Report a Comment

@tmt

IIUC the plan proposed 100,000 residents in Tysons. If only 44,000 are employed in tysons, that implies the majority are either not employed, or are employed outside tysons. I doubt that Tysons will draw many retirees or children, given the housing costs and amenity mix. I also doubt it will draw many households without at least one person employed in Tysons, given the housing cost and amenity mix.

I would suggest either the 44,000 is low, or the 100,000 is high.

I have no objection to planning for road expansions, including the widening of Rte 7 into a superhighway. However I do not want that implemented until needed. And I do not want the determination of need to be based purely on level of service and related criteria, but also on evidence that poor LOS on Rte 7 is actually restraining growth in Tysons, and not primarily leading to diversion to DTR and to non SOV modes.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 27, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam