Public Spaces
Don't cut new Tysons Corner in two
Fairfax County is planning to turn Tysons into a dense, walkable, urban center. This transformation will include the creation of street grid and better bike and pedestrian facilities. But two major thoroughfares will weaken pedestrian circulation and divide the new Tysons in two.
Photo by VaDOT on Flickr.
Route 123 and Route 7 are major 6-lane roads running through the heart of Tysons Corner. The Silver Line will run along portions of either road, meaning that many pedestrians will be entering Tysons along these arteries.
But the construction of the Silver Line through Tysons Corner isn't the only work being done in the corridor. Fairfax County is currently widening Route 123 from 6 to 8 lanes.
The creation of a grid of streets coupled with bike/ped improvements is necessary to facilitate movement within an urban Tysons, particularly to and from the metro stations. The widening of 123, however, moves Tysons Corner in the opposite direction.
As a pedestrian, crossing 6 lanes of a major arterial road can be daunting. Adding an additional lane in each direction can make it even more difficult. Since Route 123 runs parallel to the Silver Line through the middle of Tysons, residents and employees will inevitably need to cross this busy street.
Route 123 in Tysons Corner. Image from Google Street View.
Last night the National Building Museum hosted an event on the Tysons redevelopment plan. Matt Ladd, a Fairfax County planner, said that lanes on 123 are 12 feet wide. The plan calls for a reduction to 11 feet, but that still means pedestrians would have to cross an 88-foot road, not counting any turn lanes.
This certainly isn't impossible. Infrastructure improvements like pedestrian islands and leading pedestrian intervals can make crossing easier. The problem is that crossing major streets like this isn't attractive and it makes for a pedestrian-hostile space.
Ladd also mentioned that the county's plan calls for wide sidewalks and a double row of trees along 123. These additions will make walking along the road more pleasant but don't make it any easier to cross.
Crossing 123 will be even more difficult at the Tysons Central 7 metro station because the tracks are at grade. Pedestrians will either have to cross over or under the tracks to get from side to side. Again, this isn't an impossible scenario. But if the county wants to make Tysons a walkable, accessible urban space, it will have to solve these barrier problems.
Today's Tysons lacks any real neighborhoods, in large part because of wide roads, on-ramps, mega-blocks, parking garages, and other major built environment factors that break up any coherent community. The new urban Tysons will overcome some of these, but a major 8-lane highway will act as an abrupt and unnatural edge to any future neighborhoods or districts that will stunt their growth and weaken them.
If residents find it too difficult or unpleasant to cross major roads, they may choose to patronize businesses on their side or use parks that are easier to reach. The physical division can also create social divisions and isolate communities.
The county can't just rip up state highways, so the roads will always be an issue. But planners must be careful to prevent the roads from becoming enormous barriers to a true urban space. The county could narrow the lanes further and convert one lane for street parking.
Ladd suggested that because the county is planning for redevelopment over 40 years, these options could become a reality at some point. Hopefully the county doesn't wait that long to solve the problem. Encouraging strong urban growth in a transit-oriented Tysons Corner should be a priority now, not decades down the road.
 | Jamie Scott is a resident of Ward 3 in DC and a regular Metrobus commuter. He believes in good government, livable communities and quality public transit. Jamie holds a B.A. in Government from Georgetown University and is currently pursuing a Masters in Public Policy at Georgetown.   |
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
They need to if anything change 123 and route 7 within the city to 11', get rid of the 3rd lane for vehicles, take 6 of those feet on each side of the road and provide it to a wide plaza style median, then take the other 6' on each side of the road and provide a dedicated bike lane.
Boom, a better road system without needing 1.2 billion dollars of funding. The ROW is already there, and they are just ignorant about "helping" the community. Oh and also, by having route 123 and route 7 be congested more people will opt to take that BRAND NEW METRO that we have been waiting for 30 years for.
Thank you for covering this, I am definitely going to discuss on www.thetysonscorner.com also and maybe try to get a grass routes petition going (the problem being the actual residents of Tysons always get outvoted by people who want a shorter commute for their job in Tysons. If anyone is interested in joining up for a petition on this let us know please because this is beyond foolish.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 12:35 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Jan 26, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report
I wonder if the attitude about that area will ever change with all of these improvements. Is all this work just putting a band-aid on a severed limb?
by Tom A. on Jan 26, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report
by Nick on Jan 26, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report
I'm no fan of very wide roads in high density places. I presume the 123 widening is a response to poor LOS on rte 123 (which is not likely to change much with the Silver Line, esp with the expected growth) IF the new Tysons begins to succeed, and wins over converts to urbanism in the county, I think it will not be hard to make the case for adding BRT/LRT to rte 123.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 26, 2012 1:33 pm • link • report
Anyone who says "oh screw it" lets focus elsewhere doesnt understand what the point of Tysons is. A city is defined 1st by its economic opportunity and diversity, 2nd by its infrastructure, and 3rd by its community and aesthetics.
Its a rarity to have a place that has such strong dynamics on the 1st part, and its not just federal contractors, look around Tysons and you'll see there are dozens of big non-fortune 500 companies there doing all sorts of stuff. To dismiss it to being just a work jungle short sells what it can become.
Now its adding a better infrastructure (although this road will ruin that point), infrastructure is more than just roads and utilities, its also proper land usage. The biggest deterrent to traffic is creating a shorter travel distance and time NOT by just creating more and more transportation which eventually has a point of diminishing return.
Lastly is creating a place that finally pulls all those elements together and makes people want to live there, Tysons is more than just the mall, maybe instead of driving out to Tysons to use the mall you should drive around it. I live on Westpark, it has nothing do to with the mall, its located within half a mile to 2 of the new metros, its road is appropriately sized with 2 lanes and a nice sidewalk and park feel and has highrises along it (and more to come already being constructed).
I don't know why there is so much animosity towards Tysons Corner, what is so wrong with wanting to take all those jobs, and make a community out of them. Its better than taking a ton of suburban homes in a sprawl and trying to make business out of them isnt it? People love watching HGTV cause of the fixer uppers, well look at Tysons as a house that had its priorities all out of whack and now a new owner has come in and realizes hes gotta do some work on the foundation not just the bells and whistles... I think people should support that idea.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report
this is in the task force report
"The Task Force also recommends the modification of the existing Route 7/Route 123 interchange to accommodate pedestrians, such as an urban diamond."
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 26, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Jan 26, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report
don't we now know what Tysons will look like -- I mean the developers have all put their plans forward. I suspect if you put it all together it will be hell getting around on foot.
I think downtwon Mclean is a better candidate for a pedestrian friendly city.
by charlie on Jan 26, 2012 1:51 pm • link • report
Not for all the buildable lots, not AFAIK. Only for a few currently planned developments which is far from what the area can take under build out.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 26, 2012 1:56 pm • link • report
by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Jan 26, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report
Tysons is on the right track, the projects that are being approved, Spring Hill Station, Tysons West, Park Crest are getting it right. They are making higher density, better road networks, and better attractions for the people who live in Tysons.
