Gaithersbungle, part 4: Why emulate Tysons' existing road network?

Development

Gaithersbungle, part 4: Why emulate Tysons' existing road network?

by David Alpert • July 14, 2009 1:57 pm

In the first three parts of this series (1, 2, 3), we discussed the folly of spending $4 billion to widen I-270 instead of focusing development in denser areas and beefing up MARC to better serve the 270 corridor with existing infrastructure.

Tysons' present and Montgomery's future? Photo by teejayhanton.

Much of the pressure to widen 270 comes from planned development in Gaithersburg West, an area of unincorporated former farmland just outside the City of Rockville and the City of Gaithersburg that developers are eagerly turning into suburban office parks. The Planning Board has devised a Master Plan that makes all of the right noises toward building walkable, transit-oriented places, but then creates the infrastructure of sprawl. At the time when Tysons is trying to evolve away from a model of big superblocks and huge interchanges, Montgomery planners are designing something that looks much more like the Tysons of yesterday than the Tysons of tomorrow.

The plan notes that the area "looks and functions like a conventional office park with single-purpose clusters separated by wide highways and surrounded by parking lots. This model ensured auto-dependence while discouraging walking. There is so little variety of uses in the LSC today that employees often drive to lunch spots." To improve the area, planners call for concentrating development around the planned Corridor Cities Transitway stations with mixed-use zoning, and adding a local grid of streets. The sections without CCT stations won't get any additional density. They suggest a bikeway network and pedestrian treatments on many roads.

That sounds good. But upon closer examination, it appears that rather than turning low-density office parks into walkable mixed-use areas, it would turn them into slightly less low density, still mostly auto-dependent areas. The plan would perpetuate the land use of clusters (though not quite as single-purpose) surrounded by wide highways that discourage walking. Planning staff may be trying to make the best of a bad situation, but they then created a plan that only reinforces many of the problems.

Except in a few small areas, the additional streets still won't create the small blocks necessary for walkable development. The three sections with proposed development, Belward, LSC West, and LSC Central will only have 64 street intersections across almost a square mile of land. LEED-ND requires 150 intersections per square mile for any certified development, and requires 400 intersections per square mile for the highest scores.

Proposed street grid in LSC Central. Compare these blocks to those of the Fallsgrove townhouse neighborhood to the southeast.

Nor are the intersections concentrated into a few small, walkable areas. The LSC West area, the smallest in land areas, would get a dense street grid, but the other areas spread their streets out fairly evenly, creating huge superblocks which will force people to walk long distances or, more likely, drive.

Despite the plan's repeated references to building places not dependent on cars, it also recommends significant road widenings and new interchanges that will divide the area with traffic sewers hostile to pedestrians. The plan includes five new grade-separated interchanges and would widen Key West Avenue into ten lanes plus a "wide landscaped median," including "eight through travel lanes ... and a separate curb lane that can serve as a through lane for transit vehicles and a right turn lane for other vehicles during peak periods." This is wider than many freeways, and if we let cars use the transit lane to turn, transit vehicles won't even get to move particularly fast. While the County is trying to convert Rockville Pike into a walkable boulevard down at White Flint, this plan pushes the area's boulevards in the opposite direction.

Proposed street network for Gaithersburg West. Circles represent grade-separated interchanges; solid circles are existing, dashed circles proposed.

Tysons Corner is trying to transform itself into a walkable urban area, but is hampered by its preexisting auto infrastructure. Many planners wish VDOT weren't so insistent on widening Route 7 to move even more automobiles, and the huge existing interchanges where Route 123 meets Route 7 and the Beltway create insurmountable barriers to truly integrating the walkable places together. Tysons is stuck with these, at least until VDOT changes its outlook substantially. But Gaithersburg West doesn't have them today, and yet Montgomery planners recommend instituting just what Fairfax planners wish they could remove.

Over the last decade, Smart Growth advocates have been very successful in many ways. Many people, including most leaders, now agree that multimodal transportation is good, as is transit-oriented development. Pedestrians and bicycles are important. However, often the rhetoric exceeds the reality. Leaders talk the talk of Smart Growth, but then design the same bad plans we've seen for 50 years.

