Wow!! I just read Lon Anderson's comments. He writes that the COG should be embarassed. Really? Based on the quality of his writing, which is poor and borders on hyperbole, Anderson (and AAA Mid-Atlantic) should be embarrased. If that submission is the best that Anderson can do on official comments on the region's transportation plan, then Anderson needs to puruse a new career and AAA Mid-Atlantic needs to find a new communications person.

by rg on Nov 24, 2009 1:49 pm  

And you won't get more housing around Metro stations until nimbys like those in Takoma Park and Brookland realize they don't live in a quaint little villages anymore.

Cul de sac honkies in Herndon don't have any monopoly on the nimby mindset.

by monkeyrotica on Nov 24, 2009 1:50 pm  

here is a summary of the National Bicycle Plan for Germany- how about that- a country that actually has a NATIONAL BICYCLE PLAN...

why didnt we think of this?

http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/eu-bund-laender/bund/

Ride your bike! Measures to Promote Cycling in Germany

by w on Nov 24, 2009 2:07 pm  

It's easy to draw lines on a map when you don't have to fund them and you won't be around to see the inhuman, budget-breaking places that result from your dumb schemes.

On top of that, on item 2, the NVTA couldn't even spell "Maryland" correctly.

I also find it pretty ugly that the Northern VIRGINIA Transportation Alliance had the audacity to draw lines in MARYLAND in order to prevent bottlenecks from all their hairbrained highway schemes. As if we aren't already learning our lessons the hard way with the ICC.

by Cavan on Nov 24, 2009 2:12 pm  

In the very beginning of your post, you say the report recommends "a choice of transportation modes including roads, rails, bicycling and walking." Had you actually read the report, you would find ZERO recommendations concerning roads, other than the smart growth fantasy that by 2050 most people will no longer use them.

Nearly 90% of all travel are on roads, and it is not because we have not invested in public transit. Our region has the second largest public transit system in the country, and yet the second worst traffic congestion. Our region has constructed nearly all of the planned transit projects recommended in the 1950s, yet only a fraction of the highways and bridges.

I've read up on NVTA and Chase, who you attack for seeing the world as it is, rather than through the lens of your liberal Utopian ideology. NEWSFLASH. Most people in this region like their cars, and like that they can go where they want, when they want. And if you actually looked at NVTA, you'd see that they were one of the first groups to support dedicated funding for Metro, the VRE and a host of public transit projects. The difference is, they support highways too. They support ALL MODES, not just those that fit your narrow lifestyle.

Public transportation is important, and our region has done better than most in getting people on it. But public transportation will NEVER, no matter how much money we poor into it, replace the automobile. It won't even come close.

This report simply ignores congestion. It says we need to better connect regional activity centers, which of course we do, but only through public transit? That is just laughable. Things like bus-rapid transit need dedicated lanes, which do no exist and must be built. Yet, there are no recommendations to built dedicated transit lanes.

Building bypasses and things like the Western Transportation Corridor will not result in suburban sprawl in themselves. They can be built in combination with stricter land use, making the roads limited access without stoplights. It's not the roads fault that local public officials take a great highway like the Fairfax County Parkway and ruin it with stoplights every 100 yards. These new highways can also be built with dedicated transit lanes.

In short, all modes of transportation must be used, and ignoring any of them for the sake of ideology is simply wrong. And that's exactly what this report has done.

by Frank on Nov 24, 2009 2:15 pm  

"And you won't get more housing around Metro stations until nimbys like those in Takoma Park and Brookland realize they don't live in a quaint little villages anymore. "

Monkeyerotica, I do realize what you're saying and I'm not picking on you, I just kind of want to use that line of thinking to further clairify a conversation on a post from last weekend.

What if people want to live in quaint little villages and some governmental body steps in and says that because you have a Metro stop, you can't? If places like this are part of the new urbanist ideal (because if I remember our conclusion correctly, that ideal all depends on the circumstances?), why are we looking to change them? Many people (myself, and many of you included) simply do not want to and will not live in high density highrises. So if these close in "villages" disappear, they may just up and move to cul-de-sac land, creating demand for that unsustainable model.

Build more villages, give them transit, as a better alternative to cul-de-sac land and eventually they'll be replaced with high rises, and the cycle continues. I think that people are aware of this, and that's why you get alot of NIMBYs when it comes to transit. They fear that (among other things) a Metro stop nearby will eventually lead to some developer gobbling up their whole neighbhorhood and replacing it with 20 floor apartment buildings with a Starbucks and Ann Taylor on the ground floor. And I hate to say it because NIMBYs drive me nuts, but they do kind of have a point, there.

So how balance the issue? Yes, more density around transit is a good thing, but a diversity of lifestyles (high rise, low rise, townhouse, single family etc) with access to transit is, too.

by Catherine on Nov 24, 2009 2:40 pm  

Catherine,

You've just made an excellent argument for lots more investment in light rail and BRT.

Part of the issue with NIMBYs and Metro is that Metro is such an overwhelmingly expensive thing to build that we simply can't afford to let it go underused by having poorly developed station areas.

If you want a low density village, you should be connected to the 2nd tier transit network rather than the first. We can afford that.

That's why it's so important to sell the idea of "the right mode for the corridor" rather than assume that Metrorail is always the best option.

by BeyondDC on Nov 24, 2009 3:00 pm  

By the way, "apoplectic rage" is exactly the correct way to describe the comments Bob Chase and Lon Anderson make at TPB. Anderson especially literally screams into the microphone.

by BeyondDC on Nov 24, 2009 3:02 pm  

@Frank

I understand your point. Private automobiles are convenient. While I don't own one, I sometimes use them (Zipcar, cab, ride in a friend's car) and they are, in fact much better for moving large items, hauling a cart-load of groceries, etc. However, living in an area that is well-served by transit options, I find that I have no need for constant access to a car. In addition, my neighborhood is extremely walkable as part of its design. I have no problem walking half a mile from where I live, but I couldn't even fathom doing the same in the suburbs. No sidewalks, no crossings, no nothing. It'd be sheer suicide. I think if other people had access to similar levels of public transportation and walkable communities, they would find that many of the trips would not require the use of a private car.

The other problem I have with your assertion is the entire "convenience" factor. Convenient does not necessarily equate to being good. Cars pollute (and they will pollute no matter what form of energy is used to power them), take up a lot of space in terms of roads and paved parking lots, have disconnected us from our surroundings, and they have made Americans more sedentary in general. A "convenient" culture where somebody drives their car to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail is not what I would call "good". Having people live closer to their jobs and giving residents the opportunity to walk and take transit alleviates many of those side effects of cars. While being realistic is important and see this transit-oriented vision as being "liberal" and "utopian", planning for what we would like to see in the future is even more prudent.

by Adam L on Nov 24, 2009 3:07 pm  

Beyond DC

I might not always agree with you-
but your response to Catherine was right on target.
Well said !!!

by w on Nov 24, 2009 3:08 pm  

Your response to my message is appreciated, though quite illustrative of the fundamental problem with your opinion.

Like you said, your walkable, transit ready community works great for you, and that is wonderful. It largely works for single, young people.

Get married. Have kids. See if you can still get everything done without a car. Try to kid your kids to soccer practice on a train. What if you want your family to have more space, to not live in a high-density, urban environment? Should you not have the choice to move out to the suburbs if that is what your family wants?

Our region must have areas like the one you live in. It works for part of the population, albeit a minority. But we must also have different types of development because not every one wants to live in Arlington, nor could they. There is no way we could relocate all the houses outside the Beltway into transit focused centers near Arlington, Falls Church, etc.

I agree we should build transit (rapid bus, light rail, etc.) in these outer suburban developments. But we must also link them with limited-access roads, because people will always CHOOSE to use them. And when we develop low-pollution cars that run with next to no emissions, the need for cars will increase even greater.

Real choice is having people decide. Not the government.

by Frank on Nov 24, 2009 3:23 pm  

Frank - If I live near transit, my kids can get to soccer practice and other activities by themselves, on the train. Much more convenient than living in an auto-oriented suburb and driving them everywhere.

by Ben Ross on Nov 24, 2009 3:27 pm  

You really can in places that aren't built for cars first and people second, Frank.

by NikolasM on Nov 24, 2009 3:35 pm  

"Get married. Have kids. See if you can still get everything done without a car."

The biggest impediment to getting things done without a car is living in a neighborhood where prevailing traffic travels at 45MPH and the kids can't walk or bike anywhere safely.

I.e. the kind of neighborhood that your organization considers the ideal.

by Omri on Nov 24, 2009 3:37 pm  

Frank,

1. Regarding choice: You're right, but the free market is an illusion in the case of urbanism. The market is shaped by the regulatory and subsidy environments that government creates. For the past 60 years the government has created a regulatory and subsidy environment in which it is overwhelmingly easier to "choose" the suburbs than anything else, which is why so many more people do that. Go read the average suburban zoning ordinance and you will find that in most of America it is literally illegal to build a walkable community. If we honestly want to provide the maximum level of choice, we will have to completely rewrite our regulations and subsidy environments to stop favoring suburbia. We're counting on your support in that endeavor, since you are on record supporting choice.

2. As Ben mentions, one of the really great things about cities is that children have as much access to move around them as adults, unlike auto suburbs where anyone who can't drive a car is dependent on others. Once your kids are older than about 9 years old, they'll want that freedom and you'll be happy not to have to cart them around everywhere.

by BeyondDC on Nov 24, 2009 3:37 pm  

Frank

I grew up in DC, went to school here, and did it mostly on transit/walk/bike.
So did my dad & his family- going way back generations right here in DC.

I have been in other countries- they do not have their cities and towns set up exclusively for the automobile and peope do very well.

by w on Nov 24, 2009 3:38 pm  

@Frank

But there's another fundamental problem. Why do the kids need to be driven to a soccer game? Why isn't the soccer game at a local park?

However, more to the point, the soccer mom scenario is a false analogy. I'm not saying that everything needs to be transit-dependent and I recognize that families will absolutely still need cars. However, most of the traffic problems are the result of people driving in single-occupant private vehicles during rush hour. I-495 isn't jammed every day because of soccer moms taking their kids to practice. These commuters are exactly the people who should be taking transit, leaving the roads available for other uses.

As for densities and living preferences; no, urban lifestyles are not for everybody. But that doesn't mean that suburban neighborhoods, even single-family developments, couldn't have better access to transit. If there was any way to even get to my folks' house in Montgomery County using transit, I would take it. As of now, I don't even have the option. The government is certainly making that decision for me.

Additionally, the DC area is growing by leaps and bounds. Thesee people are coming no matter what and that simply means higher densities. Period. Sure, it's a trade off, but welcome to our ever-more populated planet. I have friends and family who didn't like the higher densities of people, traffic, congestion, etc. You know what they did? They moved. People will decide how they want to live by voting with their feet err... car.

by Adam L on Nov 24, 2009 3:45 pm  

In addition to the good points others have made, it's important to remember that building more transit and transit-oriented communities doesn't preclude some people still choosing traditional suburban lifestyles if they wish. But we don't need to kep building so much. The proportion of families choosing that has declined, and the proportion of families with kids at home as a percentage of total households is declining as well.

Even if newer walkable neighborhoods only attacted singles, childless couples and empty nesters, we still have too many single family car-dependent houses and not enough walkable urban ones. Add in the families who want to live in townhouse areas in Capitol Hill, Arlington, Bethesda etc. and we need even more walkable areas.

I've met with a lot of politicians and almost every time one of their staff members says, Ooh, I'd love to live in Dupont Circle but we can't afford it and so we live in Germantown (or whatever). We need more Dupont Circles for them, and Chase and Anderson scoff at the entire idea because they still think everybody wants a standalone house and so any policy other than building almost entirely houses and freeways to them is wrong. It's their lack of understanding the demographic trends that's wrong.

