather,
that
would
also
outline
a
roadmap
for
implementation
in
our
assessment
of
Vieira's
options.
K
I
think
we
concur
with
what
staff
has
produced
option
two
is
is
the
ideal
and
when
it
comes
to
serving
existing
employment,
the
existing
employment
base
in
Crystal
City
and
options-
one
is
too
far
away
from
the
new
Crystal
City
metro
station
and
option.
Three
is
is
also
a
too
far
away
from
that
station
options.
Two
and
three
do
have
this
ability
to
potentially
connect
to
the
airport.
We
think
option
three
would
likely
be
further.
K
More
assessment
is
kind
of
needed
for
us,
but
both
of
them
would
be
compatible
with
this
potential
new
new
connection,
so
that
leaves
us
with
option
two
and
for
the
reasons
that
the
county
really
outlined.
I
think
it
makes
a
strong
case,
but
but
I'd
also
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
perceived
impacts,
the
Crystal
City
bid.
One
of
those
goals
is
to
make
Crystal
City
attractive.
K
More
than
half
of
our
almost
half
of
our
stakeholders
are
actually
commercial
apartment
owners,
and
you
know
so.
We
had
take
that
real
seriously
in
terms
of
impact.
So
when
it
comes
down
to
the
noise
and
vibration
impact
studies,
there
was
no
meaningful
impact.
There
was
also
no
discernible
difference
between
the
different
stations,
so
I
think
that
was
really
powerful
for
us,
and
so,
when
it
comes
down
to
in
the
context
of
moving
forward,
is
it's
really
about
vision?
And
you
know
we
we
often
kind
of
lament.
You
know.
K
Why
did
they
put
that
bus
stop
way
the
heck
over
here,
so
I
can't
get
to
it
easily?
Why
aren't
our?
Why
aren't
our
transportation
systems
working
seamlessly
I
think
this
process
kind
of
shows
how
that
can
happen,
and
so
I
think
what
we
have
here
is
a
real
opportunity
to
create
a
true
multimodal
hub
for
Crystal
City,
but
to
do
that,
we
really
have
to
look
at
option
two
very
closely.
K
Just
imagine
walking
from
the
heart
of
downtown
Crystal
City,
which
it's
Arlington's
largest
downtown
and
getting
to
the
airport
in
five
minutes.
Imagine
having
the
closest
railway
station
to
the
airport
in
the
entire
country.
Imagine
that
nexus
of
regional
commuter
rail
service
that
would
operate
out
of
Crystal
City.
K
So
it
really
takes
leadership
and
wise
investment
decisions,
but
these
are
all
possibilities
that
can
enhance
Crystal
city's
economic
competitiveness
and
strengthen
Arlington's
long
term
economic
sustainability.
So
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
talk
about
that
and
and
really
move
forward
on
a
what
really
is
a
once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity
to
leverage
these
investments
together.
Thanks
and.
L
Maybe
you'll
give
me
ten
more
seconds
on
the
staffs
background
information
in
hopes
that
it
might
help.
You
better
understand
the
anxiety
that
some
of
the
people
here
feel.
I
also
want
to
comment
on
some
of
the
conflicting
statements
that
have
come
from
the
five
shareholders
and
point
out
to
you
that
I
know
you're
here
to
deal
with
VRE
but
I.
Don't
think
any
of
us
here
view
any
of
the
shareholders
that
is
VRE,
CSX,
Amtrak,
the
long
bridge
project
and
the
high-speed
rail
program.
L
We
don't
view
any
of
those
just
strictly
as
a
standalone
issue,
they're
going
to
all
come
together
in
a
final
product
for
us
in
the
1960s
Crystal
City
was
just
coming
into
being,
and
in
those
days
the
railroad
was
known
as
the
rfmp
or
Richmond
Fredericksburg
and
Potomac.
Believe
it
or
not.
There
were
more
passenger
trains
running
on
the
rfmp
in
1960
than
there
are
today.
That's
because
the
legacy
railroad
companies,
if
you
will
were
still
running
their
passenger
trains
and
there
were
lots
of
them
in
the
1970s.
L
The
airlines
were
beginning
to
bring
in
their
noisy
airplanes
and
if
you
had
taken
a
survey
in
those
days,
what
was
the
biggest
noise
problem
in
Crystal
City?
It
would
have
been
aircraft
noise
hands
down.
Nobody
would
have
even
noticed
the
railroads
in
the
1980's.
Something
happened.
That's
very
important
to
all
of
us.
The
four
high-rise
condominiums
in
Crystal
City
were
all
built
in
the
1980s
Crystal
Gateway
was
built
in
1981.
L
L
The
CSX
complains
that
they
must
occasionally
divert
their
freight
trains
to
Harpers
Ferry,
which
is
the
nearest
bridge
over
the
Potomac
and
I'll
just
say
in
closing
here
and
I
know.
This
is
outside
your
domain,
but
they're
planning
bypasses
in
Richmond
and
Ashland
and
Fredericksburg,
and
that's
wonderful
for
their
communities.
I
would
just
like
to
know.
Where
is
our
bypass?
L
There's
not
one,
but
there
should
be
one
the
ideal
place
for
it
would
be
between
Dahlgren,
Virginia
and
Morgantown
Maryland,
and
if
you
don't
think
you
can
build
an
elevated
bridge
over
the
Potomac
River
just
go
to
New
Orleans
and
look
at
the
Huey
P
long
bridge
over
the
Mississippi
River.
It
could
be
done
and
this
area
desperately
needs
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
Good
evening
mr.
chair
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Kendrick
Whitmore
with
Venable
and
I
represent
JB
G
Smith
as
a
significant
landowner
in
the
area.
Jvg
Smith
has
a
great
interest
in
the
ability
of
this
new
VRE
station
to
support
both
the
current
existing
conditions
in
Crystal
City
and
help
ensure
that
crystal
can
develop
as
a
true
multimodal
hub
in
the
future.
So,
after
considerable
review
of
the
three
alternatives,
JB
G
Smith
supports
the
recommended
option.
Number
two
is
the
best
way
to
achieve
these
goals.
M
So
Crystal
City,
as
it
exists
today,
is
best
supported
by
option
number
two.
First,
this
option
provides
the
closest
proximity
to
the
highest
number
of
jobs
in
Crystal
City.
Not
only
will
this
support
existing
employees
and
employers,
it
will
also
create
the
most
reductions
in
single
occupancy
vehicle
traffic
by
serving
the
most
commuters
within
another
mode
of
transportation.
Secondly,
only
option
number
two
provides
the
station
experience
necessary
to
maximize
VRE
ridership.
It's
the
only
one
that'll
provide
both
an
entrance
through
a
building
and
an
entrance,
that's
visible
and
accessible
from
the
public
right-of-way.
M
Thirdly,
option
number
two
provides
the
closest
proximity
to
the
existing
metro
station
in
the
existing
Metro
way.
You
can
see
those
on
the
maps
we've
taken
a
look
at
it
allows
the
most
direct
access
between
the
regional
and
a
local
transportation
networks.
So
beyond
serving
this
current
environment
in
Crystal
City
option
number
two
also
creates
the
best
opportunity
for
achieving
the
goals
of
future
development
in
the
area
and
creating
a
truly
multimodal
environment.
Now
I
mentioned
Metro
a
moment
ago,
and
the
superior
connections
achieved
an
option.
M
Number
two
are
gonna,
be
even
greater
in
the
context
of
the
new
Metro
entrance.
That
entrance
is
going
to
be
located
directly
at
18th
Street
and
Crystal
Drive
only
option
number
two
is
gonna,
provide
a
direct
connection
to
this
new
Metro
entrance.
In
addition
to
the
Metro
option,
number
two
provides
an
excellent
opportunity
to
connect
from
the
VRE
to
National
Airport.
As
it's
been
discussed,
this
synergy
between
local,
regional
and
national
transportation
networks
is
going
to
be
transformative
to
the
area.
M
It's
gonna
create
a
true
multimodal
hub,
attractive
to
both
potential
employers
looking
to
locate
in
the
area
and
potential
partners,
you've
heard
some
of
them
mentioned
Marc
Amtrak,
we're
gonna,
see
this
environment
is
one
of
worth
investing
in
enhancing
the
network.
Even
further.
Only
option
number
two
provides
the
station
experience,
street
visibility,
immediacy
to
jobs
and
development
and
ability
to
meaningfully
and
practically
connect
to
Metro
that
make
this
network
possible.
M
Jb
G
Smith
as
a
landowner
in
the
area
and
an
apartment
owner
in
the
area
has
reviewed
the
impact
analyses
carefully
based
on
the
data
that
we've
been
provided,
does
not
seem
to
be
any
appreciable
difference
in
noise
and
vibration
between
the
various
options
and
given
that
we
think
it
makes
this
choice
very
clear.
This
is
a
singular
opportunity
to
create
a
truly
integrated,
multimodal
transit
environment,
and
we
ask
that
you
do
so
by
recommending
option
number
two
to
the
board.
Thank
you.
Thank.
N
Thank
you.
I
have
three
main
points
to
make.
First,
as
a
resident
at
the
North
End
of
Crystal
City
by
Longbridge,
Park
I
can
assure
you
that
all
residents,
all
over
Crystal
City,
are
concerned
about
the
proposed
new
location
of
VRE
Station,
not
just
those
who
live
closest.
We
are
united
that
option.
3
is
best
for
Crystal
City
I
support,
but
will
not
repeat
what
others
have
already
said
about
option,
3
being
a
viable
alternative
to
option
2.
You
are
the
transportation
commission,
but
we
ask
you
also
to
consider
the
impact
option.
N
2
could
have
on
people
reduced
quality
of
life
and
increase
to
safety
risks
that
they
already
overloaded
intersection
at
18th
and
Crystal
Drive.
Second,
we
believe
that
environmental
issues
have
not
been
addressed
adequately
by
the
re
and
that
option
2
would
score
far
lower
than
option
3
in
such
an
analysis.
N
On
page
47
of
its
own
analysis,
VRE
states
quote:
placement
of
a
strain
station
within
an
established
community
must
be
done
with
sensitivity
to
the
existing
built
and
natural
environment
and
the
current
residents
and
business
owners
and
done
in
a
way
so
negative
impacts
are
avoided
or
minimized.
Unquote.
For
this
reason,
we
urge
you,
as
the
Planning
Commission,
did
not
to
recommend
just
one
option
but
to
ask
d-r-e
to
study
both
option
2
and
3
in
the
subsequent
environm
gentle
analysis.
It
would
be
a
minimal
cost
to
examine
both
since
there
is
so
much
overlap.
N
Third,
a
properly
designed
VRE
station
must
address
the
serious
train.
Horn,
noise
problem
solve
that
and
you
solve
about
half
of
the
quality
of
life
problems
related
to
the
BRE
station.