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan looks like a bad 1950s vision of the future sprinkled with some Smart Growth verbiage. It'll separate traffic out to a small number of wide expressways with grade-separated interchanges. It designs a few roads near the centers of activity for pedestrians, but forces them to walk long distances around huge blocks. It claims to prioritize transit-oriented development, yet designs infrastructure for enormous increases in single-passenger vehicle use.

Next, we'll look at the allocation of density across the site, and the alignment of the Corridor Cities Transitway.

30 comments

Tags: Gaithersburg West, LEED, Maryland, Montgomery, road connectivity, Rockville, Smart Growth, sprawl, Tysons Corner, walkability

Gaithersbungle: Planning Board staff latest to ignore better way for Gaithersburg (Jun 29, 2009)
Gaithersbungle, part 8: They know it's a turkey (Sep 14, 2009)
Gaithersbungle, part 5: What you callin' a city? (Jul 15, 2009)
Transforming Tysons with four unique districts (Sep 12, 2008)
Crossing Route 7 will mean long waits in Tysons (Jun 14, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Excellent analysis, as always, David.

by Cavan on Jul 14, 2009 2:34 pm • link • report

The County Council votes next Tuesday on its recommendations for transportation in the I-270 corridor. This includes both the I-270 widening and the transitway. MoCo residents should send their opinions to county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov

by Ben Ross on Jul 14, 2009 2:36 pm • link • report

David, outstanding analysis. Your attention to detail is impressive, can't say enough good things about this post.

But Montgy County has to increase its corporate tax base, it's got less than half the office inventory of Fairfax with just slightly less population, and even if there was more train serviceto Gaithersburg, many people might still drive. Be curious to know how what % of people who go to offices near Twinbrook and Shady Grove currently use the Metro.

by David on Jul 14, 2009 3:44 pm • link • report

Commentator: At the time when Tysons is trying to evolve away from a model of big superblocks and huge interchanges, Montgomery planners are designing something that looks much more like the Tysons of yesterday than the Tysons of tomorrow.

me: What the hell is that Big Mess right between Tysons Corner and I-495(between Dulles Toll Road and I-66)????????

It sure as Hell ain't the new Silver Line project since it is supposed to run east-west along VA 7/123.

Oh thats right Virginia is spending $Billions to widen the VA I-495 to 12 Lanes via HOT Lanes along with future widening of I-395/95 for HOT Lanes.

It looks like some Virginians are Mad as Hell that Maryland wants to widen I-270 and possibly the Maryland Beltway with HOT Lanes due to potential MASS Growth in Montgomery and Prince Georges County eventually competing against Northern Virginia's Rich Business/Economic Growth.

I will continue to bet that most if not all of the people that ae against any Future Mass Growth of Western Montgomery County and Northern PG County, and Future Highway Building/Widening in Maryland are not from Maryland and don't pay Maryland Taxes.

by mike on Jul 14, 2009 4:45 pm • link • report

Given the location of this development near one terminus of the ICC and the possible addition of more grade-separated interchanges, any chance this is a slippery slope to a "second crossing" bridge/tunnel to Leesburg Pike?

I think one of the problems here is that there is a preexisting biomedical base in that very specific area that they want to build into. Seems the proposed way forward is to confound the mistake of allowing that area to have become a suburban office park. "Science City" is not a clean sheet plan; it's an addition. But...

MoCo should hold the line. I think a viable compromise might be to develop over Shady Grove's park-n-ride lots (they add up to almost .5 square miles too). It could neatly connect to King Farm. People might walk to work in G'burg (gasp!).

by Ingemar on Jul 14, 2009 5:40 pm • link • report

The number of interchanges in the study area is really depressing.

by цarьchitect on Jul 14, 2009 5:52 pm • link • report

Also, a maximum FAR of 1.5, with most sites less than that?

by цarьchitect on Jul 14, 2009 5:53 pm • link • report

Ingemar- Given the location of this development near one terminus of the ICC and the possible addition of more grade-separated interchanges, any chance this is a slippery slope to a "second crossing" bridge/tunnel to Leesburg Pike?

me- Why would you care if they decide to expand a highway to Leesburg Pike from Rockville Pike?

Could it be because you and others would be Offended that it will attract businesses from Northern Virginia to relocate to Montgomery County if not PG County?