But to reiterate, even a stronger version of this plan wouldn't kick people out of their existing single family car oriented homes, and it's fine for some people to choose that. We just have about enough of those and not enough walkable places.

by David Alpert on Nov 24, 2009 3:51 pm  

Growing up, going to baseball practice involved getting on a bike, not getting in a car.

While I'm one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) roadgeeks on this forum, I'd be the first in line to point out that we've really shot ourselves in the feet in this country with the zoning issue (which BDC has already noted), plus the general lack of sidewalks and interconnected bicycle trails/routes in most areas.

Without even factoring in transit or road improvements (both of which are needed too), rectifying those two items would reduce VMT, lessen the need to drive, and promote a healthier lifestyle.

by Froggie on Nov 24, 2009 3:59 pm  

the links to the nvta PDF are not working. did they pull their plan from the internet?

by IMGoph on Nov 24, 2009 4:10 pm  

Cars would start to be a lot less convenient if the price of gas accurately reflected their toll on the environment and the cost of the infrastructure needed to support them. $4 gas in 2008 made people change their driving habits; I wonder what kind of growth and development people will want when gas costs $6 a gallon?

Just look at what happens when you think about making people actually pay the real cost of a road they use (ICC). Sticker shock.

by Matt on Nov 24, 2009 4:15 pm  

Want to know what "drives" Bob Chase's agenda?

The Answer is simple: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

See where/how the NVTA (alliance) obtains its funding and all will be revealed.

by Seeking the Truth on Nov 24, 2009 4:26 pm  

re: Get married, have kids:

The best thing that ever happened to me was my family moving from a typical US cookie cutter, cul-de-sac suburban wasteland to a walkable, mixed-use European city with a dense and comprehensive transit system when I was 12. The friends I left behind remained socially stunted and completely dependent on their parents to get anywhere and everywhere, aching for the day they would turn 16 and be able to drive. In the meantime, I was able to get to school, soccer practice, cross country practice, band practice, the doctor, the orthodontoist, the movies, friend's houses, museums, several parks and forests, shopping, etc., etc. (you get the idea) completely on my own on foot and on transit. My monthly transit pass equaled freedom and the opportunity to learn to navigate society,interact with adults and have a social life without being 100 percent dependent on my parents . And rather than having my parents spend half their day as my personal chauffeur, I was able to lend a hand and do some of the shopping and other errands on my own. That cookie cutter, cul-de-sac suburb was fine until about age 10. But after age 10 children start wanting a more than some grass and a swing set in the backyard. At least I know I did. I was extremely lucky -- I got more.

by rg on Nov 24, 2009 4:34 pm  

@ Frank: It works for part of the population, albeit a minority.

That depends. If you count households, "traditional" families are actually in the minority.

The major mistake in your argument is that you assume that everybody lives in a family setting. That is simply not true. That is ignoring students, singles, divorcees, military and elderly. In short: a lot of people.

Family life is often seen the ultimate goal of society, just like top models are seen as the ultimate women. If you look around you do, how many top models do you see on the street? Very few. And just like that, there are many, many people who do not live in a traditional family setting.

by Jasper on Nov 24, 2009 4:43 pm  

Thanks BeyondDC and others. I am totally on board for light rail etc. But I also think that people who want to live in lower density areas don't necessarily need to be pushed outside the beltway (I'm not talking sprawling tracts of land here--I'm talking "lower density" as in Brookland, Petworth, Capitol Hill etc as compared to highrise developments). There has to be room for many different lifestyles around transit.

By that same arguement, we should tear down several blocks of townhouses around the Eastern Market station and build up highrises like those around the baseball stadium. If they want to live in a village environment, they shouldn't live so close to a metro stop, right?