My point is that its a house under repair, its a fixer upper, but its also a great opportunity to create a real urban center for NOVA, something that can't be done in Arlington and DC due to height restrictions. The best thing for pedestrian safety is to have people stop driving 20 miles to work, and stopping the design of areas to accomodate that unsustainable lifestyle. To that point, the biggest effort should be to get people to live in Tysons. When you have that, the traffic will reduce, the priority for roads will decrease, and the businesses will thrive even more so. This is true transportation engineer brought to you by an actual civil engineer, not a politician.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report
In terms of the overall master plan, my point was more a question. Given we have the development plans, we should know what Tysosn will look like (95% accuracy) in a few years. from the few plans I've seen on GGW, it doesn't look very urban and/or pedestrian. I could very well be wrong on this; some of the plans look urban, but others don't, and it is moving from one to another that counts.
by charlie on Jan 26, 2012 2:08 pm • link • report
The projects that are in right now are a tip of the iceberg compared to how much developable area is remaining. No one has even discussed Pimmit Hills in Tysons, only briefly discussed Tysons Blvd, Tysons II development by Lerner is going to have 2 new 30 story condos along 123 coming soon, and we have been pushing them to consider a reduction of road width along that part of the project.
The point being, the plans are in its infancy, more like 10% of what Tysons could look like in 10-20 years. They only approved the urban design guidelines last week so its still a process in its birth pains. These kind of discussions are the reason why there is still opportunity for new concepts and ideas in Tysons and as a resident and optimist my goal is to form a grass roots campaign for smarter decisions from the start to avoid the pit falls of other regions that tried similar things. (NO ONE WANTS HOUSTON IN NOVA)
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report
Contrary to some people's belief, blowing up Tysons and re-making it in the vision of Dupont or Clarendon isn't the best investment. The challenge in Tysons is vastly different than challenges faced anywhere else to-date. If we can break new ground with new types of hybrid solutions tailored to the situation, it would have vast applicability to other edge cities around the country.
Now, as for the specific problem this article aims to address, I agree, 123 shouldn't be widened. But, that's a losing argument. Money is available for widening, it's in the plan, and many Fairfax residents (perhaps in ignorance) like the idea of wider roads since most of them drive everywhere in general, and to Tysons in particular.
I think a more practical solution, although far from perfect, is to accept the reality of a wider road and lobby for traffic calming. How about making the speed limit 25 mph on 123 and Rt. 7 in Tysons, just like the (strictly enforced) speed limit on Rt. 7 in Falls Church city? The argument is a more legitimate one -- "safety" instead of "walkability/urbanism". You can also play the all important "what about the children -- won't anyone please think of the children!" card, which is an ace in family-oriented Fairfax.
by Falls Church on Jan 26, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report
Pimmit Hills was protected against redevelopment because that is what the residents wanted. One of the stated goals of the Board of Supervisors was to protect nearby neighborhoods from the negative impacts of urban development.
Route 7 and 123 are highways that are part of the state and federal highway system. They carry significant amounts of through traffic today and will do so in the future. State and federal regulations prohibit turning the roads into boulevards or having on-street parking. Fairfax County is following the regulations. Those roads will create barriers against easy pedestrian crossing. But everyone knew this going forward. One thing many people do not know is that most of the road widening projects were required under the 1994 revision to the Tysons Comp Plan.
As I've posted in the past, Falls Church seems to understand Tysons better than most. Moreover, there is no stomach among County officials to revisit the Plan. It might be tweaked a bit over time, but no one wants to go through this process again for a long time. What you see is what you get. The roads are not going to be narrowed, but supplemented with the grid of streets.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 26, 2012 3:15 pm • link • report
That's why we need traffic calming measures like the proper placement and timing of lights, narrowing lanes even further, raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, textured pavements, speed tables, other calming measures that engineers come up with, and speed cameras...lots and lots of speed cameras. If one trip through Tysons at high speed means getting three separate speed camera tickets, trust me, people will slow down.
Through infamously strict enforcement, Falls Church city is pretty successful at getting folks to slow down to 25mph, although Rt.7 is pretty narrow their.
by Falls Church on Jan 26, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
that would suggest that current state and federal regs may block desirable changes in situations like this. Theres a federal task force on livable communities thats supposed to address issues precisely like this. I don't know if the Commonwealth has something similar.
Its not like regulations can't be changed.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 26, 2012 3:25 pm • link • report
Interesting...how exactly do they define a "boulevard"? Clearly, the prohibition couldn't stop Tysons from implementing a strictly enforced 25mph because they already do that in Falls Church on 7. Would certain types of traffic calming devices be prohibited?
by Falls Church on Jan 26, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report
1) The county said that the new comprehensive plan and urban design guidelines will be an organic design subject to modification through the next 50 years, so to say they wont be revisiting it is a bit defeatist.
2) Last time I checked 123 and route 7 are absolutely not under federal jurisdiction. Now as far as the state, yes they play a part in this, but over the past 2 years they have been saying more and more to the counties to take over their own roads, and seeing as for the most part rt 7 and 123 are basically fairfax and to a tiny extent loudoun counties babies these are likely the first to fall to the looming specter of devolution.
Speaking of devolution, THANK GOD! Its about time the counties start taking account for these roads and making the right decisions for their own residents instead of trying to satisfy exurbers with massive highways gutting our communities.
The point remains these roads are the biggest mistake the county can make, and the residents of Pimmit Hills and Falls Church are going to be the victims when all the investment money falls to the Tysons II side of 123 and no reinvestment goes towards the Tysons I side of Tysons. This is the classic urban "tracks" scenario in its birth and mark my words you will have all the typical boundary problems that you see in other scarred cities in 20 years. High crime and the boundary areas, resentment of citizens towards each other, and widely segregated ethnic groups. As a resident of Tysons I dont want this as our future and I'm tired of our city being abused for the "right" of commuters to live in Ashburn and take all of our jobs. Also as a transportation engineer I can tell you that widening of a road from 6 lanes to 8 lanes isnt going to do anything especially since McLean will never allow a widening. There have been hundreds of studies showing that maintaining a consistent road section through out has a much better impact to traffic than artificially loading up a road with extra lanes that eventually zipper to a smaller section.
We need to change this mentality people, bigger roads doesnt mean less congestion, the past 40 years has shown that bigger roads means MORE traffic.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report
Route 50 has a few up already, I don't see why this has to turn into a huge discussion about Tysons Corner and bad urban planning?
by LuvDusty on Jan 26, 2012 3:44 pm • link • report
So, even if you keep it at 6 lanes, I don't know if you've done much to solve the barrier problem unless you calm traffic. I don't see many people walking across those roads today in their current 6 lane configuration.
by Falls Church on Jan 26, 2012 3:44 pm • link • report
This is why people slow down, not because the speed limit is posted as slower. If you have a long stretch of road with 8 lanes, regardless of the lights, people will feel that they want to go 50 or 60 mph. Ask any cop on FFX county parkway and they will tell you, even in the sections that do have lights, people want to treat it as if its a mega highway and go 80 mph.
Traffic calming comes by more than requiring a speed limit, it comes from the design of the roads themselves. I would say lets put a traffic circle at 123 and 7 but man I really think traffic circles are more trouble than their worth, especially when you have out of towners gunking them all up.
I still think if you just make the scale of the roads smaller you can save money by not requiring additional ROW, and you can make nice logical intersections that can work. Either that or provide a 20' wide median which essentially turns the 1 road with its 8 lanes into 2 roads with 4 lanes... which I guess is the way they are leaning.
I dunno... can't we put a tunnel at 123 and route 7 like dupont? that would just make life easier, all the exurbers can come and steal our jobs, and all the residents can walk on the nice areas on top (without roads no traffic circle).
If I raise 500 million dollars in support of this, will you guys join along haha. Sigh, now I feel sad about this whole discussion (way to drain my optimism).
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 3:51 pm • link • report
Will the County revisit the Tysons Plan before 50 years? Sure, but it will not be looking at any significant changes for the foreseeable future. The compromise was too delicate to open up at this point in time. If someone says "I want X," then everyone else will say "I want Y, Z, A, B & C."