Ingemar- I think one of the problems here is that there is a preexisting biomedical base in that very specific area that they want to build into. Seems the proposed way forward is to confound the mistake of allowing that area to have become a suburban office park. "Science City" is not a clean sheet plan; it's an addition. But...

me- But yet you have no Problems with Virginia Extending the Dulles Toll Road to Leesburg and Transforming the former two lane country road VA 28 into an 8 Lane Highway which Sprouted out New Cities like Ashburn, Dulles, and Sterling.

Ingemar- MoCo should hold the line. I think a viable compromise might be to develop over Shady Grove's park-n-ride lots (they add up to almost .5 square miles too). It could neatly connect to King Farm. People might walk to work in G'burg (gasp!).

me- It won't work because the same people that find some excuse to Hate on New Development in Maryland that is not located near a Rapid Transit Hub will also find a Excuse to Hate on New Development near any of the Maryland Rapid Transit Stations.

Gee I wondeer whatever happened to the plans to build a HUGE Office/Upscale Retail Shopping Mall/Residential Development near Greenbelt Station?????????
by Ingemar

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 2:36 am • link • report

Ñ†arÑŒchitect- The number of interchanges in the study area is really depressing.

me- Nowhere near as Depressing as the Infamous Springfield Interchange.

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 2:39 am • link • report

BTW- To my nowledge VDOT is also planning to build Several Interchanges along Leesburg Pike VA 7 along with the current plans to upgrade VA 28 to Freeway Standards.

Where is the freakin' Outrage in that but oh we're "supposed" to keep focus on sabatoging ALL forms of Maryland Highway Building and Expansions while Ignoring the fact that Virginia Countinues to Build new Highways, Widen Existing Highways, and Transforming former Rural Roadways(VA 28 and VA7) into Multi-Lane Limited Access Highways with Sky Ramps.

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 2:52 am • link • report

Ingemar: are you saying that another river crossing between the American Legion Bridge and Point of Rocks is not needed?

by Froggie on Jul 15, 2009 7:10 am • link • report

Mike, I hate to burst your bubble but I do live in MoCo and I do pay Maryland taxes. Might wanna check your assumptions there. I have also lived in CA and part of the reason why I left is that FAR 1.5 as fr as the ye can see sucks: neither here nor there. Fairfax is similar in that regard. I'll take a Smart Growth Maryland any time. Now it just needs to stick to it. These interchanges are going to cost a lot of dollars that could be better used on projects like the CCT or extending the Purple Line south, maybe even over the Potomac.

by Ingemar on Jul 15, 2009 7:46 am • link • report

mike: You keep insinuating that we are opposing MD roads but not VA roads. That is completely untrue. In fact, in this very post, I criticized VDOT's stance on Route 7. Here are just a few posts criticizing VA's freeway-building:

on I-66
VA HOT lanes

I even said that the one regional official I'd fire is Pierce Homer.

Yesterday's breakfast links criticized Virginia's lack of spending on ped and bike improvements.

I welcome having you participate in this debate. However, you keep simply replying to every comment with the same totally baseless accusation that the people arguing for a certain policy in Maryland are hypocritical when it comes to Virginia. Yet you don't ever point to a comment or article here that takes the opposite stance in Virginia, and I'd be shocked if you could, because we have the same position about Virginia. These comments interfere with others' ability to actually discuss the issues.

If you're interested in engaging in a real discussion and listening to others' comments, please continue to participate. But please stop with the completely baseless and incorrect MD-VA comparisons. If you do not, I may be forced to remove your privilege of commenting here.

by David Alpert on Jul 15, 2009 8:17 am • link • report

I like the Shady Grove Metro parking lot idea. I wonder if the county could facilitate some kind of land/ development rights swap.

by Daniel on Jul 15, 2009 8:31 am • link • report

I hadn't seen it before, but the Shady Grove Master Plan looks like it will make a nice satellite town.

