Posts about Tysons Corner

Fairfax County proposes to address this problem by adding 4 pedestrian bridges. But a better solution would be to deck over these roads wherever possible, and then stitch together the neighborhood fragments with air rights development.

Imagine grand pedestrian plazas, lined with a grid of narrow local roads and high-rises with ground-floor retail, all elevated above the main roads below carrying vehicular traffic from the Dulles Toll Road and I-495. Decks could transform barriers into true urban places. Roads that waste vast amounts of land could be converted to more productive use.

An air rights development similar in concept is advancing in the District of Columbia, and is an example of how this idea can work. The Return to L'Enfant plan (PDF) will deck three blocks of I-395 in downtown DC with new buildings.

The High Street deck over I-670 in Columbus, OH is a successful example of an air-rights development that was implemented a few years ago, although it is smaller in scale.

Route 123

The best opportunity for a deck may be along Route 123, where it passes the Tysons Corner Center and Tysons Galleria malls.

By my estimate, it would cost $120 million more to develop a deck with air rights buildings on top than it would cost to produce those same buildings under normal circumstances.

In order to make this profitable, Fairfax would have to give developers some significant concessions. Developers may need the right to build larger, more profitable buildings in order to cover the high initial costs. Parking requirements will have to be changed, since below-grade on-site parking will be impossible.

The sale of 10 acres of land to developers would likely yield somewhere around $60 million, based on previous land sales nearby. Fairfax could rebate some or all of this money to the developer to help cover the cost of the deck. Once the development is in place, the county would receive tens of millions of dollars per year in added tax revenue, which could help underwrite a TIF for a period of time to help fund the deck as well.

Even if the county gives up much of the direct revenue, doing this would still reap tremendous rewards. Route 123 would be a unified urban corridor. The most valuable land closest to the Metro station would be the center of the community, rather than a gaping hole. The local street grid would continue across the highway, and pedestrians would not be faced with a dangerous and daunting crossing.

This concept could provide an urban heart to the functional center of Tysons Corner, and provide Fairfax County with a strong revenue stream in the long term. There are many challenges, but if it can be made to work the payoff could be huge.

Air rights development over the Dulles Toll Road has been discussed for the Silver Line's future Reston station for over 10 years. Although a study found that the proposal was infeasible in the current economy, it may make sense in the future. If it's on the table in Reston, it makes sense to consider it in Tysons Corner, too.

He encouraged cities to move away from the historic North American penchant for putting a bus stop at nearly every corner (something not done in the rest of the world), and expect riders to walk a little more so that service is faster for everyone. Shortening trip times reduces the cost of providing service, which usually means that more service can be provided. It also encourages more people to ride, because it increases the area of the isochrone.

Transit routes that deviate off a direct path to serve poorly-located shopping centers, housing cul-de-sacs, and insular complexes, inconvenience through-riders and make transit less attractive, he said. Anything not built "on the way" is essentially saying, "I only want as much transit service as I alone can support," because those destinations can't be pooled with any other destinations. Once urban areas have taken this built form, it becomes expensive to provide service to them.

He ripped into WMATA's Metrobus map, pointing out that almost every route is shown in red, regardless of how often it runs. That's not helpful, he says, because it's like a roadmap "which doesn't differentiate between a highway and a gravel road."

Maps like this, which Walker laments are all too common amongst US transit systems, put the onus on the rider to first figure out what routes get them to where they want to go, then consult a complicated schedule to find out how often it runs.

Instead, he said, the map's design should make it as easy as possible on the rider by displaying routes based on frequency. Routes with the most frequent and round-the-clock service "should scream out at you," he insisted. For example, putting routes in a different color would let riders know at a glance if they could easily jump on board and not bother with a timetable.

Poor map design and inscrutable signpost information cost more than just riders. In some cities, it's become so frustrating that officials have thrown up their hands and turned to another form of transit altogether. Walker finds that unconscionable: cities shouldn't build streetcars or new bus systems simply because the existing system is incomprehensible. He pointed to the DC Circulator as a prime example of unnecessary duplication that squanders public resources that would be better spent making the most-used Metrobus routes more frequent and user-friendly.

His point about circulators is instructive for Tysons Corner, where five are planned. Walker says when good bus service is already there, adding circulators can be redundant and wasteful. In Canberra, Australia, planners faced with a similar situation saved lots of money by choosing simply to rebrand a section where many existing bus lines converged as one cohesive service (the "Green Line") with clock-face regularity.

He acknowledged that streetcars do tend to drive economic development because of their perceived permanence and attractiveness compared to buses. But he urged planners to remember that 50 years from now, any economic development potential today will be distant history, but the travel time riders gain from a bus which can navigate around obstacles will endure. He further cautioned against thinking of laying rails as signifying permanence, since most of DC's original streetcar tracks have been paved over.

Above all, Walker emphasized, transit agencies and the governments that fund them should see their job as enhancing freedom by making as much of the region as possible accessible by frequent, reliable service. The other things transit does, such as spurring economic development, providing jobs, protecting the environment and enhancing social equity, are all secondary to this primary purpose of transit.

If you missed Jarrett last week, you can watch his presentation to the Montgomery County Planning Department, below:

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.

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.

The Laurel Macy's has managed to remain open for years despite much of its host mall being shuttered. That store would likely have closed years ago if it wasn't making money, especially in the wake of the Great Recession.

Similarly, if it had not been profitable the White Flint Bloomingdale's would have closed in 2007 when another location of the luxury retailer opened a mere 3 Metro stations away.

Within the Favored Quarter, the most economically competitive and healthy part of our region, only the largest and most dynamic enclosed malls are continuing to thrive. The rest are slowly dying.

In Maryland, Montgomery Mall is the most vibrant, while in Virginia the Tysons cluster reigns supreme.

When the White Flint redevelopment plan was approved in 2010, it provided the owners of White Flint Mall the opportunity to earn a healthier profit by giving the market more of what it wants: walkable urbanism.

Elsewhere in the region the malls are doing as bad or worse. Most have either closed or are in the process of being converted to walkable town centers.

Arlington has had success turning the area around its two enclosed malls into mixed-use towns, first at Ballston and now at Pentagon City, where the process is still under way.

In Fairfax, Springfield Mall is slated for redevelopment, and Fair Oaks Mall is actively considering a mixed-use future.

In Prince George's County, the area around the Mall at Prince George's (formerly Prince George's Plaza) has been undergoing a process similar to Pentagon City. At Bowie Town Center, County officials are looking at adding more entertainment and housing options.

Meanwhile, urban shopping areas that I mentioned three years ago have increased in prominence:

In the District of Columbia, there are four shopping districts that support clusters of national retail chains that are usually mall-based: Downtown (Old Downtown clustered around Metro Center), Connecticut Avenue between Farragut Square and Dupont Circle, Friendship Heights, and Georgetown. Columbia Heights is emerging and has a different mix of retailers.

Urban-format suburban shopping districts also continue to thrive and grow.

Silver Spring's retail is more vibrant than ever. The space vacated by Borders was quickly filled by Smart Toys. Bethesda and Clarendon are continually adding to their mixture of chains and smaller upscale retailers. Wheaton is a work in progress.

Even outside the Beltway, urbanism is catching on. Rockville Town Square and Gaithersburg's Washingtonian Center are growing, and National Harbor is setting the standard for Prince George's County. Two decades ago, all those developments likely would have been enclosed malls.

While purely car-dependent malls aren't going to go completely extinct, they are becoming far more rare. In the future, it is likely the only enclosed malls that remain will be the largest super-regional "winners" inside the Favored Quarter. Meanwhile, no new malls are planned.

As the 21st Century continues, both living and dead mall sites will be either be completely redeveloped or will evolve into mixed-use walkable urban places. Retailers will continue clustering at transit-oriented, walkable urban locations, both downtown and at new suburban "uptowns."

The connectivity standards reformed a key mistake in suburban development: building neighborhoods composed primarily of cul-de-sacs. In many neighborhoods, there's just one way in and out for any homeowner, to one or maybe two major arterial roads.

While this gives many homeowners the ability to live on a quiet street, it creates problems for everyone. With few entry and exit points, all the traffic gets focused on single intersections at the arterials, causing significant congestion. Kids can't walk or bike to school or even friends' houses when the only route involves going out to the busiest part of the neighborhood and along a wide road designed for high-speed traffic.

And it costs taxpayers. These neighborhoods are very expansive to plow for snow and time-consuming to navigate for ambulances and fire trucks. Subdivisions in Virginia had to wait days or weeks for plowing during the major snows last year because of the way the plows had to constantly backtrack, and people couldn't get out of their neighborhoods without any alternate routes.