At
the
county
board,
meeting
in
June
VRE
acknowledged
that
the
Crystal
City
station
is
unique,
trains
may
run
past
Apartments
at
other
stations,
but
the
station
in
Crystal
City
is
the
only
one
in
the
VRE
system
located
so
close
to
residential
properties.
N
Vre
has
also
acknowledged
that
noise
level
will
increase
due
to
horn,
sounds
from
VRE
trains
if
it
adds
two
additional
trains
in
both
directions.
So
more
trains
means
more
noise
and
pollution,
but
the
train
horn
problems
include
the
CSX
and
Amtrak
trains
coming
into
the
VRE
station.
In
2014,
a
few
Crystal
City
residents
negotiated
the
first
deal
with
CSX
for
engineers
not
to
blow
horns.
When
the
VRE
station
is
closed,
CSX
told
us,
then
they
were
worried
about
the
VRE
station,
not
having
sufficient
security
and
warning
mechanisms.
N
Obviously,
then,
the
solution
is
to
install
the
appropriate
measures
that
would
allow
CSX
to
again
be
flexible
in
modifying
its
policies.
It
VRE
claims
that
it
knows
of
no
design
solutions
such
as
signalling
of
barriers,
adequate
safety
and
eliminate
the
need
for
the
loud
horns
in
the
discussion
of
the
county
and
very
staff
with
CSX
on
this
issue.
In
conclusion,
the
VRE
design
must
address
the
torrent
train
horn
problem.
Additionally,
we
do
not
think
the
minimal
advantages
of
option
2
so
greatly
outweigh
the
heavy
expense
of
quality
of
life
for
Crystal
City
residents.
P
Good
evening
I'm
Curt
Becky
and
the
vice-president
of
the
Crystal
Gateway
condominium
board
at
1,300
crystal
drive
at
the
far
north
into
Crystal,
Drive
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
our
board
of
directors.
First,
thank
you
for
letting
us
come
to
speak
with
you
again.
We
do
appreciate
it.
The
last
time
I
spoke
with
you
on
29
June
I
noted
that
I've
lived
in
three
locations
along
Crystal
Drive
over
the
past
25
years
twice
in
the
water
park,
towers
building
that
is
closest
to
the
current
VRE
station
right
there.
P
On
that
slide,
I
told
you
how
I
how
you
do
learn
to
ignore
the
smooth
transit
of
the
airplanes,
but
not
the
distracting
cacophony
from
the
trains.
I
also
pointed
out
that
I'm
from
Crystal
Gateway
across
from
option
1,
so
we
could
see
Vieira's
option
2
solution
here
and
be
smiling
smugly
and
be
sitting
at
home
right
now,
but
we
are
not
because
this
process
has
been
so
wrong.
The
priorities
have
become
so
skewed
and
especially
because
we
support
the
right
answer
for
Crystal
City
as
a
whole
option.
P
This
train
station
may
be
equally
noisy,
no
matter
where
it
is
placed,
but
it
obviously
won't
be
equally
noisy
to
the
people
who
actually
live
there
if
it's
moved
right
behind
them
and
by
the
way,
if
you
look
at
veeery
a
noise
assessment
slide
20,
you
will
see
dots
bordering
the
moderate
line.
Option
3.
It
shows
all
dots
down
near
zero.
The
other
two
options
wanted
to
show
them
on
the
line.
That's
one
of
many
slides
that
purport
to
tell
you
a
different
story.
Then
close
analysis
will
reveal
to
you
last
Wednesday.
We
gave
mr.
P
Schlatter
personal,
walking
tour
of
the
whole
Crystal
City
VRE
area
of
concern.
He
was
able
to
witness
the
train
stopping
at
the
state
with
its
arrival
horn,
the
whishing
air
brakes,
the
metallic
squealing
of
the
wheels
then
on
departure,
the
horn
again,
the
powerful
engine
noise,
as
it
has
to
break
static,
friction
and
slowly
build
up
speed
at
high
power
before
being
able,
finally,
to
throttle
back
and
crews
and
the
considerable
smoke
and
fumes
that
pour
out
up
at
the
level
of
the
ground
level.
P
Condos
only
a
does
so
only
a
couple
of
dozen
feet
away.
He
also
saw
the
difficulties
with
creating
an
exit
for
VRE
commuters,
adjacent
to
the
already
high-traffic
biking
and
jogging
path
leading
to
the
GW
Parkway.
The
space
is
pretty
tight
there
now
throughout
June
Crystal
City
bid
and
jbg
constantly
and
positively
told
the
residents
that
they
could
see
the
advantages
of
and
accept
option
3
on
29
June.
P
They
told
you
they
support,
option
2
that
took
us
by
surprise
but
fair
enough,
it's
their
right
to
say
which
one
they
prefer
certainly,
but
what
I
would
ask
you
to
consider
is
just
how
much
better
for
them
is
option
2
versus
option
3
and
how
overwhelming
that
difference
is
for
the
residents
and
owners
who
have
invested
their
savings
and
planted
roots
here.
I'd
submit
that
it's
a
bit
of
a
difference
for
the
bid
and
JBG,
but
it
is
huge
for
the
community
and
we
get
it
if
all
those
condos
and
apartments
were
businesses.
P
We'd
agree
with
the
bid
on
option
2,
but
they
are
not
and
they
won't
be
businesses.
We,
the
residents,
also
have
visions
of
what
crystal
city
can
be,
if
only
you
can
help
Arlington
County
to
see
past
the
blinded
view
of
distance
to
the
Metro
as
a
seemingly
major
portion
here
and
think
of
the
other
82%
that
don't
take
the
metro
and
think
of
the
people
whose
homes
are
here.
Think
of
this
is
creating
the
Crystal
City
destination
community
of
the
future
and
not
the
Crystal
City
multimodal
train
stop
in
route
to
other
places.
P
You
can
have
that
multimodal
hub.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
little
Legoland
that
fits
snugly.
Together
with
a
slightly
large
footprint.
You
will
still
be
able
to
support
what
will
now
be
a
progressive,
growing
mixed-use
community,
which
is
what
Crystal
City
is.
There
are
three
constituencies
here:
commuters,
the
local
businesses
and
the
residents.
You
can
give
the
very
commuters
the
service
they
want
in
fact,
option
three
puts
most
of
the
community
commuters
who,
by
and
large,
walk
closer
to
their
destinations
than
the
current
situation.
P
It
provides
them
much
improved
access
to
the
businesses
and
commerce
that
they
frequent
and
it
delivers
much
improved
quality
of
life
for
the
residents
who
actually
live
here,
who
are
really
counting
on
you
and
that
small
percent
who
would
take
the
metro
or
the
bus
will
still
have,
but
a
short
walk.
Last
Thursday
we
convinced
the
Arlington
Planning
Commission
to
recommend
moving
forward
with
studying
both
options.
Two
and
three
tonight.
We
hope
we
will
convince
you
to
also
support
studying
both
options.
Two
and
three
thank
you.
Thank.
C
O
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I,
also
just
want
to
echo
your
words,
it's
very
beneficial
to
us
to
have
this
much
public
input
from
businesses,
residents
and
also
the
presentations
by
the
staff
and
VRE,
and
were
also
grateful
for
the
working
walking
tour
we
received
from
the
bre
with
staff
coordinating
that
I
want
to
dive
in
a
little
bit
on
the
data
around
the
noise
and
vibration
impact
criteria
that
you
use,
which
came
from
the
Federal
Transit
Authority
in
your
pre
final
draft
alternatives.
O
B
Q
We
just
qualify
first
of
all,
it's
the
Federal
Transit
administration's
choice
based
on
current
allocation
of
budget,
that
they
are
no
longer
reviewing
projects
that
aren't
funded
by
them.
We
anticipate
that
with
where
one
of
the
approaches
were
taking
for
final
design
and
construction
money,
we're
pursuing
those
unfunded
portions
now,
maybe
the
Federal
Transit
Administration,
so
we're
going
to
be
doing
everything
as
if
they
are
going
to
be
reviewing
it
and
having
that
all
assembled.
So
it's
not
we're
not
going
to
shortcut
we're
still
going
to
do
the
same
process.
Q
It's
just
the
feds
won't
read
it
until
such
time
if
they
have
some
skin
in
the
game
financially.
The
other
thing
I
just
want
to
point
out
is,
as
we
go
into
a
great,
more
detailed
design
as
we
learn
more
about
what
eight
is.
You
know
what
something
beyond
these
basically
cartoon
outlines
of
a
station
are
we'll
be
looking
at
running
the
sound
model,
if
appropriate,
if
there's
something
that
significantly
changes
from
what
we've
evaluated
at
this
stage
of
the
project.
Okay,.
O
O
Q
Work
that's
been
done
as
far
as
environmental
clearance
for
the
fourth
track
has
already
been
accomplished
as
part
of
the
DC
Darvey,
a
state-run
high-speed,
higher
speed
rail
study.
The
draft
environmental
statement
has
all
was
just
last
week
accepted
by
the
Federal
Railroad
Administration
to
look
at
so
that
goes
through
a
process.
It
still
needs
a
there's,
a
comment
period,
there'll
be
a
review
and
he
is
finally
issued.
Q
O
No,
no
I
understand.
Okay.
Thank
you.
My
next
question
is
to
direct
it
to
staff.
I
believe
that
you
mentioned
that,
and
we
already
talked
about
speaking
the
DoD
and
them
not
having
a
particular
opinion.
Only
reason
to
bring
this
up
is
that
there
seems
to
be
significant
traffic
going
to
the
Pentagon
I
believe
you
mentioned
that
DoD
was
providing
shuttle
service
or
will
provide
future
shuttle
service.
B
O
C
Wanted
to
mention
really
quickly
on
the
interference
that
we're
hearing
in
our
microphones
on
occasion
is
caused
usually
by
close
proximity
of
a
cell
phone.
So
if
any
of
our
newer
commissioners
or
any
of
our
speakers
down
front,
if
you
have
self
like
in
your
breast
pocket
or
you
try
and
set
it
on
the
table
or
anything
like
that,
that's
probably
what's
causing
that
interference.
R
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I,
want
to
follow
up
on
the
previous
question
on
noise
from
a
little
different
aspect.
I
noticed
that
miss
fuller
mentioned
something
I
thought
was
very
significant.
She
said
that
the
train
horn
problem
is
one
half
of
the
issue
here.
I
mean
that's
amazing
when
you
think
about
it.
If
you
could
resolve
that
or
at
least
minimize
that
that
maybe
the
problem
could
be
resolved
and
also
mr.
R
pett
key
in
your
statements
and
I
had
it
here
a
moment
ago,
I
think
you
mentioned
the
Train
noise
issue
as
well,
and
you
talked
in
more
detail
about
that
No.