And again, while I completely support the idea of more density around transit, we have to stop and think of the message that's sending. If people really equate a transit stop with forced development and higher density, they'll fight it even more than they do now. Although it may seem like a waste of space, perhaps allowing for lower density (here I'm talking Fairfax Co. style houses with yards etc) near transit is a better idea because the people who want to live in that kind of neighborhood still can AND not be car-dependent.

by Catherine on Nov 24, 2009 4:54 pm  

The more Fairfax County style houses you have near Metro stations, the fewer people can live in walking distance of the station. That is not a wise use of something as high-capacity as heavy rail.

by Cavan on Nov 24, 2009 4:56 pm  

Oh, and BeyondDC--the "village" I'm talking about is coming from monkeyerotica's post--talking about Takoma and Brookland. Those are the "low density villages" in question. And the Metro is already there, it's not being expanded to them. "LowER density" (my standard for high density begins at highrises, everything else is mid to lower) is not "low density". Capitol Hill, much of Dupont, much of Columbia Heights etc. All lowER density, to me.

Just to clear things up to make sure we're on the same page. I suspect that everyone has different ideas of what "high density" is, and I think that probably comes from where one grows up (high density for LA and Houston and places like that are very different from high density for New York and Chicago).

by Catherine on Nov 24, 2009 5:03 pm  

catherine: monkeyrotica, not monkeyerotica.

by IMGoph on Nov 24, 2009 5:06 pm  

ok, so the argument is semantics. DuPont is actually the densest part of the region outside of the Downtown and Golden Triangle BID's. Density is due to a lack of surface parking and open lots first, then due to taller buildings. DuPont is denser than the downtowns of most of the sunbelt cities that are made up of scattered surface parking lots and spread out skyscrapers.

As for Brookland, the taller building would only be right on top of the Metro. No one is proposing altering any existing buildings.

Please understand that we are very much an urban, dense city even without skyscrapers. Many places with skyscrapers are actually less dense because of all the surface parking and empty lots.

by Cavan on Nov 24, 2009 5:08 pm  

Catherine

the key to restoring the pre-WW2 density back on Capitol Hill
[ it once was far denser and more heavily populated]
is to allow people to build over their garages and build new alley buildings and offcies and shops. The downside to this is that the powers that be in this area are against actually "restoring" the true urban fabric of this neighborhood that even 30 years ago had a mom & pop store or business on just about every corner .

The ANCs and the CHRS are dead set against and new alley or garage apartments as they are a threat to parking which is their true mission since they have basically abandoned their original historic preservation efforts.

Give us restored alleys with dozens of beautiful, multi-storey homes with mixed use and we will have an even more dynamic neighborhood w/o skyscrapers or highrises.

But cars are far more important to the old people who moved here in the late 60's & early 70's. They want to keep it like their own suburban enclave.

by w on Nov 24, 2009 5:23 pm  

Geoff: NVTA still has the map online. Just a bad link on the GGW post.

by Froggie on Nov 24, 2009 5:25 pm  

danke, adam!

by IMGoph on Nov 24, 2009 5:28 pm  

Link fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.

by David Alpert on Nov 24, 2009 5:29 pm  

Cavan

you are absolutely correct

Downtown DC is the second to third largest downtown in the entire USA- note that there are no skyscrapers- but also almost no surface parking either. Many people do not get this about DC and believe that it is a "small town" when it is actually neck and neck with Chicago's Loop in sheer size of square footage- and this is not including the other parts of DC with new office or building development.

Density has little to do with building heights-
this is hard for many Americans to grasp- as we are so accustomed to the skyscraper as an emblem of a "real city".

This is utter non-sense and it is part of the suburban baloney that has been thrust upon us for the past 50 or so years . Paris and London and Berlin are all basically low rise and super high density- much more than any America cities except maybe NYC.