You are correct in that McLean will not accept widening of 123, but wants Route 7 widened west of Tysons. But 123 is scheduled to be widened to the Dulles Toll Road to handle traffic heading to and from the Beltway and the Dulles Toll Road.
I believe most resideents of Pimmit Hills do not want any encrochment from Tysons and that Supervisor Smith understands and supports this.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 26, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report
May I ask who you work for and where your position on this stems from btw? Because you're clearly intelligent enough to speak on the subject but are avoiding discussion of the actual issue itself, the transportation network as a whole (not just vehicle traffic). I would enjoy discussing further off line as you I think discussion between opposing views is very helpful to understanding each persons point of view.
At the end of the day, I-66 is 10 lanes wide for 80% of the "traffic area" and yet it is considered the worst of the worst federal emergency routes for the city... and it was evident 1 year ago to this date when a small (though intense) snow storm crippled our federal emergency routes and roadways... know what got people home? Rail and walking.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 4:48 pm • link • report
I think Tysons will generate the automobile traffic and, therefore, there is a huge need to ensure the roads can handle the traffic. From a McLean perspective (and I live in McLean), getting as much traffic on a widened Route 7 heading west, the Beltway and the Toll Road is important. The last thing we want is more traffic on McLean streets.
One thing that would help is a parking tax applicable to Tysons, with some possible adjustment for mall shoppers. The use of jitney-type buses from nearby areas into Tysons would also help considerably, IMO.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 26, 2012 5:02 pm • link • report
Ok, so let me give you a quick lesson in traffic engineering. As a background this was my life for 4 years, and I know the mechanics of the programs being used, and the short sightedness of these models. So why do models always tell us to widen roads?
1) When a model is created it usually has a study region, for many reasons, that study region is generally created to understand a point vs source analysis. IE in an analysis of Tysons, they dont include most of McLean or Arlington or Falls Church. When they set up the model, the create a demand (center of tysons offices) and a source (15% from route 7 via 66, 15% from 123, 30% from toll road, and 40% from 495) for example. Those numbers are always of course based on current characteristics, they in no way (atleast sizeably) focus on land use changes, other modes of transportation, or other systems that are far to complicated for a computer program to understand. So false assumptions is one problem in VDOT models.
2) When the model is created, it treats all vehicles as genius drivers who will equilibrially disperse into their lanes, find perfect gap acceptances to merge in perfect timing away from ramp lanes and acceleration lanes, and never play cutsies in order to get around people. When these models are complete, wow!!! by adding a 4th lane we get 30% more capacity. In reality this 4th lane, or 3rd lane for that matter, in empirical studies over the past 40 years has shown time and time again the real results are far less.
3) Because of the way the model is set up (analyze ROAD A) the model does not fully comprehend the network as a whole. The purpose is to simply see what happens to 123, to that point the models rarely are created to see what happens if lanes were taken away and more options, ie more roads and a block grid system, were incorporated. Now most non-traffic engineers scream and go OH!!! NOOOO I dont want street lights!!, but the truth is when you have more options in direction traffic as a whole operates better. As it is now we are going to be creating a 4th lane to essentially stack an extra 50 cars between lights on 123 every 3 minutes between light. 50 extra cars moving every 3 minutes IS NOTHING in rush hour.
So what is my point? If the models were correctly analyzed the DOT would realize that 123 is not a through road, no one in their right mind would consider taking 123 from Vienna through Tysons to get somewhere else, people on 123 are dealing with Dante's journey through hell because they have to, they have to get to Tysons to work, not McLean, not Vienna, and not anywhere else. Why else would they not just use one of the other through roads otherwise like 267 to 123 to old dominion if they are going to Arlington, or 267 to hunter mill, etc.
Therefore its clear 123 is not a through road, it is a collector. What is the difference? A collector has to understand that it has dozens of point demands, ie people need to make many decisions on where to get on it. By increasing the capacity of the actual road you are ignoring the true cause of the congestion, the demand selections themselves. By providing people more options off of 123 you attain much better flow of the system overall.
How to demonstrate this in the physical world? Imagine you have a 4" piece of pipe and you are sending water through it. As long as the water is going from one end to the other, the model is simple (like a through system), by increasing the size of the pipe you directly impact its capability even if you go from a 4" to 6" back to 4" you do actually improve the flow in the pipe. Now instead imagine that on that 4" pipe you have 6 or 8 2" pipes that are asking for a distinct amount of water from that pipe at each point. Now if you take that 4" pipe and make that portion with the 2" pipes 6" wide you improve the system, but marginally. Take that same scenario, keep the central pipe 4" and add a bunch of secondary routes that connect the whole demand source in a grid and you now see that your friction and velocity in the system have improved and the network as a whole can carry a much greater capacity.
I look forward to discussing with you.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 5:51 pm • link • report
by Douglas Willinger on Jan 26, 2012 7:51 pm • link • report
by ceefer66 on Jan 26, 2012 7:59 pm • link • report
Like I've said before, it would be inaccurate to judge a location by looking 1) at a construction site and 2) at its underbelly, ie its infrastructure.
I dont think it looks very bad, in fact to me it looks beautiful because it means that Fairfax just increased its metro accessibility by 50% and now can serve a new population of hundreds of thousands. It means that when it opens those people can use it instead of I-66 and 495 to get into the city and Tysons and Arlington. It means when gas spikes at 6 dollars (which most experts say there is a 99% chance to happen to some extent in the next 5 years) that people won't have to choose between gas for their car or food for their families.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 26, 2012 8:36 pm • link • report
TMT/Tysons Engineer: though both 7 and 123 are part of the "National Highway System" (or NHS) as TMT pointed out, they are not federal highways per se. They are still owned and maintained by VDOT. NHS is more a funding category than anything else...routes on the NHS are eligible for a specific FHWA funding category created by Congress in 1995. FHWA policies/regulations of course need to be followed for any road project involving Federal highway money, but to say those routes are federal highways is a misnomer.
by Froggie on Jan 27, 2012 6:48 am • link • report
by mg on Jan 27, 2012 7:55 am • link • report
Routes 7 and 123 are listed as part of the federal highway system by US DOT. I don't know whether this makes them federal highways or not. But Fairfax County DOT has stated it must follow certain federal rules, as well as VDOT rules, for those two roadways. The Tysons Task Force tried to argue for narrowing those roads within Tysons with on-street parking, but were blown off by VDOT.
I'm not sure whether those roads are better described as "collectors," but I have heard FC DOT engineers talk about their use as through routes. As I recall, through traffic on 123 in the Tysons area is 37% and it's somewhat higher on 7. Through traffic is one measurement the County is looking at to establish allocation factors for the transportation improvements. Both FC DOT and VDOT are very cognizant of the need to address through traffic volumes.
FC DOT is working with the landowners and VDOT to analyze traffic impacts not just on a single road, but for all of the roads in and connecting with a TOD area. This takes the 527 TIA process further.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 27, 2012 10:14 am • link • report
by Steve K on Jan 27, 2012 11:00 am • link • report
by mt p on Jan 27, 2012 11:08 am • link • report
When you drive on it at 7am or 4:30pm you're lucky if you go 10mph because the lights turn into stacking lanes and traffic flows only as fast as the lights let through. The system would work better if therefore people had other choices than 123 with more cross streets. Additionally, people who use 123 the most are those who work on international or capital one and release at 5pm to 495 (This jams up everything because of the sudden slug). These commuters should not be designed to, by doing so you are disincentivizing the massive metro project that was built to remove these commuters from the system. Instead now this widening will help people getting off of 495 and 267, hurt pedestrian access, destroy the massing of the urban setting, and hurt the sustainability of ridership on metro
Its lose lose lose everyway you cut it and I refuse to give up on that point and I'll never give up campaigning for removing this expansion even after its built I'll annoy FFX Andy Duffrain style till they fix the problem.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 27, 2012 11:14 am • link • report
The County is betting heavily on the Beltway Express Lanes f/k/a HOT Lanes to help get cars out from Tysons while avoiding 123. Route 7 requires another Outer Loop lane from Route 7 to I-66 heading west.