Thank
you.
You
mentioned
a
number
of
issues
such
as
metallic
squealing
of
wheels,
the
whooshing
of
brakes
and
so
on.
So
there
a
number
of
issues
there
that
have
to
do
with
the
Vav
train
arriving
and
then
departing
the
station.
R
This
I
asked
the
staff
about
this,
and
they
didn't
really
know.
I
mean
I'm
conjecturing
here
about
whether
the
rule
would
be
amended
to
permit
something
similar,
such
as
the
bells,
because
it
also
comes
in
with
bells
and
then
when
it's
ready
to
leave
I
think
I,
don't
recall
whether
it
blew
that
horn,
but
it
certainly
had
bells
and
that's
much
less
than
the
decibel
level
it's
much
less
than
blowing
a
horn.
R
Q
Me
try
to
clarify
the
roles
and
responsibilities
here
and
where
that
comes,
and
what
what
has
been
done
and
what
could
be
done.
First
of
all,
the
horn
blowing
at
the
stations,
the
ones
that
are
being
discussed,
discussed
here.
Well,
let
me
back
up
Federal
Railroad
Administration
has
rules
and
regulations
regarding
horn
blowing
at
grade
crossings
and
grade
crossings.
Only
so
what
other
horn
blowing
is
required
is
up
to
the
railroad
as
a
safety
rule.
Q
So
from
that
perspective,
the
quiet
zones
that
you
refer
to
that
are
being
established
across
the
country
are
being
done
and
those
rules
are
only
in
association
with
grade
crossings
and
from
that.
If
you
raised
the
question
with
the
Federal
Railroad
Administration,
they
would
say:
well
that's
a
great
crossing
issue,
not
a
station
issue.
So
that's
just
his
background.
Now
CSX
we
are.
We
are
on
CSX
as
a
foreign
carrier,
which
is
the
term
they
use.
We
are
a
button.
We
are
obliged
to
follow
their
rules
as
far
as
everything.
A
Q
We
work
on
three
different
railroads,
so
it
gets
complicated,
but
in
the
case
of
CSX
they
have
a
rule
that
states
that
any
strain
on
CSX
that
is
approaching
a
gray
a
passenger
station
anywhere
must
blow
its
horn.
It
also
requires
that,
when
a
train
of
any
sort
stand
stationary
for
more
than
60
seconds,.
Q
You
know
as
they
approach
the
station
and
if
they've
come
to
a
stop
for
some
and
because
of
traffic
congestion
or
such
if
they're
sitting
for
more
than
60
seconds
anywhere.
They
must
blow
their
horn
again
before
moving
so
long
way
around
to
say
we
don't
control
the
horn
blowing,
it's
a
CSX
rule
of
the
county
and
the
residents
have
in
the
past
engaged
CSX,
and
the
only
exception
in
the
CSX
system
exists
for
Crystal
City.
Q
That
states
that
when
the
station
is
not
active,
when
our
trains
are
not
using
the
station
outside
of
our
commuter
periods,
they
do
not
have
to
blow
so
there's
an
exemption
for
that
there
isn't.
There
is
interest
in
doing
more
than
that.
We
as
an
operator
cannot
question
a
safety
rule
without
frankly,
we
are
a
safety
culture
and
it
affects
our
credibility
with
CSX
to
even
raise
the
question
other
than
to
say
whatever
your
rules
are,
we
will
comply
with
them.
Q
However,
the
at
the
Planning
Commission,
it
was
suggested,
recommended
to
the
board
as
a
separate
item
that
the
County
read
that
the
County
re-engaged
CSX
with
respect
to
crystal
C
and
see
whether
there's
any
further
modifications
that
are
possible
and
we're
there
to
support
whatever
the
county
does
in
that
regard.
But
that's
frankly
like
like
quiet
zone
to
grade
crossings,
the
operating
railroads
can't
go
after.
We
can't
pursue
those.
Q
It's
got
to
be
the
community
that
questions
those
and
that's
that's
codified
in
the
smart
rule
in
this
employee
in
the
quiet
zones,
it's
not
quite
a
codified
in
this
case
since
there's
no
federal
code
involved,
but
that
would
be
a
good
approach
and
that
seems
to
be
what
the
county
is
on
track
to
consider.
Okay,.
R
I
have
another
follow-up
question
also
concerning
the
noise
issue,
and
that
is
that
there
is
noise
with
freight
trains
going
by
and
there
are
more
freight
trains
than
our
VRE
trains,
although
not
concentrated
in
the
same
relatively
small
window
as
VRE.
What
are
the
decibel
levels
of
freight
trains
going
by
because
frequently
they
go
by,
especially
the
intermodal
trains
go
by
about
40
miles
an
hour
or
so
and
when
you're,
comparing
that
with
two
locomotives,
typically
that
they
have
and
many
cars
with
the
V
re?
B
B
R
Reason
I
ask:
is
that
on
the
report,
the
recommendation
to
the
manager
or
to
the
board
is
that
the
issue
of
blowing
horns
by
CSX
is
independent,
but
continues
to
be
quote
problematic.
So,
although
not
directly
related
to
this,
it's
also
an
issue
so
I
think
that
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
a
marginal
issue.
Q
I
think
I'm
answering
that
one
okay.
First
of
all,
the
sound
analysis,
the
the
noise
analysis
that
took
place
considered
all
train
sources
and
such
in
their
assessment
without
getting
into
the
details.
So
all
of
them.
We
didn't
just
look
at
the
BRE
trains,
but
we
looked
at
the
cumulative
effects
of
all
of
all
the
trains
you're
right
to
see
it
and,
frankly,
the
both
anecdotally
and
based
on
the
analysis,
the
freight
trains
are
a
lot
noisier
for
two
reasons
or
for
two
reasons.
One,
which
is
freight.
Q
Trains
are
noisier,
as
you
said
they
have
to.
Actually
they
have
three.
The
typically
have
three
to
five
locomotives
depending
on
all
those.
The
trains
are
a
mile
long.
So
there's
where
our
trains
might
be
passing.
You
know
upwards
to
700
feet
that
noise
associated
with
the
freight
cars
can
go
on
for
a
while
and
if
you're
talking
about
empty,
hop
coal
coppers
going
back
to
the
mines
you're
talking
about
something,
that's
a
metal
drum
effectively,
with
its
speaker,
pointed
upwards
into
the
sky
or
towards
the
apartment.
Q
So
there's
a
lot
of
noise
that
comes
from
the
freight
trains,
so
freight
trains
are
noise
or
there's
also
mechanical
things
with
respect
to
the
draft
gear
and
the
under
you
know,
in
the
wheels
and
the
the
the
couplers
that
make
the
freight
trains
noisier
than
what
the
safety
appliances
on
passenger
trains
Amtrak
and
our
trains
create.
The
noise
we
create
the
other,
the
other
part
is,
is
the
way
the
trains
are
operating
for.
This
I
have
to
point
out
right
now.
Crystal
City
is
on
a
three
track.
Q
Is
a
piece
of
three
track
rail
road
that
leads
going
north
to
a
two-track
bottleneck
which
is
the
long
bridge
and
then
widens
off
to
three
tracks
in
the
district
again
so
operationally,
there's
a
lot
of
trains
going
through
and
there's
a
lot
of
trains
that
have
to
sit
and
stop
at
this
at
one
end
or
the
other
of
the
long
bridge
waiting
for
the
other
trains
to
get
out
of
their
way.
So
they
can
have
their
turn.
Q
A
freight
train,
in
particular
accelerating
takes
a
lot
longer
than
all
trains
to
accelerate.
So
if
you
have
a
southbound
train,
that's
been
sitting
up
at
Lafont,
for
example,
waiting
for
its
turn
to
go
across
the
long
bridge.
It's
going
to
be
accelerating
for
a
good
couple
miles
before
it
gets
up
to
speed,
so
you
have
three
to
five
locomotives
full
out,
still
accelerating
you
know
to
to
get
their
heavy
load
up
to
the
speed.
Q
So
when
we,
when
we,
this
is
a
different
project,
but
as
we
move
forward
and
look
forward
with
the
four
adding
the
fourth
track
through
Arlington
County,
adding
a
fourth
track
which
we're
also
working
on
a
parallel
project
through
the
district
making
long
bridge
four
tracks,
that's
four
different
or
three
different
projects
we're
talking
about,
but
once
we
have
four
tracks
continuously
through
the
corridor,
we
have
two
tracks
going
off
to
Union
Station.
We
have
two
tracks
coming
in
from
the
new
Virginia
Avenue
tunnel.
That's
just
been
turned
turn
from
one
track
into
two.
Q
We
basically
will
have
better
fluidity
of
all
trains
and
beyond
it.
What
that
obviously
means
for
service.
It
also
means
that
the
trains
will
be
rolling
through
and
call
in
in
cruise
mode.
So,
overall,
we
are
working
towards
a
quieter
environment
from
the
train
side.
As
far
as
the
freight
trains
and
the
Amtrak
trains
as
well,
I
think.
R
That's
an
important
point
not
not
pointed
out
in
any
of
the
comments
that
I've
heard
or
that
I've
read
about
that.
What
the
long
longer
term
goals
are
that
might
result
in
a
lower
noise
environment.
So
I
think
that's
interesting.
Okay,
that's
all
I
had
on
this
particular
issue.
I
have
some
others,
but
Commissioner.
C
S
I
have
a
question
as
it
pertains
to
access
to
the
three
station,
so
the
first
to
have
public
access.
They
have
a
piece
of
property,
that's
owned
by
Arlington
County
that
people
will
get
to
and
from
the
station
on.
The
third
station
am
I
correct
in
understanding
that
both
access
points
to
the
VRE
platform
would
be
through
private
property.
B
L
B
Commercial
property,
so
we're
still
at
a
very
sketch
level,
and
we
haven't
had
time.
You
know
we
don't
have
all
the
real
estate
information
that
we
need,
but
to
the
extent
that
we
can
determine
right
now,
we've
tried
to
work
the
access
points
under
over
through
property
owned
by
commercial
by
JB
G
Smith.
As
far
as
we
know,
right
now,
all
right,
thank
you.
Yeah.
Q
And
that's
the
nature
of
where
the
design
used
to
go
we're
not
going
to
finish
the
design
by
the
end
of
the
year.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
take
the
design
to
about
these.
These
are
approximate
numbers,
but
it
will
about
of
10
to
15%
level
of
design.
So
we
can
be
informed
in
terms
of
things
like
letters
of
intent
with,
because
we
don't
want
to
go
into
and
expend
more
public
money
in
more
design,
preliminary
design
and
final
design
until
we
have
an
agreement
right
now,.