by цarьchitect on Jul 15, 2009 9:27 am • link • report

@Froggie I do think a second river crossing should be articulated in the long range plans, but it should be a thoughtful multiple-modal crossing meant to enhance livable communities. What I cannot support is the direction these plans seem to be moving toward: a creeping highway-ization towards the rivers edge to eventually be connected by a 6 or 8-lane race track. If the point were to, say, just connect 28 with the ICC so that I could drive to Herndon from MoCo (as an example) but without a viable transit alternative then I think that would be an opportunity missed; a 50-year mistake that would be hard to reverse once disjointed suburban-style office parks pop up and calcify the cars-only roadways with their giant setbacks and parking lots. We should plan a second crossing right away to have a long range policy in place before more Science Cities go for review.

by Ingemar on Jul 15, 2009 9:46 am • link • report

Ingemar: your concern is more a problem with land-use decisions than it is transportation decisions. It's not highway (or transit) projects that create problems...it's the land use decisions that follow.

by Froggie on Jul 15, 2009 10:41 am • link • report

Froggie, I would like to point out that the type of infrastructure projects undertaken basically makes the land use decision. Building highways yields car-dependent sprawl while building trains yield traditional walkable towns and cities.

Infrastructure is a planning tool as much as it is an economic development tool. Then again, urban form and sustainable economic development are very intertwined.

by Cavan on Jul 15, 2009 11:07 am • link • report

David, you are too kind. Please ban him.

by NikolasM on Jul 15, 2009 12:49 pm • link • report

I ditto Cavan. Even though our governments separate the transportation and land use organizations, more and more are becoming aware of the need to do both together under a consolidating vision.

by Ingemar on Jul 15, 2009 1:08 pm • link • report

ditto Cavan and Ingemar: transportation infrastructure desicion IS land use decision; it's the foundation on which following decisions must work with or around, and directly affects economic systems (and all that implies) long-term.

by Bianchi on Jul 15, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report

Ingemar- Mike, I hate to burst your bubble but I do live in MoCo and I do pay Maryland taxes. Might wanna check your assumptions there. I have also lived in CA and part of the reason why I left is that FAR 1.5 as fr as the ye can see sucks: neither here nor there.

me- Hey I can say that I live in El Segundo but that doesn't mean its true. I don't know anything about you and could care less but what I do know is that I have traveled to many states and I have never seen/hear any locals of other states bash the state they reside and pay taxes in just because the their state wants to build new Highways and Improve Existing Ones.

North Carolina is a good example of local residence that welcomes New Highway Growth and Mass Transit Options.

For the last 25 years I-85 From North Carolina to Georgia have gone through a successful Transformation of a once 4 Lane Rural Highway into Multiple Multi-Lane(8-14) Expressways through the Southeast Largest Metro Cities.

Ingemar- Fairfax is similar in that regard. I'll take a Smart Growth Maryland any time. Now it just needs to stick to it.

me- Whats soo smart about Contridicting Marylanders into believing that Little to No Development throughout the state will be more Economically Beneficial than Financially/Business Rich Virginia.

Ingemar- These interchanges are going to cost a lot of dollars that could be better used on projects like the CCT or extending the Purple Line south, maybe even over the Potomac.

me- I hate to bust your bubble but those little trolley projects you call the CCT and Purple Line was going to be build irriguardless. You people using Mass Transit as an excuss to stop Highway Projects is just part of a Higher Scheme to Sabatoge Massive Development Projects that would compete against Business/Economic Rich Virginia.

Again I say wheres the Outrage against te Massive Highway Projects in Northern Virginia.

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 5:30 pm • link • report

mike: Outrage against massive highway projects in Northern Virginia is practically a hallmark of this blog. And transforming 4-lane rural highways in the South into 9-14 lane freeways has been disastrous for land use patterns and our environment.

Again, please stop the totally baseless conspiracy theories or I will ban you. This is your final warning.

by David Alpert on Jul 15, 2009 5:36 pm • link • report

mike: You keep insinuating that we are opposing MD roads but not VA roads. That is completely untrue. In fact, in David Alpert this very post, I criticized VDOT's stance on Route 7. Here are just a few posts criticizing VA's freeway-building:

on I-66
VA HOT lanes

I even said that the one regional official I'd fire is Pierce Homer.

Yesterday's breakfast links criticized Virginia's lack of spending on ped and bike improvements.

me- I read those links you oposted you can say that you don't support I-66 Widening and Hot Lanes but it is nowhere near as DRAMATIC as your stance against I-270 HOT Lanes Widening.