Dulles Rail was never intended to get commuters off the roads, at least not to improve traffic. If you look at the final EIS for Dulles Rail, most of the roads see no long-term improvement from rail. I asked a VDOT engineer about this and was told the County will allow so much more residential and office construction that all of the gains from rail will be undone. She appears to be correct.
I am not trying to pick a fight, but I have worked on Tysons matters for years and know the plan inside out. The Comp Plan adopted in June 2010 is what will guide Tysons redevelopment for years to come.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 27, 2012 1:09 pm • link • report
I don't think most skeptics are rooting for the Tysons project to fail, I hope it succeeds. But the difference between Tysons and a house is this: we know how to rehabilitate houses. We don't know how to rehabilitate failed urban spaces.
I hope the smart folks who are tackling the problem can manage to untangle the mess, especially in the face of political infighting and inertia. It should be interesting.
by oboe on Jan 27, 2012 1:20 pm • link • report
If you didn't keep focusing on making 495 and 123 and route 7 "bigger" then people would use metro, then it wouldnt be inconsequential. People who are educated and have jobs in urban sectors use metro, northern virginia would be no different if you made it possible for people to do so.
The problem is that NOVA officials built an infrastructure based on the car and now they have to make it work, otherwise why did they spend 2 billion on the mixing bowl, and 2 billion on 95 improvements, etc. Add them all up this area is in deep on sunk costs in road improvements and what has it bought us? Do we all live in a traffic free utopia?
They refuse to admit they were wrong, the models were wrong and now this area will crumble economically to the sheer weight of their decisions because they refuse to stop advocating for this irresponsible use of tax money and resources. All the while opponents of metro scream that millions of dollars of tax money goes to help it remain sustainable, but no one mentions to VDOT and Richmond the fact that billions, and frankly over the course of 40 years, trillions will go towards making roads sustainable in Nova
Whatever, end of the day the only solution to shocking america out of their drug like car habits is to make it economically inefficient to drive a car, I guess to that point lets pray gas finally goes above 5 dollars, then we can all sit around and laugh as the 50 billion dollar infrastructure system around us looks like a ghost town.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 27, 2012 1:30 pm • link • report
The only true urban cores in (Northern) Virginia will continue to to be in Alexandria and Arlington County. Fairfax County will continue to be ugly sprawling suburbia with random office parks placed here and there (unless you consider Reston to be "urban" lol). Even Metro won't change that.
by King Terrapin on Jan 27, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report
how would it become MORE sprawled out under the plan?
Where is a better place to try this IN FAIRFAX county (white flint wont provide tax revenue to FFX).
I dont think it would take 50 - 100 hirises - why do you assume all the gaps must be filled in with hirises - some could be filled in with mid rises.
by AWalkeInTheCity on Jan 27, 2012 2:46 pm • link • report
Now this is not to say that Old Town is not one of my favorite places in this county, but it is clearly not an economic engine nor does it constitute a place where people who live along Route 1 go to work. Also which huge gaps? Can you give examples and I can tell you exactly which areas currently have construction coming?
North of 123 before Route 7 will see very high levels of development. If you are talking about the mall (which most of you people who love LOL'ing about Tysons Corner are usually talking about) then yes, it will remain the land of suck so please go to your White Flint mall instead and stop making my December commutes awful. No one asked your opinion Maryland.
xoxo,
Virginian
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 27, 2012 2:49 pm • link • report
Tysons depends not just on rail, but also major increases in commuter & express buses. But the bottom line is the car is king. Transit cannot handle the number of people planned to live at or work in Tysons. The majority of trips to and from Tysons will continue to be SOV. Cars go where people are and where they want to go. Transit doesn't always do that. Fairfax County needs tax dollars from Tysons and is not going to take actions that purposely hurt Tysons. If people want to drive, they will be accommodated, at least to some extent.
Some people will live in Tysons, but living in Tysons will be very expensive. Even mid-rise buildings (say 4-6 stories) will command heavy rents - $2200-2600 for 800 square feet. A number of builders have told me that they doubt many high rises can be constructed and rented profitably.
I am not a traffic or other type of engineer, but I do know the basics of transportation issues, an awful lot about Tysons transportation and have spoken at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting about Tysons land use planning and transportation.
We all hope Dulles Rail and mixed use development are extremely successful. The more people we get out of their cars and trucks, the better off we are. But Til Hazel made the auto king of Tysons and the reign is going to continue. All of the road widening projects within Tysons and many extending from Tysons will occur.
Thanks for the dialog. I am enjoying it.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 27, 2012 3:24 pm • link • report
If Tysons wants to grow, there is no choice.
SOV cannot hold as the dominant mode, because it is extremely inefficient and low capacity. There's a reason all of the dense places in the world have grown on the backs of transit, walking, and the like.
by Alex B. on Jan 27, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
by alexandria on Jan 27, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
Not quite sure where this came from, but I agree it isn't, it has it's own city jurisdiction. Additionally in much of Old Town VDOT has no jurisdiction (to this point I love Old Town). Not sure who said it was in Fairfax but theres no denying it is in NOVA.
@TMT
Ive enjoyed our discussions as well, I wish there could be a conference for residents, local engineers, local business, without it being under the guise of investment opportunities for the big boy developers. If we could all get in a room and talk out our differences I think we could get to a good point in the concept.
As far as car has to stay king, I just gotta disagree man, Arlington used to have the same kinds of issues, they eventually told VDOT to mind their own business, stopped taking much of the "free state funding" and decided their own future. Ever since removing the umbrella cloud of CAR must come first the entire Arlington network has been working far more efficiently than any other area in the state. In addition Arlington has nearly double the jobs as Tysons Corner and Ten times as many residents? So I think historically there is evidence that car does not have to be king. Another example off the top of my head is manhattans reworking of Times Square, which was thought at the time was going to cripple the city to a hault. Instead what it has done is made retail and commercial space even more alluring in that district and has been a boondoggle, wait for it, not for developers but for the public and the city!
We need to break this concept that wider is better, it hits a point that for the same money we really can start finding better solutions. I am not suggesting metros through Ashburn or The Plains, or any rural area for that matter. The point is we are at the zyneth point of what car investment can do in Tysons why waste any more money squeezing the last drops out of it. Id rather see that money go towards a circulator street car system down route 7 where metro isnt planned. (same scale of cost btw).
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 27, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report
i'm curious you both seem to consider transit and SOV the only options - as usual people overlook car/van pooling. Now that we will have HOT lanes on the beltway that will be free to carpooler, there will be added incentive to carpool. Thats one way to deal with the congestion issues for people for whom transit is not an option.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 27, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report
Answer: Route 1.
by Froggie on Jan 27, 2012 4:22 pm • link • report
Tysons is not like anything anywhere. It has great road access. It lacks almost every other kind of public facilities. Tysons has been and continues to be extremely successful financially. A lot of landowners have paying tenants and aren't going to redevelop for years. Many of them are not interested in helping to finance infrastructure.