Q
But
no
hands
have
been
shook
on
this,
but
jpg
has
been
very
open
and
candid
about
sharing
opportunities
and
what
we
can
do,
but
we
have
to
codify
those
as
we
go
further
and
greater
and
greater
detail
to
a
point
that
before
we
can
go
final
engineering,
we
have
to
actually
have
agreements
and
easements.
Oh
you.
F
Thank
You
chairman
I,
would
like
to
thank
the
citizens
for
taking
the
time
to
come
and
present
to
the
Commission
today,
I'm
always
humbled
at
public
hearings
to
see
the
Education
and
intelligence
of
our
citizens.
Citizen
tree
and,
of
course
tonight
was
no
different.
I
have
for
I
think
our
quick
questions
just
to
clarify
a
couple
of
points.
This
new
metro
station
in
Crystal,
City
I
believe
the
I
believe
I
heard
the
costs
estimated
cost
was
70
million.
Is
that
correct
and.
D
That's
correct:
that's
a
preliminary
cost
estimate.
It's
at
the
concept
level
right
now,
working
with
wa
mada.
It
would
be
a
full
second
entrance
to
the
metro
station
and
how
would
that
be
funded?
It
will
be
where
we
are
seeking
local
state
and
regional
funding.
It
will
where
right
now
we're
not
anticipating
seeking
federal
funding
so.
F
D
F
F
B
F
F
Phase
of
this
infrastructure
project,
but
I'm
struck
that
there's
no
costs
I
just
like
to
say
that
I
hope
this
has
taken
to
the
elected
officials
that
there
is
a
cost
associated
with
each
three
options.
The
elected
officials
have
a
fiduciary
right
to
the
citizens
of
this
county
and
they
need
to
know
the
costs
and
usually
an
AO.
You
do
the
costs.
So
I'm
sure
you
have
estimates,
I
don't
need.
F
F
Q
F
Q
Right
now,
what
we've
shown
you
is
basically
other
than
making
sure
that
the
tracks
will
fit
is
a
cartoon
so
until
this
is
why
we
want
to
get
to
the
next
step
and
by
the
end
of
the
year,
have
a
workable
cost
estimate
as
opposed
to
what
we
have
right
now,
which
we
call
a
level
five
estimate,
which
is
a
platform
cost
this
much.
He
track
change
costs
this
much
so
we
can
set
a
budget
but
we're,
and
we
we
have
to
stay
within
right.
F
It
really
struck
me
when
you
were
presenting
because
it
made
it
sound,
like
I
I
was
under
the
impression
during
the
presentation
that
the
FTA
had
through
their
contractors,
of
course,
had
ran
some
kind
of
the
study,
or
did
some
kind
of
scientific
analysis
that
there
would
be
no
impact
at
all
three
stations,
as
it
relates
to
the
noise.
But
now
I
go
back
and
I
reread
this
because
you're
not
using
any
federal
money.
So
the
FTA
is
not
involved,
correct
and
you're
just
going
off
the
FTA
kind
of
guidance
right.
Q
F
Q
Q
F
F
Okay,
so
let's
look
up
option
one.
Those
two
Halfmoon
shaped
structures
option
one,
that's
residential
the
sect
and
option
two.
Those
two
Halfmoon
structures
is
residential.
Is
that
correct
and
one
I
believe
is
a
condo,
so
those
are
actual
property
owners
since
that
correct
and
once
an
apartment
and
an
option.
Three.
That
is
an
office
building.
F
Yes,
ma'am,
okay,
and
we
were
talking
about
walkability,
so
I
think
people
coming
in
from
Northern
Virginia
and
they
soft
adoption
to
an
option
one
they
would
have
to
walk,
they
wouldn't
be
living
probably,
and
they
wouldn't
be
going
to
these
apartments
right
or
the
condominium
they'd
be
either
going
to
work
and
the
commercial
is
you
they'd
have
to
walk
through
these,
like
plaza
across
crystal
drive
and
into
the
commercial
buildings.
Is
that
correct
and.
Q
Q
Q
F
F
Q
F
I
don't
want
to
get
this
is
kind
of
simple
here.
I
don't
want
to
get
too
complicated,
but
an
option.
One.
Let's
go
back
to
your
walking
map
shows
where
everybody's
going
to
put
up
that
bubble,
that
bubble
slide
yeah,
so
everyone's
yeah,
all
the
dust.
You
got
all
the
suggestion,
traffic
on
the
left-hand
side
of
crystal
drive
right,
so
they'd
have
to
cross
crystal
drive
to
access.
That
is
that
correct.
B
Yes,
most
of
our
most
of
our
current
riders,
based
on
our
field
investigations
exit
the
existing
VRA
station
about
45
percent
of
them
cross
crystal
drive
and
enter
the
underground
about
25
percent
turn
right
along
crystal
drive.
I
would
assume
they
cross
crucial
drive
at
some
point
and
about
30
percent,
go
left
and
goes
to
points
right.
F
B
F
The
proposal
is
what
that's
residential,
so
those
folks
coming
in
on
BRE
would
have
to
cross
crystal
drive
to
get
to
their
place
of
business
right
I
mean
you
show
a
lot
of
yellow
there,
but
I,
don't
know
I,
think
part
of
that's
the
water
park.
I,
don't
think
people
are
going
to
the
water
park
to
work
there.
I'm
sorry
I'm,
just
not
being
I'm,
not
you
know.
I
don't
want
to
make
an
issue
here,
but
what
I'm
trying
to
say
that
it
looks
like
option?
One
is
residential
option.
Two
is
residential
option.
F
Q
Option
one
is
immediately
adjacent
to
only
residential
property
option.
Two
because
of
the
span
is
adjacent
to
residential
property
as
well
as
office
property
and
option.
Three
is
only
adjacent
to
one
set
of
five
buildings,
but
all
of
those
options
for
most
of
where
those
bump
those
dots
are
are
on
the
other
side
of
crystal
Drive.
From
this
Thank.
F
R
Commissioner
Warren
again,
yes,
I'd
like
to
follow
up
the
previous
question
earlier
on
cost,
because
it
seems
rather
curious
to
me
that
they're
looking
at
the
conclusion
is
that
the
the
design
I'll,
let
them
trying
to
give
just
rather
than
trying
to
summarize
what
I'm
looking
at
option.
Three
it's
at
the
very
end
here
of
the
handout
I
think
it
says
what
the
design
is
dependent
on
the
funding.
Is
that
correct,
I'm
trying
to
find
this?
If
I
don't
know
what
them
know.
B
R
That's
my
concern
I'm
looking
at
this
logically
that
one
of
the
question
came
up
here
about
cost
and
it
may
be
that
option
three
I
remember
on
the
walking
tour.
I
was
particularly
impressed
that
it
would
take
two
bridges
to
get
people
from
this
train
station.
Basically,
access
to
Crystal,
City
and
those
bridges
I
think
would
actually
have
to
go
through
a
building.
Is
that
correct,
yeah
I
think
in
the
time.
B
R
R
They
go
over
or
through
the
building,
so
that
seems
to
me
that's
gonna
be
much
more
expensive
than
option
two.
So
right
away.
You
have
an
issue
here
of
cost,
so
I'm
wondering.
Did
you
have
an
idea
of
orders
of
magnitude
between
the
option?
Three
and
two,
because
it
may
be
that
if
option
three
is
much
more
expensive
than
option
two
that
could
decide
the
issue
I
mean
since
the
funding
you
said
the
funding.
It
was
not
going
to
be
made
available
until
you
have
a
design.
So
this
may
be
academic.
B
As
Tom
mentioned
earlier,
we
do
need
to
get
to
a
certain
level
of
design
to
be
able
to
have
a
reliable
cost
estimate
and
we
were
trying
to
get
through
concept
design
in
this
phase
so
that
we
can
have
at
least
that
level
of
design
to
be
able
to
use
for
our
grant
applications
in
the
future.
That
was
the
only
phase
that
was
funded
when
we
started
out
now
we
do
have
the
next
phase
funded,
which
is
PE
and
environmental.
B
R
Let
me
follow
that
up
because
they
know
in
transit
projects.
Typically,
when
a
project
comes
in
that
project
proposal,
there's
a
cost
estimate.
I
know
in
the
case
of
the
Columbia
Pike
streetcar.
That
was
certainly
the
case
and
then,
as
it
went
through
over
the
years,
that
cost
estimate
went
up,
but
there
was
an
initial
cost
estimate,
and
that
was
revised,
so
really
asking
you
at
this
stage.
What
is
the
cost
estimate
between
option?
Two
and
three.
B
So,
as
I
said,
we
try
to
identify
the
the
big
cost
items
because
we
don't
have
a
total
number.
The
total
number
that
is
in
our
CIP
is
based
on
a
generic
design
and
we
can
pretty
much
guarantee
that
that's
going
to
change,
but
we
try
to
look
at
comparing
the
costs
for
the
three
option,
especially
as
you're
mentioning
option
two
and
three
and
try
to
cost
out
the
elements
that
we
do
know
are
going
to
be
high-dollar
elements
track.
Relocation
is
one
of
them
and
we
have
an
estimate
of
the
length
of
track.
B
So
we
can
do
a
reasonable
cost
estimate.
For
that
and
the
other
item
that
we
do
know,
the
difference
is
between
a
bridge
that
goes
over,
that
building
and
through
the
building
on
the
south
side
of
option
three,
as
opposed
to
a
tunnel
that
goes
under
the
tracks
and
then
comes
out
into
water
park
and
the
south
and
a
water
park.
And
so
we
try
to
identify
numbers,
cost
estimates
for
each
of
those
and
the
difference
between
the
two
came
out
to
be
several
million
dollars.
R
Separate
million
dollar
so
that
I
mean
it's
an
order
of
magnitude.
I
mean
that's,
not
fifty
percent
more.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
get
it
something
because
that
could
drive
the
decision.
I
mean
it's
likely
to,
because
the
funding
level
certainly
will
have
to
take
that
into
account.
Well,
thank
you.
Q
Analysis
which
is
again
we're
trying
to
focus
in
on
what,
where
we
should
be
spending
more
money
right
now
to
get
to
develop
a
design,
we're
looking
at
we're,
looking
at
comparisons
and
relative
comparisons.
So
the
dollars
don't
really
matter
in
our
analysis
as
much
as
this
one
has
a
bigger
figure
than
that
than
this
one
for
a
relative
assessment.
We
need
this
in
order.
Q
In
order
to
get
a
cost
estimate,
we
have
to
have
a
design
of
some
sort
ten
to
fifteen
percent,
so
that
we
can
have
a
credible
design
which
gives
us
which,
which
gives
us
a
starting
point.
We
have
two
other
stages
which
have
not
been
funded
engineering,
which
really
doesn't
change
depending
on
the
complexity
of
the
project.