Does Highway Widening of I-270/Other I-270 related Highway Improvements Required a 5 part story of why the Maryland people shouldn't support new Highways.

VA I-495 is Adding HOT Lanes near Tysons Corner but are you writing Stories about why is Virginia supporting Highway Projects that will complimate more Virginia Sprawl and the Fact that Virginia is wasting more Funding for Highway Projects than the Completion of the Silver Line.

After all of the talking about Mass Transit in which already exist and continues to grow in Montgomery County, I still can't understand why you are soo offended against the Gaithersburg West Project and the I-270 widening especially since it is no different than VDOT Extending the Dulles Greenway into Leesburg Sprouting out new Growth in Eastern Loudon County?????

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 5:47 pm • link • report

Ingemar- We should plan a second crossing right away to have a long range policy in place before more Science Cities go for review.

me- There is no connection between the Second River Crossing(Techway) and the Science City or else the Second Crossing would have been approved for Construction when it was proposed 10 years ago.

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 5:54 pm • link • report

David Alpert- And transforming 4-lane rural highways in the South into 9-14 lane freeways has been disastrous for land use patterns and our environment.

me- The only issue with the Land Use Pattern and Enviroment along the Charlotte-Atlanta I-85 Corridor is that it attracted too many non-Southerners to the area resulting into more "Sprawl" and reduction in Population of older Once Heavilly Populated Northeast and Mid-West Cities.

Every year since the 1990's there have been annual number projections displaying the Sunbelt as the fastest populating growing regions in America.

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 6:05 pm • link • report

mike: I am not writing stories right now about Virginia's projects because they are not about to vote on any of them. Maryland is. When Virginia was considering widening I-66, we criticized that extensively.

I have a big problem with Loudoun sprawl and Virginia extending roads to Loudoun. As far as I know, that's not currently in the news. If I'm missing something, please send me items. I'd love to write about road building decisions in Loudoun whether good or bad.

The second crossing is always hovering out there. The ICC was on the books for decades before it happened. All it takes is a governor who really wants to get it done and something we thought was dead can come roaring back. Some groups will support freeway projects no matter what and when.

by David Alpert on Jul 15, 2009 9:06 pm • link • report

David Alpert- mike: I am not writing stories right now about Virginia's projects because they are not about to vote on any of them. Maryland is. When Virginia was considering widening I-66, we criticized that extensively.

me- Take some time out and look at the links:

http://www.loudouncountytransportation.com/progress.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Route_7

http://www.loudouni.com/traffic/2009-06-03/route-7-607-interchange-moving-ahead

http://www.ecslimited.com/ProjectDetail.cfm?id=64

http://www.vamegaprojects.com/about-megaprojects/i95-widening/

http://virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-66_widening.asp

http://virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/lee-jackson_memorial-john_mosby_highway.asp

David Alpert- The second crossing is always hovering out there. The ICC was on the books for decades before it happened. All it takes is a governor who really wants to get it done and something we thought was dead can come roaring back. Some groups will support freeway projects no matter what and when.

me- Again what is the big issue if people want more freeway projects especially if they also support Mass Transit Project?

The last time I checked Atlanta, Houston, and Boston all which have Twice the Freeway Size as the DC area is not in the top 5 worst Traffic Congestions in the US but Washington, DC is ranked number 2 or 3.

I've always said that Highways and Mass Transit should Never be a choise between supporting one over the other because it does not create possitive planning due to conflict of interest of people who want to drive and people that don't own cars and depend on Mass Transit.

by mike on Jul 16, 2009 12:29 am • link • report

Cavan/Ingemar/Bianchi:

Perhaps it's because we haven't tried otherwise that "highways yield car-dependent sprawl".

I am of the believe that urban walkable areas are possible REGARDLESS of whether they're served by a highway or by transit. What's happened in reality, as Cavan sort of summarizes, is more a factor of political pressure and/or zoning decisions than it is the choice of transportation mode to build.

by Froggie on Jul 16, 2009 6:58 am • link • report

believe = belief (too early in the morning)

by Froggie on Jul 16, 2009 6:58 am • link • report