The Plan itself is pretty good. It encourages building major density at the four stations and only at the four stations. It puts a lot of pressure on the landowners to make TDM and TOD work. Parking will be paid. But they still need to be competitive with places that have free parking. And the transit split is estimate to be only 17% by 2030. More people equals more car traffic.
Walker - you are absolutely right about car and van pools. They have a great incentive in using the Express Lanes (US DOT's new term for HOT Lanes) free of charge.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 27, 2012 5:05 pm • link • report
by Dan on Jan 27, 2012 5:05 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 27, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report
I appreciate your defense of Tysons, but DC and Arlington do have a lot over us. DC is still the biggest economic engine (although I would argue their lack of diversity puts them in precarious positions of sit and wait every election cycle). Arlington there is no question is what we want to be, theyve done about 95% of the things they should have.
Heres the thing about Arlington, due to its proximity to DC (monument height restrictions) and its proximity to National (flight runway height restrictions), its density is at a point where economically it doesn't make sense to tear down a 15 story building to max out to a 30 story building. This incurs far to much capital cost without as much capital benefit. Now are there places in Arlington that can be densified? yes, and they will be and their sidewalks and roads will be gloriously connected and un"modellably" efficient. But at the end of the day these new projects are the exception, Arlington as it is now MUST stay that way until both National Airport goes away (dont hold your breath) and Arlington breaks its co-relation with DC's architecture fully. Parts of Ballston could build out but are subject to big daddy Rosslyn so far.
To this point, here comes Tysons which while it has market height limits right now, in 10 years it might not, as there really is no reason we couldnt have true urban high rises and super high rises (if market conditions allow). Right now Tysons is in touch and feel stage. One thing is for sure, its economy is strong, and while 50% or more of this economy is directly or 1 offset related to government contracting there is also a substantial portion that is also independent of budgetting in Washington DC. As I've said before in this post, to be a city #1 you got to have jobs, no one comes to live in a city if they dont think they can make money from it (otherwise everyone would live in the french countryside living off the land).
Once you have jobs you need #2 an efficient network backbone for everything from roads, sidewalks, metro to hospitals and schools. Without this, eventually you hit a point of failure in which businesses no longer want to come to you (THIS INCLUDES VIABILITY OF METRO AND ALL FORMS OF TRANSFORMATION INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN!)
#3 you need an identity, culture and aethetics which continues the economic engine by bring new vitality and new young professionals.
You get these 3 things going and you got yourself a city.
On a final note, no one is talking about this but 2 billion dollars has been torn to shreds. Let me point out that this is 2 billion over 50 years. Thats about 40 million a year, and it also includes a growth of inflation on average of 3% so really in today dollars its less. By comparison widening I-66 from gainsville to haymarket which benefitted only exurbers cost 78 million dollars of capital cost and the maintenance cost for State roads in Virginia was 1.7 billion dollars just last year alone and that number continues to grow.
So to the critics you would not spend 40 million dollars a year for 50 years in order to create a second economic engine for the state like Arlington, but continuing to hold roads king for nearly 2 billion dollars a year just on maintenance is perfectly good for the future of our state?
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 27, 2012 5:28 pm • link • report
You're deluded to refer to Tysons as a "failed urban space."
Nothing personal, but if the form of Tysons as it exists was "successful" the local urban planners wouldn't be desperately casting about for some way to prop it up, to keep it from imploding under the weight of its poor design decisions. It's not like snarky urban-dwellers are the ones driving the multi-hundred billion dollar fix-it job.
I hope they fix it, but I think your take on the situation is clearly the outlier. If it's not significantly in the minority, I think fixing the damage is going to be bigger hurdle than many optimists predict.
by oboe on Jan 27, 2012 5:36 pm • link • report
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 27, 2012 5:50 pm • link • report
by Dan on Jan 27, 2012 7:46 pm • link • report
the problem is not that Tysons as it is now will implode. Its that Tysons as it is now doesn't have room to grow, its built out. Meanwhile the Fairfax County's housing stock ages (impacting property values), and the proportion of disadvantaged in the population stays the same or grows. And FFX faces competition for jobs from dc, arlington, moco, AND loudoun. And for residents with esp MoCo and Loudon, but also PWC. The reason FFX county is rebuilding Tysons is to get growth to avoid the possibility of a suburban downward spiral.
Personally Im not sure I would call Tysons successful or unsuccessful. The quality of work life due to the built environment is clearly less than optimal, mostly due to traffic congestion (and lack of options) OTOH the office market remains fairly strong, the mall thrives as few malls in the region do. Its POSSIBLE that conditions will worsen if gas prices rise significantly, but thats the future, not today, and Tysons could take a significant hit to market clearing office rents and still be far from a ghost town.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 28, 2012 9:24 am • link • report
I think that Tysons economic impact will continue, but is beginning to be stifled by the congestion. The negative would be that Tysons stays stagnant where it is and never really becomes Arlington. If that happens the public will have only invested 1.5 billion dollars into that investment (as 2.5 billion dollars is paid for by private developers/MWAA) and I dont include HOT Lanes since theoretically Fluor owns it until it makes a profit.
Frankly that 1.5 billion will be recovered over time. If it succeeds though the state as a whole could begin to really start showing its economic might with the connection of Arlington, Reston, Fairfax, and Tysons and 1.5 billion dollars will look like the easiest decision ever made.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 28, 2012 9:42 am • link • report
Tysons Engineer is correct; traffic congestion is the biggest threat to its continued success. That's why there is such a critical need for the road improvements.
It will be a very difficult sale for the BoS to get significant local tax contributions for Tysons. Many people see the real estate gains privatized (as they should be), but the cost of the infrastructure is borne, in significant part, by the public. Also, people in other parts of the county don't see direct benefit from the roads in Tysons. They want to see improvements in their communities.
Clearly commercial real estate pays more in taxes than it draws in services. However, most people in Fairfax County have seen major increases in their real estate taxes that have outstripped growth in personal income, inflation or population. Saying pay more now to keep the engine going is not an easy sell to either Democrats or Republicans.
One thing that many people outside the county don't understand is that preventing sprawl is extremely low on the list of residents' priorities. Pushing growth outside Fairfax County would please a clear and strong majority of county residents. Growth outside the county means someone else has to build the schools, etc.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 28, 2012 10:19 am • link • report
While Tysons may be a failure as an urban space, it's a huge huge success as a suburban space. The question now is how do we transform it into something entirely new -- something that is neither truly urban nor suburban. You're exactly right, this has never been done before and planners, engineers, and everyone involved are breaking new ground in their respective fields. But, this is an incredibly important challenge to solve (not just for Tysons but for all the edge cities around the country that will follow) and as the most innovative country in the world, I'm confident we can come up with a solution. Think of this as the Manhattan Project for the planning world -- crack this nut, and you have the potential to create an entirely new branch of planning/engineering with huge applicability.
by Falls Church on Jan 28, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report
Tysons Engineer, I applaud your dedication and enthusiasm. Tysons needs people with your energy and motivation to come up with innovative solutions to its unique situation.
That said, I want to make sure you understand the politics at hand because sometimes simply being "right" isn't enough to get something done. Your best argument for not widening 123 is one you've mentioned -- you'd rather spend the money widening other streets. With the money spent adding two lanes to one road, you could add two lanes to three or four different roads. Don't be the "anti-widening" guy, be the "pro-widening" guy who just wants to widen different streets. Make your argument about improving traffic flow and making it easier to drive around Tysons, not about walkability.
If someone at VDOT took an engineering class and a planning class they would see that...
They refuse to admit they were wrong, the models were wrong and now this area will crumble economically to the sheer weight of their decisions because they refuse to stop advocating for this irresponsible use of tax money and resources.