It
goes
up
a
little
bit
up
and
down,
but
we're
working
right
now
on
getting
the
grant
money
for
that
which
is
a
year
and
a
half
to
start
so
we're
in
a
normal
grant
cycle
to
apply.
Q
For
then
construction.
We
will
not
have
a
good
cost
that
we
trust
until
we
get
to
the
30%
level
of
design,
and
we
deal
with
things
like.
We
know
enough
to
say
well:
if
the
locomotive
is
here
and
the
station
is
here
and
such
then
we
have
mitigation
issues.
You
know
what
what
is
going
to
be
the
impact
of
air
quality.
We
advanced
the
sound,
which
would
normally
be
done
in
the
later
stage.
We
moved
that
forward
and
did
it
for
three
locations,
because
there
was
a
sufficient
interest
that
we
thought.
Q
If
that
was
a
distinguisher
between
the
three,
it
turned
out
to
be
a
a
difference.
Without
a
distinction,
the
sound
takes
place
somewhere.
The
trains
continue
to
move
whether
there
are
trains
or
the
others
through
the
area.
It's
just.
But
overall,
when
you
look
at
the
global
Crystal
City,
it
might
shift
the
locations,
but
it
doesn't
change
the
impact
of
it.
So
there's
no.
So
in
that
case
that
turned
into
a
difference,
it
was
not
a
distinction
as
we're
going
forward.
Q
We
need
a
design
that
understands
things
like
the
mitigation
needs,
sound
barriers,
not
the
were
suggesting
sound
barriers,
but
if
they
come
up
we're
going
to
follow
them.
So
that's
where
and
refine
the
budget
before
I
will
sign
off
on
a
project
going
from
project
development,
which
is
that
30%
preliminary
engineering
design
and
the
environmental
into
final
engineering
construction
I
must
have
a
certified
cost
that
we
can
trust
and
on
a
certain,
a
certainty
that
we
have
the
grants
in
place
at
that
point
to
move
forward.
Q
So
we're
still
a
year
and
change
away
from
needing
to
have
that
type
of
information.
But
we
will
be
developing
costs.
At
this
point.
We
started
off
by
just
working
on
a
very
conceptual
level,
with
three
stations
and
trying
to
identify
if
we
could
find
distinctions,
but
we
did
not
do
full
costs
and
nor
quickly,
based
on
what
we
know
of
the
station.
R
All
right
question:
mr.
chairman,
another
issue:
several
the
speakers
mentioned
such
as
mr.
Purcell
mr.
Ballston
and
there's
another
gentleman
I
think
it
was
mr.
Johnson.
All
three
of
you
talked
about
issues
concerning
design
problems
and
risk
mitigation,
and
there
could
be
something
like
an
explosion
that
was
mentioned
by
one
of
the
speakers
and
that
might
be
a
result
of
see
a
collision
between
a
freight
passenger
train
or
something
in
that
area.
So,
although
that
wasn't
elaborated
on
I
assume
that
that's
what
was
meant
as
well,
my
question
is
really
simple.
R
Is
there
an
example
in
the
nation
with
where
you
have
a
transit
station
like
this,
a
real
transit
station,
say
in
the
Chicago
metro
or
Philadelphia,
where
you,
where
this
issue
has
been
raised?
Where
that
you,
you
need
access,
a
roadway
or
something
additional
clearance
for
emergency
vehicles
and
yeah.
You
ask
this
to
the
VRE
gentleman
where
this
has
been
an
issue.
Q
Q
Secondly,
we
are
regulated
in
our
normal
day-to-day
operations
in
our
designs
by
both
the
Federal
Railroad
Administration
and
the
Federal
Transit
Administration.
We
unfortunately
bridge
both
of
those
houses
and
they
both
take
credit.
They
both
have
their
own
safety
processes
that
we
have
to
that.
We
have
to
adhere
to
so
basically,
we
have
to
do
everything
twice
to
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
have
a
station
in
order
to
do
that,
we
do
all
of
the
milspec
I'm
ex-navy
myself,
I'm,
a
veteran
I
understand
the
milspec
hazard
analysis.
Q
The
Federal
Transit
Administration
requires
us
to
do
that.
We
have
12
stations
under
development
right
now.
Three
of
them
right
now
are
going
through
that
analysis.
Right
now,
in
these
preliminary
engineering
design,
we
have
to
have
a
design
to
assess
whether
this
what
the
hazards
are,
they
can
go
at
Lorton
station
right
now.
Our
analysis
is
41
hazards
identified
and
we
will
address
and
mitigate
every
single
one
of
them,
I
will
say,
exploding
locomotives.
It's
not
one
of
them
primarily
because
we
haven't
any
locomotives,
don't
explode
period.
I
mean
they
don't.
Q
There
are
other
hazards
that
are
associated
with
freight
trains
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
those,
but
those
are
the
type
of
things
that
explode,
not
passenger
trains,
we're
on
the
verge
of
also
the
signal
systems
of
the
railroad
are
designed
such
to
keep
trains
separated,
so
they
don't
bang
into
each
other.
That's
going
to
go
up
quantum
or
two
at
the
end
in
the
next
year
or
so
positive
train
control,
which
you
may
have
heard
of,
is
a
federal
requirement.
Q
All
of
our
equipment
is
already
equipped
and
certified
and
ready
to
turn
on
we're
waiting
for
CSX
as
the
host
railroad
as
well
as
Norfolk
Southern
as
well
as
am
track
to
you
know,
to
turn
on
their
system.
So
we
can
work
with
it,
but
when
positive
train
control
is
in
place
and
turned
on
trains,
you
know
and
I
will
point
out.
There's
some
actors
there's
references
to
the
accident,
the
Amtrak
accident
that
happened
tragically
a
year
or
so
ago
in
Philadelphia.
Q
That's
a
clear
example
of
a
place
where
actually
they
were
equipped
with
positive
train
control,
but
they
hadn't
turned
it
on
yet
so
the
train.
So
the
engineer
didn't
hit
something
he
was
good.
He
was
over
speed
by
several
tens
of
miles.
An
hour
went
into
a
bad
curve
which
he
could
not
negotiate
in.
The
train
went
off
the
tracks.
If
we
are,
if
our
train
operators
miss
a
signal,
the
train
gets
stopped.
If
the
train
operator
is
going
exceedingly,
the
establish
speed
limits,
either
permanent
or
on
a
given
day.
Q
Somebody
there's
a
track
worker
out
in
that
area
and
the
system
PTC
has
it.
You
know
the
train
will
stop.
So
we
will
not
be
able
to
hit
someone
or
each
other,
which
is
a
good
thing.
But
the
point
is
again:
that's
already
a
safe
environment.
It's
going
to
become
safer,
not
less
safe
and
whatever
design
we
come
up
with.
Not
only
has
to
go
through
that
hazard
analysis,
not
just
once
we
do
it
at
the
startup
luminary
engineering.
We
do
it
at
the
start
of
final
engineering.
Just
make
sure
it's
still
the
case.
Q
We
do
it
at
the
end
of
final
engine
engineering
again
before
we
start
construction
and
we
do
it
before
opening.
So
when
any
given
the
life
of
any
project,
we
do
that
hazardous
and
Alan
hazard
and
safety
analysis,
not
just
to
you
know
to
our
level,
but
to
we.
We
all
follow
the
same
structures
that
the
milspec
in
the
Navy
uses.
That's
where
the
FTA
took
that
their
their
standards
from
and
it's
a
work
it
doesn't
it's
not
done
by
our
normal
consultant,
pH.
Q
Three,
that's
a
good
job
for
us,
but
we
don't
trust
it
to
be
done
by
the
same
designer,
whatever
whoever
is
working
for
us.
We
have
an
independent
company
who
does
nothing
but
safety
hazard
analysis
for
public
transportation
to
do
that
work
independently,
so
those
analyses
will
be
done
and
but
we
have
to
have
a
design
for
them
to
be
done
with
they
can't
do
it.
Based
on
a
cartoon,
the
sorry,
let
me
just
jump
to
this
picture.
Q
There
is
an
access
road
right
now,
which
you
can
kind
of
see
behind
the
block
on
the
right
angle,
o'er
right-hand
corner
that
will
be
improved
with
the
fourth
track.
That's
how
we
get
access
of
fire
vehicles
to
to
the
platform.
Now
that's
how
we
would
get
access
in
the
future.
That's
controlled
by
CSX!
There's
an
entrance
at
the
north
end
up
by
where
the
long
bridge
park
the
future
Aquatic
Center
is
there's
an
access
further
south
of
a
mile
or
so
further
south.
We
have
access.
Q
When
and
again
that's
emergency
responders
are
drilled,
two
or
three
times
a
year.
One
final
point:
whatever
design
we
have
has
to
be
certified,
as
has
to
be
approved
from
sorry
and
permitted
through
the
jurisdiction
having
the
authority
having
jurisdiction,
which
would
likely
be
Arlington,
County
zoning
or
it
could
be
they
could,
it
could
be
the
state
if
the
Carrington
county
chooses
not
to
take
jurisdiction,
but
one
way
or
the
other.
We
have
to
have
an
occupancy
permit,
just
like
any
other
building
that
it
quieted
there
that
answers
egress
emergency
access
assembly
spaces.
Q
All
of
that
and
one
final
thing
is-
is
it
also
needs
to
be
certified
by
the
local
fire
marshal?
We
comply
entirely
with
the
national
fire
protection
code,
NFPA
130,
which
is
pretty
strict.
In
fact,
it's
really
a
pain
in
the
ass,
but
we,
but
but
that's
okay,
because
we're
safety,
culture,
oriented
organization,
sorry
that
was
a
long
question
pathetic.
U
With
us,
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman
I,
want
to
reiterate
and
echo
a
lot
of
comments
thanking
you
for
coming
out
tonight.
As
someone
who
used
to
live
directly
above
train
tracks
in
Union,
Station
I
understand
your
concerns.
I
have
a
few
specific
questions
about
the
project
itself
and
then,
as
we
are
moving
towards
making
a
recommendation,
I
have
some
questions
about
process
and
next
steps.
The
first
question
about
the
project
itself
is
both
I
believe
in
the
VRE
presentation
and
then
from
the
Crystal
City
bid.
There's
been
made.
U
Mention
of
this
connection
to
National,
Airport
and
I
know
we're
going
through
the
feasibility
study
phase
of
this.
But
is
there
any
sense
about
which
of
these
three
options
is
closest
is
most
accessible
to
this
possible
connection
to
National
Airport,
because
that
would
be
obviously
a
asset
to
Crystal
City
and
to
the
two
VRE
into
the
area.
So
I
don't
know
who
would
be
able
to
answer
that.
B
B
U
Right
second
question
related:
the
project
I
believe
it's
in
slide
11,
for
it
was
talking
about
an
option
to
Section
B
B
I'm,
not
particularly
good
at
reading
these
cross
sections.