Older suburban areas still primarily comprise single-family houses while providing a grid that spreads traffic around and offers many safe routes for non-motorized users. Areas like Columbia, Greenbelt and Reston win constant plaudits for designing suburban areas that lack these shortcomings, with paths to walk and bike that also build community.

The connectivity rules revolved around a simple premise: Once a developer builds a subdivision, VDOT (except in a few counties) then takes over responsibility for maintaining and plowing the roads. Therefore, they should be able to require certain standards to avoid developers pushing all the costs off onto the taxpayer. The General Assembly in 2007 authorized a change, and Virginia briefly jumped far ahead of most states with this progressive policy.

Last week, however, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a policymaking body appointed by the Governor, voted to drop the old standards, especially the "Connectivity Index" which created a score based on the degree to which a street network was connected or isolated.

Instead, they set some rules for the number of connections out of a subdivision and onto main streets. A development of 200 homes needs 2 connections, though 1 can be a "stub end" road which connects to an as-yet-undeveloped area. Each additional 200 homes will only require one additional connection. It's better than nothing, but still means a new 200-house development can have just 1 way in and out.

Also, a subdivision can add a "collector road" which gives double credit if that road is part of a county transportation plan. So a developer could build 400 houses, all on cul-de-sacs off one major road through the center, and connect that road only at 2 points to major arterials. A typical suburban house can generate about 10 car trips per day, so there will be 4,000 turning movements onto and off of those 2 arterials every day. It's a recipe for major traffic that will harm every other resident who uses those roads.

While Virginia is weakening rules to create better road networks in new suburbs, it's neglecting established areas in favor of greenfield development and traffic-inducing megaprojects. Governor McDonnell and Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton have made it clear they don't want to contribute to the Silver Line Phase II, even if the federal government, Fairfax, and Loudon all put in more money.

Meanwhile, but McDonnell and Connaughton are eagerly borrowing money to build large freeways like the damaging bypass around Charlottesville or to push an Outer Beltway. Much of the region's future growth will happen in Tysons Corner, but it's not getting transportation improvements it needs. And transit along the Route 1/Richmond Highway corridor is nowhere on the agenda.

Virginia could get far more bang for its precious transportation buck by focusing on local street connections, and most of all repairing crumbling roads and bridges. Instead, the McDonnell administration seems bent on repeating the mistakes of the 1950s: building unsustainable transportation networks at the periphery while letting a more central economic engine sputter. Then, it was center cities across America; now, it's Arlington, Alexandria and Tysons Corner which state officials are looking past instead of toward.

Tonight is an important meeting where Virginia residents can speak up about priorities. VDOT is having a public meeting to hear input on its 6-year priorities tonight, at the VDOT Northern Virginia District Office, 4975 Alliance Drive in Fairfax. Sadly, VDOT doesn't seem to think it's a priority to locate a meeting near Metro. An open house format starts at 6, and presentations by local officials at 6:30 followed by public testimony.

Bob Chase's Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, a group funded by greenfield developers in Virginia to lobby for roads that would feed suburban development on their land, has been pushing its members to attend and push for an Outer Beltway. Chase even argued, with an apparent straight face, that new highway lanes were more important than repairing crumbling bridges during a round of news stories last week concerning the dire condition of the nation's infrastructure.

It's important to get more residents who support good road connectivity, local street improvements, repairing crumbling infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and local transit improvements to counter the sprawl lobbyists. If you can't attend, you can also send in written testimony at this Coalition for Smarter Growth page.

As proposed, Capital One's 12 additional buildings would comprise roughly five million square feet of new development. The plan breaks construction down into five phases, with the first phase including two buildings. The eventual build-out of the plan would see Capital One's site host a variety of buildings, ranging from mid-rise residential to a (relatively) iconic commercial structure rising to 427 ft.

Urbanists should be happy with the overall scope of Capital One's plan. While there is an extensive amount of new parking included (3,953 spaces), Capital One has made a great effort to opt for both underground and discreet parking, ensuring street-front retail takes precedence. Garages in the plan are concealed behind buildings or under them, making the plan very walkable. Nevertheless, the traffic Capital One's expansion would generate would add to Route 123's already significant burden, though the site's proximity to both the Beltway and Interstate 66 helps.