Whatever, end of the day the only solution to shocking america out of their drug like car habits is to make it economically inefficient to drive a car, I guess to that point lets pray gas finally goes above 5 dollars
Here's a tip. If you don't want to be dismissed as a crack pot (which you're not...you're clearly very educated on the issues) then don't say things like the above.
by Falls Church on Jan 28, 2012 1:11 pm • link • report
That's why I still think that with the right traffic calming measures like proper placement and timing of lights, you can get people to slow down, even when it's not peak rush hour. Cars will naturally slow down when there are lights that make them stop every small distance and when cars stack up behind those lights. Sure, FFX drivers don't like the idea of more lights and speed cameras but if you say they will be designed to slow you down only to 25 mph, they'll say "sweet! 25mph is faster than I'm able to go through Tysons today!".
by Falls Church on Jan 28, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report
One other tip. On rare occasion you can win an arguments by annoying people into submission. But, usually that strategy backfires.
Also, if you want the powers that be to compromise, you better show yourself as willing to compromise as well. Otherwise, your chance of ending up in a stalemate/standoff are very high.
by Falls Church on Jan 28, 2012 1:55 pm • link • report
I will heed your advice and be open to compromise, I hate when politicians refuse to compromise, so I would hate to be a better than thou advocate. I agree the better discussion is, where else would this money be better served, rather than lets destroy every road every where. Roads do serve a purpose especially in lower assessed land value regions where roads are the most economic form of transportation. I will never relent on the fact that the heart of Tysons specific does not need an 8-lane, all be it traffic calmed, highway.
I hope people will join the petition on Monday (see our website monday morning) and I hope GGW will also support it.
Thank you GGW for hosting a discussion which has gotten me to this boiling point that I go from bystander to citizen activist (though yet to be proven).
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 28, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report
Also, you are dealing with one of the least expensive parts of Table 7. The new estimates for this widening actually came down by $20 million from $48 million to $28 million. Given the fact that 123 has already been widened between the DTR and 495, I think arguing don't widen it between 495 and 7 will be extremely challenging.
I would not argue for traffic calming or adding more lights to slow traffic. The County and the stakeholders want traffic to move out of Tysons as quickly as possible.
The County looked heavily at Arlington and learned from its mistakes in Vienna and Merrifield. The 527 was quited detailed; state law requires individual 527 filings for most rezonings; and the County has added as step by studying traffic within each TOD area and how they interrelate to each other. As an engineer, you might be able to show some errors in the studies, but absent that I would not challenge them. These are just my thoughts based on my work on Tysons since 2005. Take them for what they are worth. Good luck to you.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 28, 2012 3:53 pm • link • report
I live IN the county, and I do not see that. sharon bulova won reelection handily. If antigrowth were a winning political strategy in FFX, someone would have adopted it as a slogan by now. I do not believe its just developer contributions or free market ideology - at this point I don't think people in fairfax see growth as responsible for the tax bills or has harming their lives (aside from traffic congestion - which on the main radials would not be much alleviated by pushing pop to loudoun, PWC, etc) While people may be concerned about capturing the private gains, and about details of projects, etc, I think those who are aware of the issues at all realize that the possibility of a downward spiral, and the potential benefits of growth (as long as its not in their neighborhood, which for 95% of them, its not)
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 28, 2012 4:30 pm • link • report
Thank you! Great point, I think whats happening here is a changing of the guard, the old Fairfax(post WWII boom) vs the new Fairfax(Technology and youth driven progressives). On the topic of the stakeholders on my interviews with local developers they say much to the opposite.
They are finding that their rezonings and plans are being held up by the same "benefits" that widening is touting. VDOT and Richmond has brought the corrections (and yes they are corrections to this same kind of mentality that has happened over the past 40 years) of the developers and county to a screeching halt. All of the developers I speak to are questioning why with metro and a new pedestrian friendly design being imposed on them is the state and Fairfax playing the same game that has only helped Commercial office space boom and not residential and retail. Residents and retail can not thrive on the side of a freeway. Show me one, just one example of an 8 lane highway with retail frontage that is successful and I will shut up. I can point to you 46 that I have found in 2 days of research examples of 4 and 6 lane roads becoming 8 lane freeways that blighted cities and caused the high traffic to go away alright. It went away because the areas all became slums.
So the proponents are right, the study at the end of the day will probably achieve its goal. Traffic will finally be relieved after 25 years of nightmare commutes, and the reason will be because no one will want to go to a place that looks more like the beltway of Houston or the SE SW freeway through southeast DC than a good place to own a shop and to go to shop.
I dont care if it cost only 28 million dollars, thats bogus math, what its really costing is the hidden costs, the loss of business, the loss of investment into these "crucial TOD corridors", the loss of legitimacy for residents to move to the area when its just business as usual, sprawl with cologne. What is the rush to widen it? I drive down 123 everyday, its bad but I know adding another lane wont fix it. I've done dozens of these queue studies, all you are doing is giving the impression that people can still live in Middleton and commute to Tysons. Even if the lane does help, it will help for a few months and then it will again be back to being jammed, then what?
David Owen in Green Metropolis writes "Traffic james can actually be beneficial if they turn subways, buses, car pools, bicycles and walking into more-attractive options."
Richard Florida in the Great Reset writes "A subway train carrying 1050 people across into Manhattans central business district every six seconds. Compared to 1.2 drivers coming across the East River in the same amount of time."
Manhattans commute rush is 300,000-400,000 people daily which is not absurdly different than what is happening in DC, Arlington, or Tysons Corner. If Manhattan was designed like Tysons Corner do you think it would be the center of the economic world? Are they to be questioned for thinking that people will ride their subway instead of driving the far superior road (after all road is king). The Washington Metro area is the 4th biggest economic region in the United States just behind NYC, Chicago, and LA but it sure as hell looks more like Topeka Kansas than any of those places and the people of these areas while paying nearly equivalent costs of living get far fewer amenities for that hard work compared to those cities.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 28, 2012 6:57 pm • link • report
Now this is not to say that Old Town is not one of my favorite places in this county, but it is clearly not an economic engine nor does it constitute a place where people who live along Route 1 go to work. Also which huge gaps? Can you give examples and I can tell you exactly which areas currently have construction coming?
North of 123 before Route 7 will see very high levels of development. If you are talking about the mall (which most of you people who love LOL'ing about Tysons Corner are usually talking about) then yes, it will remain the land of suck so please go to your White Flint mall instead and stop making my December commutes awful. No one asked your opinion Maryland.
xoxo,
Virginian"
@TysonsEngineer
Wow, maybe you should actually read my post instead of blindly defending your oh-so-perfect Tysons. Nowhere did I say "Alexandria is more promising." A large part of Alexandria is already urban. Clearly you don't know everything about your state. Next time you visit your beloved Old Town maybe you should explore the area south and west of the King Street Metro/CSX tracks to see an example of the urbanization I'm talking about, or better yet Ballston, Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Crystal City/Pentagon City in Arlington. I just don't see Tysons reaching that level of density.
I also don't get the White Flint Mall suggestion since I specifically said it needs to be RAZED, since it doesn't fit in with the sector plan, not to mention its the 2nd worst mall in MoCo (after City Place).
by King Terrapin on Jan 29, 2012 1:40 am • link • report
At the end of the day Alexandria has 1/4 of the jobs that Tysons corner does and 1/8 of Arlington. I am well aware of Ballston, Rosslyn, etc but if you read any of my other posts you would see that it is economically infeasible to make these areas significantly more dense. The last major improvement to density in the urban corridors of these regions came due to a sale of public owned land to private development at Ft. Myer.