So
I
think
some
public
comments
mentioned
the
trains
going
by
the
pool
in
option.
2
can
you
but
is
private?
Some
clarity.
I
know,
there's
some
numbers
there,
but
exactly
how
tall,
how
much
room
there
will
be
between
the
Train,
the
top
of
the
train
and
the
barrier
between
the
tracks
and
the
pool
it
was.
U
Q
B
Just
wanted
to
point
out
that
we
have
been
working
with
GIS
data
at
this
point
we
haven't
actually
accessed.
You
know
the
field
to
go
and
measure
it,
but
based
on
all
the
information
that
we
have
right
now,
we
are
showing
about
23
feet
from
the
base
of
the
from
the
ground
level,
where
the
tracks
are
up
to
the
pool
deck
level
and
then
beyond
that,
there's
a
6
foot
wall
and
there's
also
plantings,
and
you
know,
trees
that
sort
of
buffer
in
between
the
trains
and
the
pool
deck,
and
this
is
at
option
2.
B
U
What
I
want
to
know
is-
and
it's
mentioned
on
slide
26.
It's
last
bullet
there
under
preliminary
engineering
says,
decide
whether
or
not
to
proceed
in
the
next
phase.
So
let's
say
that
the
county
board
recommends
one
option:
you
guys
go
through
2018,
doing
your
engineering
studies
and
your
environmental
studies
and
for
whatever
reason
that
option
is
not
feasible
either
for
any
number
of
reasons.
What
do
you
do,
then?
Would
you
come
back
to
the
county
and
ask
for
another
recommendation?
Would
you
have
the
operations
board?
Look
at
the
other
two
options.
Q
One
of
the
options
could
be
I'm
speculating
this
point.
One
of
the
options
could
be
if
it's
big,
if
the
problems
are
insurmountable,
that
we
discover-
and
we
don't
know
that
because
we
have
on
this
work
yet
mm-hmm.
But
if
we
find
an
insurmountable
problem,
we
may
come
back
and,
from
our
standpoint,
go
back
to
our
board
and
ask
for
you
know,
didn't
notify
them
that
the
option
that
they
adopted
is
not
is
not
viable
for
some
reason
and
suggest
to
them
a
different
alternative
approach.
Q
If
we're
going
to
pursue
the
project
and
that
would
then
go
through
what
I
would
expect
be
the
same
process
of
our
board.
Turning
to
the
Arlington
County
Board
and
saying
what
do
what?
What
do
you
think
of
the
I'd
ins,
the
guidance
at
this
point?
It's
gonna
be
a
little
easier
because
at
that
point,
we'll
have
explored
and
get
a
better
handle
on
a
lot
of
these
issues
that
are
transferable
between
so
this
this
you
know
this
is
a.
U
And
I
appreciate
that
and
final
question
I
have
about
process
since
I'm.
Getting
you
know
from
the
comments.
I've
read
the
comments.
I've
heard
is
pun
intended.
The
train
is
leaving
the
station
tonight
or
next
week
with
the
County
Board,
and
it
definitely
is
not
your
doing
the
study
next
year
and
you
mentioned
in
the
boat
in
the
presentation
that
there
will
be
community
outreach.
U
You
know
continuing
future
phases
I,
you
know.
Obviously
it's
hard
to
pin
down
details
now,
but
I
would
urge
you
to
really
map
out
details
of
how
that
would
be
done.
So
people
feel
like
there's
buy-in
over
the
next
year
as
this
goes
and
it
goes
through
and
it's
you
know,
it
addresses
all
the
concerns
as
you're
doing
your
studies
next
year
and.
V
You
mr.
chairman
I'll,
like
echo,
everyone
round
here,
thank
you
for
the
residents
of
Crystal
City
to
come,
speak
with
us.
Your
your
testimony
is
invigorating.
We
don't
hear
enough
people
from
around
the
county
to
come.
Talk
to
us
so
I
want
to
personally
say
thank
you
thank
staff
from
Arlington
County
for
your
presentation,
as
well
as
for
VRE,
one
of
them
more
I,
guess
disturbing
things
are
heard
from
the
testimony.
V
What,
from
several
people
mentioned,
that
there's
a
belief
out
there
that
the
sort
of
was
a
pre
that
option
see
was
sort
of
a
predetermined.
Can
you
know
we
predetermined
conclusion?
You
wanted
this
you've
wrapped
your
analysis
around
that
particular
option
and
thus
submitted
a
report
to
us.
You
just
please.
Let's
bring
this
to
an
end,
and
could
you
please
address
that
particular
issue
and
then
also
I
want
to
stress,
as
we
move
on
to
the
next
phase
that
you
become
a
frequent
visitor
of
the
Crystal
City
circuit,
especially
this
Crystal
City
citizens
review
council.
V
B
Like
to
address,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
the
process
that
we
have
followed.
I
went
over
it
in
a
little
detail
today,
but
I'd
like
to
say
that
we
actually
were
invited
by
the
Crystal
City
Civic
Association
at
one
of
their
meetings
in
November
of
2016.
This
was
before
we
actually
started
this
project.
B
The
project
was,
the
NTP
was
provided
in
December,
so
we
had
consultants
identified
and
they
did
attend
the
meeting,
even
though
they
were
not
being
paid
and
Tom
was
on
a
panel
with
other
with
CSX,
and
the
common
was
nted
from
the
Commonwealth
and
others
Longbridge
as
well
to
talk
about
the
things
that
are
going
on
in
this
area,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
maybe
at
that
point,
this
idea
was
generated
that
we
already
had
a
solution
because
we
didn't,
but
we
had
done
some
studies
we
had
done.
B
We
had
some
idea
that
something
needs
to
happen
at
Crystal
City
and
we
did
have
one
option.
We
had
option
two
as
beginnings
of
you
know
as
one
of
the
feasible
options
that
we
were
going
to
study.
It
was
by
no
means
done
anywhere
close
to
done
deal.
It
was
just
an
idea
and
I
was
presented
in
November,
but
when
we
did
start
the
process
in
December,
we
detailed
out
a
practical
evaluation
process,
the
one
that
I
talked
about,
which
was
two
steps.
B
Q
As
part
of
you
know,
we
we
steal
slides
from
each
other
all
the
time,
so
we
go
look
back
at
little
presentations.
I
recently
looked
at
the
November
16
presentation.
We
made
it
at
the
start
of
the
study.
We
had
only
option
1
&
2
on
the
map
option.
3
was
added
as
a
response
to
comments
and
interests.
We
heard
to
broaden
that
in
that
meeting
with
the
Civic
Association,
so
we've
been
listening
from
the
start.
We've
to
do.
Q
Do
we
put
our
own
cells
in
harm's
way,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
thorough
process
as
possible.
We
shared
the
March
public
meeting
was
all
focused
around
an
evaluation
process
for
a
process
we
have
not
yet
doing,
and
quite
frankly,
we
were
questioned
at
that
meeting
with
skepticism
of.
Why
are
you
even
bothering
to
ask
us
about
the
process
you've
already
made
up
your
mind?
We
had
manat,
we
had
not
even
started
the
process.
Q
We
shared
the
process
before
we
did
it
in
June
we
we
presented
our
not
a
recommendation,
but
the
scoring's
of
here's
where
the
rankings
are.
Did
we
miss
something?
Is
there
something
wrong
about
that?
Is
there
something
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
evaluation
process?
We
were
told
effectively,
you'd
already
made
up
your
mind,
so
why
should
we
bother?
We've
tried
to
engage
in
frankly,
pulled
out
comments
and
made
changes
accordingly
to
the
process,
because
we
want
to
make
it
a
thorough
possible
I.
Q
One
other
thing
I
want
to
point
out,
and
this
is
somewhat
tangential.
We
just
finished
the
first
phase
of
a
fairly
much
more
expensive
study,
frankly
of
Gainesville
Haymarket,
where
our
st.,
where
our
programs
were,
are
adopted
and
directed
long-range
plans
that
we
would
go
out
to
Gainesville
and
Haymarket
build
11
miles
of
railroad.
Q
We
were
entirely
fact,
actually
we're
kind
of
I'm
kind
of
regretting.
Now
we
called
it
the
Gainesville
Haymarket
study,
because
the
problem
is,
is
that
we
looked
at
the
data
and
the
data
says:
Gainesville
Haymarket
is
not
the
right
way
to
serve
Western
Prince,
William
County,
doing
more
at
what
we
have
now
at
Britt
at
Broad.
Run
is
a
better
way,
a
cost
effective
way
of
achieving
those
goals
of
more
ridership
and
serving
the
region.
Q
Q
Sometimes
I'm
I
will
point
out
a
khadeem
eclis
I
was
a
I
went
to
school
for
astronomy,
so
you
there's
an
awful
lot
of
inferences
and
such
in
an
operational
analysis.
You
have
to
draw
on
secondary
sources
of
information
when
no
others
are
available.
Sometimes
it
looks
like
we
tea
leaves,
but
it's
it's
done.
It's
done
from
from
us
knowledge
base.
I've
worked
at
this
is
my
40th
year
in
the
industry.
I
have
worked
on
stations
and
analyses
like
this
in
34
states
and
five
countries.
Q
There's
a
process,
and
you
follow
the
day
to
work
in.
If
you
don't
have
the
best
data,
you
find
the
best
data
available,
and
you
draw
inferences
from
that
and
that's
what
we
feel
we
have
done
at
this
point,
tailoring
our
approach
and
our
conclusions
to
what
we've
heard,
both
from
stakeholders,
riders
and
the
gen
and
the
public.
Q
C
Right
I
want
to
ask
a
couple
questions.
We've
heard
from
a
couple
residents
concerns
about
CSX
using
the
existing
VRE
station.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that?
Are
they
using
the
station
because
that's
where
the
station
is
or
are
they
just
stopping
yeah?
Be
there
because
they're
waiting
for
a
train
to
cross
along
the
ridge
or
something
like.
Q
That
Knowles
@ro
just
short
of
the
Potomac
River
trains
that
get
stopped
there
with
you're
dealing
with
a
mile-long
freight
train.
Stop
there,
you
know
get
you
know,
extend
through
the
station
area
and
beyond
going
southward.
The
next
set
of
signals
is
down
it's
later
slain
and
again.
Likewise,
those
are
less
likely,
but
there
are
long
trains
that
could
stop
that
far
out.
No,
there
is
no
possible
reason
for
CSX
to
use
our
station
and
Amtrak.
Likewise,
while
there's
interesting
trying
to
get
a
convinced
Amtrak
to
stop
there
by
others
they.
Q
C
B
Want
to
qualify
that,
as
I
said
before
the
number
and
the
CIP
is
based
on
experience
at
other
stations.