by w on Nov 24, 2009 5:30 pm  

Density can be increased at Eastern Market and at other Metro stations without building skyscrapers or even 20-story buildings, without destroying the "village feel" of any neighborhood and in many cases without destroying many or any existing buildings. For example, the CVS at the corner of 7th & Pennsylvania SE across from Eastern Market Metro is a one-story building housing only a CVS. That is a pretty poor use of land right across the street from a station served by two heavy rail transit lines. A three- or four-story building with the same footprint as the current CVS would add some density and capitalize on our investment in Metro without hurting the neighborhood. Indeed, such a building would probably improve the neighborhood -- Pennsylvania Avenue SE and the plaza at that location are too wide for one-story buildings. For comparison, does the four- or five- story building at the corner of 8th & Pennsylvania SE hurt the fabric of the neighborhood? I don't think so. It ADDS to it. And I certainly do not see how the weedy vacant lots surrounded by chain link fences next to the Brookland Metro Station, the inland sea of surface parking next to the RI Avenue Metro Station or the ocean of surface parking next to Stadium-Armory Metro Station contribute to a "village feel" in Brookland, Brentwood or eastern Capitol Hill. If anything, when I get to 19th Street SE as I walk from my house to the Stadium-Armory Metro Station, I feel as I am transitioning from the portion of a village that was spared bombing in war of about a decade ot two ago and entering the part that was bombed in that war and subsequently not redeveloped.

by rg on Nov 24, 2009 5:57 pm  

Lol, thanks IM and sorry monkey. I knew it seemed off....

And yes, then it seems that the trouble is semantics. Everything I've seen that has been built as a purposefully "high density" project is not a place I'd want to live. I've lived in Midtown Manhattan and wouldn't do it again if I were paid to (areas Downtown and many parts of Brooklyn, sure, but never Midtown). If adding a few floors above CVS would make that "high density" to you, great. It just still wouldn't strike me as "high", but rather "just right". I guess it's all in perception. As I explained on another post, I come from a highly walkable large town outside a large, old, pre-automobile city. As a kid (and this was the 80s/early 90s) I walked to school and biked just about everywhere else. I'm starting to wonder if this is a "high density" area. It certainly doesn't seem like it to me--it just feels like a town. My perspective could very well be significantly different from other people's, and I think that this is where we're running into trouble.

I'm not arguing about the ridiculous waste that is RI Ave Metro area and Stadium, and this is the first time either of those neighborhoods have been brought up in this ongoing conversation. I can't picture the the vacant lots by Brookland and I'm there twice a week. I get on and off on the university side, though so it's entirely possible I've missed them. When I think of Brookland, the neighborhood, I think of how it is basically a mirror of pre-car small cities all over the country (mostly in the Midwest)--single family and duplex houses on small lots, front porches, sidewalks, a "main street" etc. This, to me, is just the type of neighborhood to have around a transit stop. Not EVERY transit stop, but some, to give people a diversity of options about where/how they want to live and it still be transit accessible. I think it would be a shame to tear down these neighborhoods in favor of highrises, and think that doing so would ultimately drive more people to cul-de-sac car dependent land.

by Catherine on Nov 24, 2009 7:07 pm  

We can increase density without building highrises.

We can build 4 and 5 story buildings as rg said that can take space for things such as offices on the high floors and stores below.

If we have so many problems about density in different locations that can or would bring in traffic why the hell do we still have georgetown, spring valley, old town etc all that crap should have been torn down than.

Many people speak of the metro as a reason for density if you look at rail systems all over the world they are all not in high dense areas and operate fine.

The problem here is that we dont really have the type of systems they have which have way more stops and lines than us making it easier to make areas dense and others not.

What we really got is a commuter system that just happens to have subway hours. The system is not the distance and does not have the amount of stations of any major world city.

We need to be building or coming up with ways to create better access to things that are two centralized (hospitals, colleges, stores etc)

Citys need to be built for all kinds of modes of transit and people in mind.

Public transit, walk/run, bike/skate, car, cab etc.
old, young, mid aged, able body and disabled.

no medium sized city can function with just one mode of transportation or age group it can be seen in history you will have a problem eventually its better to start in a way that you will never have the problem than trying to find a solution.

DC, Alexandria, Arlington, will never be 100% transit friendly and walkable cities get that out of your minds now none of those jurdictions can afford to have transit every mile or so from a office, house whatever else due to the way the cities were designed, physical features, man-made features, the size, the amount of transit we have vs what we should have etc.