Good Im glad you agree that White Flint Mall needs to be razed, but I stick to the original statement.
You came into this thread and started discussing Tysons in a typical non-actual fairfax resident way "oh that place is awful lets look else where". Well that place is where half of Fairfax works and its where a sizeable enough amount of Fairfax people want to live but as it is it will crumble, wasting an actual source of jobs for our state. It needs to be fixed.
So how bout you start contributing to the discussion on Tysons or go suggest how to fix the mess across the river in your own state everywhere except Bethesda, I really love Bethesda.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 29, 2012 9:08 am • link • report
yeah, the hirises in Landmark, and to a less extent in NW alex, are examples of poor urban planning. There is much to like in Alex other than old town, including some older relatively walkable SFH areas, like Del Ray, Rosemont, thearea near Bradlee, etc, etc. Cameron Station/Ben Brenman park are also interesting, and may eventually tie in to redevelopment on Van Dorn, and a (maybe) reinvented Landmark.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 29, 2012 1:30 pm • link • report
@AWalker
Del Ray is a great community, the same way that Lyons Village is in Arlington, and Falls Church is in Fairfax. It shows that really nice housing can be done in a way that integrates homes into an adjacent portion of a commercial district. But I would not turn Del Ray into an urbanized area. It has 0 commercial interest, creates very few jobs, has a poor transportation backbone, and has a residential community who loves the way they live. (I know you werent proposing to do so, but this goes back to the Maryland guys point).
I think Alexandria is doing good things and bad things at the same time (waterfront ruins old town, while Van Dorn/Duke street are bring real commercial interest to that area). If Alexandria really wants to get serious about growing though, they will tell Richmond and Federal Government to not tread on it, and deconstruct Route 1 back to the 4 lane arterial road it started as during the initiation of the Federal Highway projects. Also take a look at usage of Route 1 and you'll see by expanding route 1 they actually reduced the usage of Route over the past 20 years. Now it serves as a reason why building bigger through a city causes the collapse of the areas economy, old town, just across the 495 interchange, instead had route 1 also, but they kept it 4 lanes wide, and "shockingly" this region of route 1's economy is thriving and guess what we dont have 4hour long traffic jams there either!
I can keep pointing out examples of how VDOT and other DOTs have made mistakes in their models empirically but I think Im preaching mostly to the choir
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 29, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report
She does, of course, support adding urban density at the four rail stations in Tysons. It would make no sense not to do so. Sharon Bulova's leadership on Tysons was essential to stop the ridiculous "Vision" of the Task Force, which was supported by Gerry Connolly in his effort to get to Congress. Keep in mind that, if the BoS would have approved the Task Force's recommendation, Tysons could have grown to 220 M square feet even though traffic studies show that, even with rail, mixed use development and all of the Table 7 improvements, Tysons reaches traffic failure at only 84 M square feet.
Bulova worked to broker a consensus on the plan that was adopted in June 2010 and that effectively limits growth to no more than 84 M square feet without re-planning. This was outstanding leadership. Throw in Bulova's basic fiscal conservativeness and support for neighborhoods and it's very understandable how she was reelected.
I sense that most of the commenting parties don't have children or grandchildren. That is an important demographic, but probably not as influential politically as those with children or grandchildren. Fairfax Schools are overcrowded, as are parks and libraries. Add the traffic, and there is strong belief among many county residents that they would prefer to see more people reside south and west of Fairfax County. Supervisors also want to keep more commercial development in order to keep residential real estate taxes lower. They also know that seeing residential development elsewhere means they don't need to build huge increase in expensive public facilities.
Fairfax County will add several urban areas, Tysons, Baileys, parts of Annandale, but will remain a suburban county. That is its strength and why so many people of many ethnic backgrounds want to live here. The challenge is to find ways to make these urban areas successful in order to give people more choices and then to protect existing neighborhoods.
by tmtfairfax on Jan 29, 2012 5:14 pm • link • report
As far as parts of fairfax and the point on road failure in Tysons. The AASHTO criteria used to judge road failure is misguided, that criteria was created to determine if Highways fail, not internal urban roads. To that measure AASHTO would find that all roads in New York City fail everyday. Yet somehow New York City's transportation works. Why? Because once people know the conditions they make adjustments, its called system equilibrium, its a concept that VDOT accepts when it comes to road design however not when it comes to overall (all modes of transportation) design. If you keep incentivizing people to use roads by promising next year the system will be better they will never consider using metro. I know I keep bringing up New York, but the reason is because they have been there and done that, I could say Chicago, I could say London, I could say Paris, I could say also sorts of places which have dense external regions that attempt to reach the commercial centers of a city. All of these places allowed roads to fail, and all these places learned how to become a city because of those road failures.
VDOT has lots to do in other places in this county and state. They should just go do work there and let Tysons "fail". If it's failing now with 6 lanes it isnt going to be fixed with 8, 10, 12-lanes, it will need a new type of correction, and until someone shows me a case where a road widening did improve an urban congestion without turning the area to a slum and I am still waiting.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 29, 2012 6:58 pm • link • report
Im confused by "will remain a suburban county" even if much more density was added to TYSONS, the county would remain mostly suburban.
I DO have a kid, but my kid is beyond k-12 and I think unlikely to return to FFX as an adult. Im not sure that adding more offices, hotels, and hi rise condos in Tysons would add significantly to school crowding (and Im not sure why the proffer process couldn't address that and similar needs better than zoning restrictions).
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 29, 2012 8:53 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 29, 2012 8:57 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 29, 2012 9:29 pm • link • report
Graphically I have no doubt that Fairfax County will remain suburban this century. Areas like Centreville, Chantilly, Herndon, etc could essentially become the areas that are single family detached in Arlington too. But I also have no doubt that much like Arlington, the tax base and possibly the population base over the next 50 years will become more urbanized in this county. Which is win win for everyone.
The people who live a suburban life (ie single family detached) in Arlington if they bought in the 60s or 70s probably spent 100,000k on those homes and now they are worth a million dollars in many cases. They also get to have a house within biking distance (without the fear of being run over by a car because of a freeway through their town) to amenities like the grocery store, restaurants, theaters, movies, etc. And at the same time people who want a real urban center remain in Arlington proper. Everyone wins. Are there conflicts? Sure, but they look at Fairfax and say no thanks even though many of them could have theoretically done a Loudoun like move and left long ago. There is a place for both, but suburban doesnt have to mean out in the boondocks without any nearby amenities and without any other option but driving.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 29, 2012 9:33 pm • link • report
http://thetysonscorner.com/blog/before-its-a-crisis-a-petition-for-route-123/
Thanks in advance to anyone who signs it.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 30, 2012 8:25 am • link • report
by Dan on Jan 30, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report
No one is saying lets make all of fairfax a city. The point is to make Tysons a city so that the rest of the area can remain sustainable. Fairfax is a big place, way bigger than Arlington.
I would also say that the Lyon Village area isn't typified by 5000 sf homes. I think you are really referring much more to McLean. There are a few mcmansion clusters but for the most part these are really nice homes built in the 1950-1960s that are cottage or craftman style.
Again, please suburb people, we are not coming after you! But when you say things like, I dont want my tax money paying for this, it ignores the fact that cities make money. And if you dont fund city growth, then what you end up with is a big tract of land with homes on it but no jobs, and thats not a healthy way to run a region.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 30, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report
I appreciate your advocacy, but it undercuts your credibility when you get your facts wrong about the area's past and present.
by Dan on Jan 30, 2012 6:09 pm • link • report
Additionally, I was making more the point that I wouldn't "typify" all the homes in Lyon Village as mcmansion, ie they are not the majority. Do they exist? yes. When I talk to people who live there are they pissed that every couple of months new ones pop up? Yes. But overall the existing homes are still the majority by number.