It's
we
don't
have
a
location
or
a
design
right
now
at
this
location,
so
things
could
be
different.
Crystal
City
hazel
is
a
more
complicated
environment,
but
that's
the
best
data
that
we
have
right
now.
I'm.
Q
Q
Ready
by
the
end
of
this
year
to
be
able
to
inform
next
year's
capital
budget
and
a
more
realistic
number,
thank
you.
Solook
will
point
out
by
the
way,
the
last
capital
budget
before
that
had
80
million
dollars.
So
we've
already
done
adjustments
from
an
80
million
dollars
to
it
to
an
estimate
of
21
million,
at
least
to
right-size
the
project.
All.
C
Right
talking
about
the
community
environmental
impacts
rating
and
slide
next,
two
impacts
to
historic,
cultural
and/or,
recreational
sources.
It
speaks
about
how
option
one
may
impact
the
edge
of
gait
of
the
park.
The
South
action
access
to
option
1
may
impact
the
water
park
north
access
to
option
2
may
impact
water
power
candidates
adjacent
to
the
Mount
Vernon
trail
I'm,
just
curious.
Why,
when
different
options
have
the
potential
to
have
different
historical
or
recreational
impacts
that
that
doesn't
actually
change
the
summary
rating
at
the
bottom
of
this?
C
B
Because
when
we
say
impact
we
just
mean
that
there
may
be,
and
you
know
we
might
need
to
skirt
the
edge
of
it
or
design
around
it.
Basically,
and
certainly
there'll
be
you
know
you
would
be
able
to
see
the
access
from
these.
These
open
areas
we
haven't
identified
any
section
F
properties,
so
there
isn't
impact
to
section,
4f
properties
and
so
for
any
of
them
we'll
have
to
design
around
and
try
to
minimize
the
impact.
So
again,
we're
not
saying
that
there
will
be
no
impact
with
for
any
of
these
factors.
B
Really
there
are
different
impacts,
but
there
was
no
way
to
identify
any
one
option
being
better
or
worse,
significantly,
better
or
worse
than
the
other,
and
that's
why
we've
given
them
an
equal
rating,
acknowledging
that
we
would
have
to
take
these
things
into
account.
There
might
be
design
solutions
to
them.
There
might
be
some
mitigation
required,
but
there
isn't
one
that
doesn't
have
any
of
that.
So
you
know
that
would
be
the
logical
option
if
there
was
one,
but
that
isn't
the
case.
Okay,.
C
B
Did
we
did
present
some
slides
at
the
public
meeting
in
June,
where
we've
done
3d
images
of
of
the
access
points?
It's
basically
the
the
overhead
bridges
that
would
be
causing
the
impact
and
as
far
as
we
could
identify
from
the
Parkway
or
from
the
trail
now
there's
enough
tree.
There's
there
is
enough
screening,
trees
and
bushes
and
other
things
where
you
know
there
won't
really
be
any
impact.
C
S
Would
like
to
echo
some
of
my
other
commissioners
comments
that,
as
you
move
forward
through
the
process,
that
the
community
is
engaged
any
of
a
technical
working
group,
and
it
sounds
like
there
are
a
lot
of
members
of
the
Crystal
City
community
who
have
relevant
experience
in
different
fields
and
may
be
pinging.
One
or
two
interested
parties
and
bringing
them
into
the
fold
would
probably
engender
a
lot
of
buy-in
and
community
input
to
the
process
and
then
my
second
question
is
a
little
bit
more
targeted
we're
hearing
from
the
community.
S
B
So
it
sort
of
began
to
be
able
to
coordinate
with
on
technical
issues,
and
then
it
grew,
as
I
said,
to
try
to
incorporate
you
know
my
and
the
National
Park
Service
and
people
like
that.
But
we're
happy
to
try
to
create
a
forum
for
working
on
detail
design
and
the
next
phase,
as
you
suggested,
and
we
can
figure
out
how
the
best
way
to
incorporate
residents
into
that
as
well.
B
Trying
to
do
two
options
is,
of
course,
that
you
know
bhp
is
going
to
have
to
do
twice
the
amount
of
work
pretty
much
or
do
twice
the
amount
of
work
for
half
the
money.
I,
don't
know
we
won't
be
able
to
get
to
all
of
the
details.
We
will
have
less
money
to
do
investigations
on
on
the
site
or
maybe
to
clarify
and
document
as
we
have
done.
You
know
in
a
lot
of
detail
at
this
phase.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
level
of
effort
that
will
be
required
and
I
really
feel
like.
B
We
have
done
the
work
that
we
need
to
do
to
do
our
due
diligence.
We
don't
have
all
the
answers
at
this
faith.
I
I
appreciate
that.
There's
always
you
know
another
question,
but
really
if
we've
tried
to
listen
to
all
the
questions
that
came
up
and
address
the
ones
that
we
felt
we're
going
to
be
game
changers
and
we
feel
like
we've
provided
that
information,
maybe
there
might
be
different
perspectives
on
the
on
the
value
or
the
you
know
the
results
of
the
technical
evaluation
but
I
feel
like
additional
data.
B
At
this
point,
you
know,
I,
don't
think
we're
missing
that
there
there
are
concerns
that
we
will
need
to
address
in
the
next
phase
and
the
design
and
the
mitigation
as
we
talked
about
it,
and
it
would
be
best
addressed
we,
our
efforts
would
be
best
addressed
at
one
location
rather
than
trying
to
do
two
simultaneously
and
we
would
just
I
feel
we'd
have
a
better
result
by
focusing
on
one
location.
So
that's
why
we
are
asking
for
your
support
in
in
picking
one
with
whichever
one
you
feel
is
the
best.
Q
Q
So
we
have
to
figure
out
it's
not
just
the
station,
but
the
Wiggles
that
have
to
be
added
to
all
the
train
tracks
and
such
I
agree
with
Sonali
I'm,
sorry,
sir,
so
our
work
program
doesn't
have
a
fork
in
the
road
further
down
where
that
decision
can
be
made,
ignoring
the
fact
that
we
would
be
developing
one
alternative.
That
would
not
be
the
leading
I.
Don't
think
we
would
be
at
a
point
where
we'd
be
better
informed.
The
tea
leaves
are
still
pretty
much.
The
tea
leaves
it's
not
like.
Q
There's
going
to
be
better
data
or
more
data
than
the
the
sources
we
drew
on
if
we
prolong
this
this
stage
of
the
process,
however,
as
I
said,
we
have
a
scope
and
a
prong
and
a
budget
so
just
and
a
grant.
This
is
more
so
than
the
CIP
which
we
can
change.
We
have
a
grant
to
finish
this
phase
of
the
project
and
the
next.
If,
if
we
have
to
do
more
work,
we'll
have
to
take
things
out.
Q
The
things
that
I
think
they're
that
we
have
to
take
out
are
the
more
important
things
like.
How
do
we
mitigate
the
proximity
of
the
stations
to
residential
properties?
How
do
we
deal
with
some
of
the
more
environmental
concerns
which,
while
there
might
not
be
a
distinction
between
the
options,
they
are
there
and
very
real
and
need
to
be
addressed?
F
F
C
All
right,
I'm,
just
gonna,
say
I,
find
this
entire
process
extremely
frustrating,
but
nonetheless,
I
will
put
a
motion
on
the
table
and
we
can
go
from
there.
We
can
always
amend
it.
Talk
about
it,
whatever
from
there
I
move
that
the
Transportation
Commission
recommend
that
the
County
Board
support,
moving
both
option
two
and
option
three
station
locations
for
the
VRA
next
phase
of
project
development,
which
will
involve
preliminary
engineering,
environmental
analysis
and
additional
community
engagement.
F
Well,
I'll,
discuss
I,
think,
that's
I,
think
it's
a
very
fair
motion.
I
could
even
go
with
a
amending
it
a
bit
but
I
think
for
the
county
board.
I
think
if
we
did
go
to
them
with
asking
that
are
recommending
that
the
Transportation
Commission
recommends
serious
consideration.
Both
options,
2
and
3
I
think
that
would
be
I
think
that
would
be
a
very
fair
and
informed
motion.
C
P
T
Is
actually
done
a
pretty
thorough
look
at
things,
but
I
think
that
where
they
did
lack
attention
is
the
engagement
with
the
community
and
that's
and
I
won't
say
they
lacked
it
and
you,
you
were
obviously
are
involved
in
talking
to
them,
but
and
I
actually
think.
As
with
anything,
you
need
to
have
people
involved
in
that
hold
the
process
of
change,
nearing
you're,
going
through
a
change
process,
and
then
it
totally
involves
you're
gonna,
get
to
a
place
where
you're
gonna
get
acceptance
to
that.
T
If
you
bring
your
bring
the
folks
along
with
you
and
making
that
decision
and
I
again
thank
all
of
the
residents
of
Crystal
City
for
their
appearance
here
tonight,
like
my
colleagues
have
thanked
you
but
I
think
they're
the
issues
of
noise,
the
issues
of
safety
that
the
residents
have
all
raised,
I
think
applied
of
one
two
and
three
and
I
think
the
cost
thing
becomes
a
really
large
consider,
but
for
the
county
and
for
BRE.
So
I
I
personally
think
tattoo
is
a
good
suggestion,
but
I'm
willing
to
go
along
with
my
colleagues.
V
Do
I
appreciate
your
motion
and
I
appreciate
everything
that
was
been
said
around
the
table
and
from
the
community,
but
I'm
I
will
actually
say
I'm
kind
of
concerned
with
with
the
cost
that
would
be
involved
with
repetitive
studies
to
this
process.
I
think
option.
Two
is
a
very
good
option
for
this
station
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
having
them
continue
this
process
to
explore
two
different
options
with
the
same
data,
so
they
use
more
financial
resources
that
could
be
gone.
It
could
be
used
to
answer
additional
questions.
U
Weinstein,
thank
you.
Just
a
quick
question
to
your
knowledge
and
from
my
own
edification
to
your
knowledge.
Has
Arlington
County
made
recommendations
for
two
different
options
in
the
past
for
projects
or
is
it
almost
has
always
been
to
make
one
recommendation,
and
if
so,
what
have
you
done?
Has
the
operating
board
Operations
board
done
in
the
past
and
where
the
impacts
of
that
been.
U
Either
one
sorry
staff
to
figure
out,
we
ever
made
the
recommendation
for
two
yeah
anyway,
the
staffs
figure
out
whether
we
made
a
recommendation
for
two
multiple
recommendations
to
be
are
in
the
past
in
two
VRE.
If
that
has
been
known
in
the
past,
what
the
impact
of
that
has
been
in
terms
of
the
operation
boards
decision
making.
Q
Let
me
try
to
answer
the
VRE
perspective.