Our cities need to be able to accommodate people better and they can not do it; look it at outside of your normal view and maybe in the perception of a senior, a teen, a 30 year old or someone disabled all want and desire different things we as a area need to include all ways not just some which adds to some of the problems we have.

by kk on Nov 24, 2009 7:07 pm  

NVTA is urging it's followers to send their comments directly to a COG email address instead of through the public comment page. According to NVTA, "Note: Email comments will be recorded but will not be posted on the COG website."

by Bruce on Nov 25, 2009 10:33 am  

RG

I have always thought that the CVS building is a waste of air rights. Also- they built the new infill where Kinkos/Radio Shack is far too low rise- it should have been 5 stories.

Every corner building on a city square should have an interseting roofline- a tower, a trurret, dome, pyramid- and not just a flat boring roof. These buildings are punctuation marks and they describe the square.

I completely concur with your vision of Eastern Market square. Guess what- the "hysteric preservation" people [IOW- parking preservation people] and the local ANC will fight ANY new density in CH/ NY.
These car centric a$$holes are the main stumbling block to a better city and that goal of 100,000 new DC citizens put fourth by Anthony Williams.

To me, that was the best statement/idea he ever made.

by w on Nov 25, 2009 12:08 pm  

Ditto to those saying density and height aren't synonyms.

However, Catherine makes a good point in that *lately* we're not doing a very good job of constructing dense environments at a human scale. For a variety of reasons including economics of scale, availability of credit, the regulatory environment, and bad architecture, we're building more Ballstons these days than Duponts, even though Dupont is more dense.

Fixing that will be one of the next great challenges in the world of the urban planning.

by BeyondDC on Nov 25, 2009 3:35 pm  

I totally agree that most Americans are too dependent on their cars. So many communities have been structured around that, planned around automobiles as if everyone 16 and older should need to own a car. It is not the smartest way to do things. Whenever my family visits Washington DC, we love getting around by walking, bus, or using the metro. It is so much better. We will always need some automobile transportation, like cabs. We will always need the roads for trucks to bring goods to stores and that kind of thing. But it would be fantastic to live in a place where you can just walk to the library or a grocery store. Cars are so expensive and add to pollution. They should be used sparingly. I know that people may not want to change the way things are because perhaps they make money selling cars, manufacturing cars or repairing cars, insuring cars, etc. I don't mean them any harm. I wish they could earn a living in some other way that improves everyones' quality of life.

by Sheila on Jan 31, 2010 1:26 pm  

Back in the ol' USENET days, there was a group called alt.pave.the.earth; I now know where they wound up. As for this 'plan', I'd like to see Prince William and Loudoun County's respective leadership weigh in. Given their aversion to growth, I'd imagine they'd have a heart attack with three new highways running through their land.

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on Jun 9, 2011 3:58 pm  

As a person who moved here without a job, and significant person who got one in Leesburg, I understand the commuting difficulties in the area. I now have a job downtown (hooray), but I have to commute from Chantilly. Its doable by bus and orange line, but it can take 90 minutes on a bad day, and 60 minutes on the best day (to go 25 miles). The congestion in Fairfax county is totally east-west. Route 50, route 7, i-66 - they all have horrible congestion that I was totally unfamiliar with before moving to the area. None of these outer beltway proposals would do anything to help this traffic, and there is already evidence from the partial outer beltways - just look at the fairfax county parkway and route 28 at rush hour (do it on google maps traffic) versus i-66.

Look at the horrifying development along route 7 and route 50 (ashburn and south riding) that is 30 miles from DC. People move here to live in SFHs, and commute to Tysons, Alexandria, and in many cases, DC. Building outer beltways will not change where these people go for their jobs; the gridlock on 66, 50, and 7 will only get worse. By car, it takes me 30 minutes to go 10 miles on i-66 and route 50 from the Vienna metro to my home in Chantilly. Obviously, I don't want to be living this way (we are moving when our lease is up), and building outer beltways will only make this worse. The sprawl in fairfax county starts in falls church and now literally extends to the Loudoun county line - it really is crazy. None of it is walkable (When I say my wife and I only have one car, I get laughed at by neighbors).

by Fairfax County on Jun 10, 2011 4:02 pm