Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

Are the notes in the agenda or slides link?

They only actually included meeting notes for one meeting and then never did it again. All you get our the slides that don't give you much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

Yes, Slide 12.

My point is that I think the references to "Top Changes by School" refer to individual boundary changes, rather than all the changes affecting a school.

So let's say there are five changes affecting McLean (one involving McLean to Langley, one involving McLean to Falls Church, one involving McLean to Marshall, and two involving Marshall to McLean). I think the reference to McLean on Slide 12 just relates to the proposed move of 201 kids living in the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley. I don't think it tells you anything about whether they'll carry forward the other changes in the October maps, only that the other changes were less significant in terms of distance/time.

When it comes to moving Timber Lane kids from McLean to Falls Church, it's clearly a shorter distance, but it's probably neutral or even longer in terms of commuting time because kids would be crossing two major roads rather than one.

The fact that they used the term "Scenario 4" in their slide deck creates added confusion, because they've also referred to "Scenario 4" as what will be presented in October. But I'm reading this mean that they wanted to focus on some of the outliers that would have the most impact on commuting time/distance before they release "Scenario 4" in October. At least I hope that's the case for the sake of the Chantilly folks, because they've argued strenuously they don't want a much longer commute to Oakton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

I don't think so? Because if you add up the number of kids being moved on that slide, it's about half of the total 4,800 or so kids who will be moved under Scenario 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

Yes, Slide 12.

My point is that I think the references to "Top Changes by School" refer to individual boundary changes, rather than all the changes affecting a school.

So let's say there are five changes affecting McLean (one involving McLean to Langley, one involving McLean to Falls Church, one involving McLean to Marshall, and two involving Marshall to McLean). I think the reference to McLean on Slide 12 just relates to the proposed move of 201 kids living in the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley. I don't think it tells you anything about whether they'll carry forward the other changes in the October maps, only that the other changes were less significant in terms of distance/time.

When it comes to moving Timber Lane kids from McLean to Falls Church, it's clearly a shorter distance, but it's probably neutral or even longer in terms of commuting time because kids would be crossing two major roads rather than one.

The fact that they used the term "Scenario 4" in their slide deck creates added confusion, because they've also referred to "Scenario 4" as what will be presented in October. But I'm reading this mean that they wanted to focus on some of the outliers that would have the most impact on commuting time/distance before they release "Scenario 4" in October. At least I hope that's the case for the sake of the Chantilly folks, because they've argued strenuously they don't want a much longer commute to Oakton.

The Chantilly one doesn't have the *asterick denoting "These will be reverted based on conversation today." near it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

It’s the old school being reassigned elsewhere. Only the top and bottom 10 schools are listed to demonstrate the extremes of impact. All other schools will fall somewhere in between that range of +/- 1.5 minute change to their commute time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

Yes, Slide 12.

My point is that I think the references to "Top Changes by School" refer to individual boundary changes, rather than all the changes affecting a school.

So let's say there are five changes affecting McLean (one involving McLean to Langley, one involving McLean to Falls Church, one involving McLean to Marshall, and two involving Marshall to McLean). I think the reference to McLean on Slide 12 just relates to the proposed move of 201 kids living in the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley. I don't think it tells you anything about whether they'll carry forward the other changes in the October maps, only that the other changes were less significant in terms of distance/time.

When it comes to moving Timber Lane kids from McLean to Falls Church, it's clearly a shorter distance, but it's probably neutral or even longer in terms of commuting time because kids would be crossing two major roads rather than one.

The fact that they used the term "Scenario 4" in their slide deck creates added confusion, because they've also referred to "Scenario 4" as what will be presented in October. But I'm reading this mean that they wanted to focus on some of the outliers that would have the most impact on commuting time/distance before they release "Scenario 4" in October. At least I hope that's the case for the sake of the Chantilly folks, because they've argued strenuously they don't want a much longer commute to Oakton.

The Chantilly one doesn't have the *asterick denoting "These will be reverted based on conversation today." near it.

That is yet another example of the lack of clarity surrounding all this. It could be a conversation with BRAC members on 9/24. It could be a conversation with someone in FCPS staff earlier in the day before the meeting. Most are left guessing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

Yes, Slide 12.

My point is that I think the references to "Top Changes by School" refer to individual boundary changes, rather than all the changes affecting a school.

So let's say there are five changes affecting McLean (one involving McLean to Langley, one involving McLean to Falls Church, one involving McLean to Marshall, and two involving Marshall to McLean). I think the reference to McLean on Slide 12 just relates to the proposed move of 201 kids living in the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley. I don't think it tells you anything about whether they'll carry forward the other changes in the October maps, only that the other changes were less significant in terms of distance/time.

When it comes to moving Timber Lane kids from McLean to Falls Church, it's clearly a shorter distance, but it's probably neutral or even longer in terms of commuting time because kids would be crossing two major roads rather than one.

The fact that they used the term "Scenario 4" in their slide deck creates added confusion, because they've also referred to "Scenario 4" as what will be presented in October. But I'm reading this mean that they wanted to focus on some of the outliers that would have the most impact on commuting time/distance before they release "Scenario 4" in October. At least I hope that's the case for the sake of the Chantilly folks, because they've argued strenuously they don't want a much longer commute to Oakton.

The Chantilly one doesn't have the *asterick denoting "These will be reverted based on conversation today." near it.

And on slide 8 it says "All increases over 3.1 miles (42) are attributable to the Chantilly HS to Oakton HS move."

The boundary change proposed in Scenario 3 would result in a -1.5 mile change in driving distance for one of my kids' schools. That would put it among the top 10 decreases, but it's not listed on slide 12. I wonder if that means they got rid of the change in Scenario 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?