And I agree it is a trend that has to be stopped, and the best way to stop it is stricter requirements for coagulating lots, by requiring all landowners who want to consolidate parcels to go through the same procedures as those who want to subdivide 1 parcel into many parcels. That way they can't skirt the rules. Also I am all in favor of Lyon Village becoming a historical district. I think it has earned that right, and by doing so becomes untouchable for developers. However that comes with a price as with historical districts the land owners now are required to adhere to stricter maintenance. Double edged sword unfortunately.
by Tysons Engineer on Jan 31, 2012 4:22 pm • link • report
Please note the topography to 7's westbound side- its a hill.
Do likewise with 123 between 7 and 684.
by Douglas Willinger on Jan 31, 2012 11:55 pm • link • report
Also, I don't think VDOT would consider replacing any interchanges with traffic circles. Fairfax County can offer ideas, but VDOT controls the roads. Note that Fairfax County is fighting a transfer of local roads to the County. I still like the idea of buried express lanes, but they will never even be considered due to cost.
by tmtfairfax on Feb 1, 2012 8:31 am • link • report
by tmtfairfax on Feb 1, 2012 8:35 am • link • report
7 could be a tunnel with most of it using the existing grade, avoiding lengthy excavation and hence allowing a tunnel with lower costs.
My traffic circles all have a lower express level.
But as I found with my Alexandria Orb, Virginia is ruled by nonsense.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/search/label/Alexandria%20Orb
by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2012 12:15 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 1, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report
Macerich and Lerner would probably gobble up whatever available land would be made available and would be the ones that logically would want pedestrian connectivity anyways. Westpark bridge and the pedestrian crosswalks could be incorporated into this, etc.
Definitely not something that could happen this decade but a concept worth investigating for sure and it wouldnt have to be done with public funding if cooperatively done as a "land grant".
Also, the 3 billion number is bogus and includes all sorts of projects like route 7 widening which have nothing to do with Tysons. On my discussions with private developers, they plan on making their own plazas and pedestrian networks within their properties, a cost which is included in that 3 billion already. The real question becomes interconnectivity between projects, which yes is sizable cost but is less than internal networks included.
Also that 2 billion (when appropriately summed) includes operations of a connector bus/and possible circulator system within Tysons over the course of 50 years. I mean really, that number is just a scare tactic that FFX stepped into by putting it in those terms. They should have simply said 40 million a year which isnt as scary. Again as an example, a 400 unit condo or apartment could mean as much as 1.5 to 2 million dollars per year in new tax revenue, which is only from one building.
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 1, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report
Yes! 7 Is So wide to make that work, with space for a pair of surface roads on each side.
by Douglas Willinger on Feb 1, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report
Tysons will not work unless Route 7 is widened west of Tysons. That action would also take off some of the pressure to widen the DTR. There is little government right-of-way left to widen the road. Widening would require some strip takings and even a few total condemnations. It would also require the taking of land from Wolf Trap National Park, invasion of 7 or 9 RPAs and the removal and reconstruction of some of the support systems for Dulles Rail.
The Table 7 improvements have been vetted by both FC DOT and VDOT. They agree the projects are all necessary. Moreover, the road needs are based on the assumptions that assume an overall transit mode split of 31%, which the DRPT and VDOT felt was unlikely to be achieved. These roads projects will need to be built.
I've been told that the total costs, with financing, might approach $4 billion. If so, that's a need for more than $2 million per week til 2050. The landowners and the County just don't share your optimism. I also don't believe the landowners or residents would accept rebuilding Route 7.
by tmtfairfax on Feb 1, 2012 6:09 pm • link • report
I wrote an article today that has several examples from the heart of the beast itself, Richmond. No where in richmond do you see this kind of explosively dangerous design behavior. The roads are surprising human scale, and they dont even have a good metro system. How do you explain the fact that Richmond remains a good place to live and work? It makes tons of money as a city, it has tons of residents, it remains a suburban anchor, and yet its traffic is never as bad as our region. Is it sheer number? Unlikely, the number of commuters to Richmond is approximately equivalent if not more.
Whats the difference... hmmmm.... ah yes, they have a grid of streets which instead of forcing a square through a circular peg, makes all flow volumes divided equally through a network which naturally finds equilibrium.
Strange that VDOTs headquarters are provided this convenience, and yet us as VDOTs guinea pigs have not.
To think that northern virginia is a unique situation is ridiculous. It is only unique in the fact that it has gone 30 years without collapsing under this mis management. Thousands of cities of the world, past and present, have had large flows of people from out of the city entering the city on this daily flow of commerce, and yet only in Virginia has this put a freeway on every street corner design be used. And what has it bought us? Areas of ridiculously spaced parcels divided by what might as well be the great wall of china for pedestrians (frankly for vehicles too, if you try to cross Route 7 and 123 by car its not easy task either based on the number of accidents).
So why, please why, are we continuing to give faith to a department of our state government which funnels funds from us, governs us from Richmond with a one solution solves all idea, and has yet to prove any of their non-traditional design methods can work. Last time I checked, no city in history has ever looked the way that VDOT would make Tysons look and to that point I will go ahead and say in 2050 that no city will look like what VDOT would make Tysons (whether it means VDOT will give up on this absurd method or Tysons will be a huge failure).
TMTFairfax, please, just provide one example and I will admit my ignorance on this subject, but freeways and 8-lane roads have never successfully run through the heart of a city and created the vitality and economic growth necessary for a city. By the way DRPT is a joke, it has a 200million dollar budget compared to a 4 billion dollar annual budget, and focuses on freight rail for the most part, so to envoke any "planning consideration that DRPT" put into this matter is a stretch.
If DRPT did their job this area wouldnt have to rely on private partnerships to keep it from being crippled by traffic.
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 1, 2012 8:08 pm • link • report
Oh and by the way, GREAT LETS TAKE MORE LAND !!! Its not like thats not a waste of taxpayer money, 10million dollars an acre is just the cost, but we also will be missing out on the tax revenue every year from what those acres could have been, right in the central heart of a city we are talking not more than just 1 million per building, your talking about 10s of millions every year.
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 1, 2012 8:11 pm • link • report
If Fairfax County really wanted to make a walkable urban community, it would not have chosen Tysons as the urban center. Route 123 needs to be widened because it is a major road to and from the Beltway and the DTR, which carry people to and from Tysons.
by tmtfairfax on Feb 1, 2012 11:18 pm • link • report
To say another place would have been selected to create a city is [deleted for violating the comment policy.] Where else is there this concentration of jobs? Falls Church? Fairfax? Reston? Nowhere else, and the key to a city isnt how it looks or feels as its top priority, it is JOBS. You can't artificially create jobs, when jobs are available on the order that it is in Tysons, not only the biggest in Fairfax but 3rd biggest in all of the Metro area only behind Arlington and DC, it would be absurd to say, lets not worry about it and lets not try to leverage that first step in a city.
You can't create jobs out of thin air. At the end of the day, they come from corporations, developers, entrepreneurs, and new ideas. Tysons has that in spades right now. What it doesnt have are the next steps. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.] The point is, we can continue to create the office park on steroids, but its at its breaking point and everyone involved senses that. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 2, 2012 8:40 am • link • report
by Rudy on Feb 8, 2012 8:47 pm • link • report
Add a Comment