We
only
have
one
station
in
Arlington
County,
we
built
it
in
925
years
ago,
and
this
is
the
first
time
we've
gone
back
to
look
at
it
again
as
far
as
other
stations
are
concerned.
Quite
frankly
and
I
said,
if
we've
got
12
stations
under
development
and
some
either
moving
concrete
right
now
or
such
there
have
been
design
options
on
do.
Does
the
platform
go
on
the
left
to
the
right?
Q
Q
This
is
one
of
the
few
urban
stations
we
have
nobody's
going
to
move
our
Alexandria
station
and
Lafont
is
pretty
much
as
long
as
we
have
that's
our
busiest
station
as
long
as
Lafont
needs
to
touch
the
metro
station
there
to
make
it
work,
we're
not
going
to
move
that
to
another
location,
although
it's
actually
been
suggested
internally
and
we've
rejected
that
so
again.
So
much
of
this
is
Crystal.
City
is
a
unique
beast
and
we
don't
do
one-size-fits-all.
R
D
Yes,
I
just
I
wanted
to
weigh
in
on
in
terms
of
transit
capital
project
development.
We
follow
a
similar
process
where
we
do
screening
feasibility
analysis
of
multiple
options
and
we
select
a
preferred
option
to
do
the
concept
design
and
then
take
it
into
PE.
So
at
least
for
transit
and
I've
worked
for
the
counties
for
going
on
13
years
now,
I,
don't
recall
that
we've
ever
taken
two
options
into
PE.
F
U
And
speaking
of
the
motion,
I
I
really
think
you
know
we
should
revise
one
option.
Given
the
time
constraints
and
resource
constraints.
The
VRE
is
dealing
with
and
I
agree.
That's
you
know,
looking
at
two
different
options
really
constrains
their
ability
to
look
at
one
option
or
both
options.
Well,
I'm
not
saying
that
they
wouldn't
do
a
good
job
at.
Obviously
it's
just
given
the
time
constraints
and
resource
constraints.
I
think
we
should
pick
one
and
go
from
there.
So.
C
The
reason
I
find
this
whole
process
so
frustrating
because
I
feel
like
this
shouldn't
be
a
place
we
should
have
gotten
in
the
first
place,
even
ignoring
which
we
shouldn't
ignoring
all
of
the
resident
concerns
that
have
come
up
about
noise
or
air
quality
or
whatever
just
making
a
decision
based
on
the
vagueness
of
the
cost.
Estimates
that
we
have
at
this
time
seems
absolutely
ludicrous
to
me
when
we
don't
have
even
a
remote
dollar
figure
on
what
these
locations
might
mean
from
a
design
perspective.
C
You
know
we're
not
even
sure
yet
if
it's
going
to
be
a
bridge
or
a
tunnel
when
we're
not
when
we're
I'm
hearing,
you
know
it's
gonna
be
a
tunnel
for
the
north
end
of
option
two,
and
it
may
have
an
impact
on
the
Mount
Vernon
trail.
But
then
I'm
hearing
like
on
the
walking
tour
that
we
might
have
to
move
the
Mount
Vernon
trail
tunnel
like
I.
C
C
Two
is
the
best
option
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
one
of
which
is
access
to
Metro,
one
of
which
is
I,
think
it
will
read
as
a
much
more
public
access
to
the
transit
station
versus
something
where
you
have
to
go
approach,
a
private
building
across
the
private
plaza
in
order
to
get
to
the
transit
station.
Another
of
which
is
just
access
to
the
more
amount
of
development
that
is
in
Crystal
City.
R
So
you
could
compare
the
cost
and
you
compare
the
right
of
way
because
the
FTA
has
certain
rules
about
that
have
to
have
similar
alignments
and
compare
the
cost
for
the
similar
alignment,
not
having
a
different
alignment.
So
that's
what
bothers
me
about
making
a
decision
at
this
point.
Well,
we
don't
have
even
a
ballpark
cost
estimate
as
far
as
I
can
see.
R
So
maybe
what
the
Chairman
was
just
suggesting
of
going
through
preliminary
engineering
I,
don't
know
how
much
that
would
cost
to
do
that
to
come
up
with
some
kind
of
a
ballpark
cost
estimate.
I,
don't
know
where
the
money
would
come
from.
I,
don't
even
know
what
the
constraints
are,
but
maybe
that's.
B
That
some
of
the
commissioners
were
talking
about.
The
phase
that
we
do
have
funded
is
our
is
PE,
and
environmental
is
the
next
phase,
so
that
money
has
been
awarded
to
us
and
it's
a
it's
a
particular
amount.
Beyond
that
we
are
looking
for
funding,
we
are
looking
for
funding
for
final
design.
We
will
be
applying
for
a
grant
for
construction,
so
that
amount
is
not
fixed
as
yet.
B
So
if
I
understand
your
concern,
none
of
these
options
are
going
to
be
eliminated
because
of
the
cost
of
construction,
because
we
don't
have
a
finite
budget
for
construction
as
yet,
but
we
do
I
mean
I
do
agree
that
we
do
want
to
get
a
sense
of
the
cost
as
soon
as
possible
and
the
process
that
you
know
we
need
to
follow.
To
get
to
a
point
where
the
cost
of
construction
is
is
a
reasonable.
Reliable
number
is
to
go
through
the
PE
and
and
get
to
that
level
of
design.
Do.
R
Q
We
don't
have
that
estimate
at
this
time.
Well,
we
I
mean
the
cost
estimate
and
the
application
that
we
made
for
the
states
for
the
next
phase
of
projects,
which
is
where
we're
funded
through
PE
was
based
on
a
work
program
for
basically
start
from
the
start
of
the
project
through
conceptual
design
to
the
end
of
P
and
NEPA.
So
we
would
have
to
work
with
VHB.
Who
is
our
contractor
to
come
up
with
a
revised
scope
to
see
what
that
is
because,
obviously
we're
doing
different?
Q
It's
not
just
the
duplication
of
the
work,
but
it's
the
longer.
It
takes
time
and
effort
to
also
make
the
you
to
make
the
to
put
off
the
decision
process
of
where
the
two
brought,
where
the
two
options
come
together.
So
we'd
have
to
look
at
the
overall
scope
to
see
how
much
more
funding
we
would
need
the
source
of
that
funding
coming.
Obviously
we
are.
We
are
grant
funded
organization,
so
the
first
phase
that
we're
doing
right
now
is
through
MBTA.
The
next
phase
is
through
the
state,
our
rail
enhancement
fund.
Q
We
you
know
we
we
want
to
be
at
the
point
where
we
understand
by
you
know
by
the
next
grant
cycle,
for
the
state
grants
we're.
You
know
what
the
engineering
cost
would
be
in
that
based
on
having
a
better
understanding
which
we
expect
by
this
schedule
to
have
by
the
end
of
the
year
of
what
are
those
other
elements
that
we
expect
to
go
in
by
having
a
greater
detail
here.
Q
I
do
want
to
point
out
and
I
brought
up
the
summary
ranking
while
there
is
I
mean,
while
the
cost
effectiveness
effectiveness
of
the
three
options
were
compared
relative
to
each
other.
So
those
are
not
saying
that.
Well,
everything
is
okay
with
option
one.
Everything
is
bad
with
option
three,
and
not
everything
and
and
option.
Two
is
just
right:
that's
a
relative
ranking
an
assessment
of
cost
elements
of
what
we
see:
track,
tunnels
and
bridges
as
being
those
major
elements
and
a
right
and
a
way
and
a
comparison
of
all
three.
Q
If
you
look
at
that
chart,
the
way
I
would
be
interpreting.
This
is
most
of
the
decision
was
made
on
what
gives
you
the
best
local
connections
and
the
regional
connections
and
the
other
two
elements
are
relatively
neutral
with
respect
option
two.
So
this
is
not
a
question
of
going
for
the
lows,
and
even
there
the
cost
elements
are
really
a
question
of
cost-effectiveness,
which,
if
the
benefits
are
the
same,
where,
where,
where
are
the
costs,
where's
where's
the
best
cost
benefit.
R
That's
the
point
that
I'm
getting
at
here,
because
when
you
look
at
the
FTAA
process
for
light
rail
or
streetcars,
they
give
you
the
two
estimates
I
mean
you're
required.
Then
you
of
course,
I
mean
the
process
requires
that
light.
Rail
is
compared
with
a
bus
option
or
a
bus,
rapid
transit
option,
or
something
like
that,
so
that
the
decision
makers
have
something
to
compare.
R
So
you
look
at
the
benefits,
other
benefits
of,
say,
nonstop
bus
service
versus
a
streetcar
which
has
to
stop
so
there
are
other
issues
involved,
but
you
have
the
cost
upfront
at
least
some
estimate
there,
and
then
they
then
that's
refined
and
that's
what
I
find
troubling
about
this.
Is
that
selecting
an
option
without
that
information?
It.
Q
I've
done
plenty
of
alternatives,
analysis,
so
I
agree
with
you,
but
I
have
done.
Many
call
terms:
analysis
where
the
choice
between
modes
is
based
on
not
a
full
development
of
engineering
of
each
option,
but
in
an
understanding
of
the
general
cost
of
each
and
that's
effectively.
What
we
have
done
here
and
that's
where
places
like
Hudson
burg
and
light
rail
and
other
places
became,
became
reality.
R
T
Q
R
Q
R
Q
We
we
could,
we
could
spend
more
money,
although,
as
I
said,
the
data
hasn't
changed.
So
would
we
mulling
over
in
greater
detail
the
data
that
we've
already
considered,
but
at
the
cost
of
not
being
able
to
go
as
fur
throw
into
depth
or
like
the
smell
I
use
the
sound
as
an
example,
because
we
had,
we
didn't
have
the
budget
down
to
a
penny
when
the
eat,
the
sound
and
noise
and
vibration
became
an
issue.
Q
We
could
move
that
into
this
phase
of
the
study
and
follow
that
you
know
follow
the
analysis
wherever
what
we
learn
leads
us,
don't
know
what
we're
gonna
learn
in
PE.
It's
a
journey.
We
want
to
invite
everybody
along
on,
but
we
don't
know
what
that
is
and
if
it
brings
up,
if
air
quality
becomes
a,
for
example,
a
greater
than
expected
situation
how
we
mitigate
that
is
going
to
factor
into
it's
going
to
factor
into
how
much
so
we
set
up
these
budgets
with
some
contingency
to
look
into
we're.
V
S
V
F
C
F
C
C
R
C
C
All
right
now
we
vote
on
the
motion
as
amended,
so
which
is
you
move
that
the
Transportation
Commission
recommends
that
the
county
board
support
solely
option
two
as
the
station
location
for
the
VRA
next
phase
of
the
project,
development,
which
would
involve
preliminary
engineering,
environmental
analysis
and
additional
community
engagement.
All
those
in
favor
of
that
motion.