Report a Comment

I said Tysons has LESS amenities than R-B, which is why it is prudent to believe that most of the people willing to dish out higher rent cost than R-B do so out of necessity to live near their job. Otherwise they would live in R-B closer to where they work if they didnt work in Tysons, get better amenities, and it would cost less.

This is a major flaw in the logic of Tysons planners. Why would someone sadistically live in a more expensive place that has less amenities unless the main reason was because of all the jobs there. With that reasoning, it's not crazy to think that many of these NEW people will not be SOVs at the rates we see today.

As far as people came up with this with alot of planning etc. Thats fine, I am not against the master plan, what I am against is the mind set that you are reinstating, that it has been agreed therefore, like some sort of doomsday clock, the plans MUST go forward as planned. No one knows what is gonna happen over the next 40 years in this area, lets set aside the funds, but use some sort of in situ knowledge instead of relying on planning studies when addressing our needs.

Two scenarios arise

1) We use the money as table 7 indicates when appropriate to build stuff, not all in advance in the anticipation of some future congestion apocalypse.

2) We find out some of the improvements aren't needed, by waiting to see how conditions are, we have a windfall of tax revenue which we can reserve or if we feel that the predictions were simply off, redistribute to other needs.

Whats so wrong with that concept?

by Tysons Engineer on Jun 26, 2012 10:11 am • link • report