While Capital One's ambitious plan should be applauded for conforming to the proposed guidelines for Tysons Corner as an urban center, the proposal's lack of a strong residential component is a key factor mitigating the project's potential to be a major positive influence. In its statement of justification, Capital One notes that its "proposed mix of uses mirrors [the Tysons Corner Comprehensive Plan's] recommendations of office uses up to 65% with a minimum residential component of 20%," stating that its own plan contains 25% residential and 65% office.

There's no way around the fact that more office space is coming to Tysons, but only the significant addition of residential space there will make a dent in the traffic that cripples the area. Instead of being forced to give up office space for residential, Capital One should be allowed and encouraged to develop as much residential as possible on top of its existing plans, as long as the new housing units come with very limited additional parking space.

Height restrictions on Tysons residential towers should be lifted, and buildings above a certain height should be required to include a certain percentage of residential. This would encourage buildings with bases of office or hotel with the upper levels containing residential, as this kind of mix of uses is one of the most effective ways to make an area walkable.

Encouraging higher residential buildings in Tysons would also satiate the demand for views. Tysons Corner's location at a relatively high elevation for the region means that adding just 200 or 300 feet to residential buildings could offer residents prime views of DC. Even from the top of the five-story parking garages in Tysons Corner Center, one can make out the National Cathedral.

The proposed Capital One Center is commendable for the extremely efficient use it makes of the land the bank has to work with. Just add some more housing space to allow more of Tysons' growing workforce to live near their jobs, and the project should do wonders in remaking Tysons Corner into a true city.

My cousin loves her car—a 2009 Infiniti G37 coupe. But her enthusiasm to drive was significantly curbed in June when she accidentally rear-ended someone in heavy rush-hour traffic for the second time in two months. Not only did it give her jitters behind the wheel—her insurance payment doubled.

Knowing that taking transit saves money, burns calories, and frees up time, I decided to make The Ask. Since I was commuting downtown for the summer, I suggested we take the bus to the Metro from the stop right outside her development in central Tysons Corner. Before the accidents, she would have laughed it off, but instead she said yes.

Now that my cousin's been riding a while, I asked her a few questions.

Has switching to Metro saved you money?

The cost of using Metro per month is $196 (bus + train). Parking at the office is $270/month plus $284/month in gas. So my total monthly savings is $358. Additional pluses are less mileage on the car as well as wear and tear on the tires. Also there is less chance of getting in an accident (my personal favorite).

Are there other pros or cons to switching to transit?

Cons: I don't love being stuck at the mercy of bus and train schedules. Also, driving can take less time. The 11-mile commute by car ranges from 30 minutes on the best day to 90+ on bad days. My transit commute takes about 50 minutes, door-to-door. Plus, I like to have the option to stop on my way home which you cannot do as easily on public transportation.

Pros: On the other hand, it's less stressful than driving. I used to arrive at work all stressed out from the traffic delays, constant construction and really poor driving going on around me. I can work on my way in as I get service for the BlackBerry on the bus and train.

I've found the buses clean and air conditioned. The timetables seem to be pretty accurate. And having two different bus routes within 1 block of my home is convenient.

The bus drop-off at West Falls Church is covered so I don't get wet when it's raining. A dedicated, separate entrance to the train platform is provided from the bus area as well. The vast majority of the time I even manage to get a seat both ways.

To top things off, I can get a pre-tax benefit through my firm's WMATA SmartBenefits program.

Was it easier or harder than driving on the earthquake, hurricane and flood days?

In general, it was easier. While there were delays on transit, the traffic seemed way worse.

The day of the earthquake, it took almost twice as long due to the lower speed limit on tracks during the structural inspections. On the Thursday that Tropical Storm Lee blew through, I waited an hour for the bus—which I expected. But I equated traffic around Tysons to what one would see on Christmas Eve: gridlock. I was very glad to be on the bus.

What are your words of wisdom to anyone considering a bus/Metro commute?

My advice would be to try it for a week, take the time to do the math and calculate the savings. And keep an open mind.

I begrudgingly (still) have to admit I am a public transportation convert. Check back with me in November when the cold and snow has settled in.

If you haven't tried transit, give it a whirl. You might just become a convert, too.

Crossposted at The Durable Human.

Besides the ambitiousness of LCOR's plan, the proposal is also very urban in nature and deserves an A+ for integrating the future street grid of Tysons. Each building interacts with the future grid of streets through ample street-front retail, which will encourage a vibrant streetscape with pedestrian activity.

Additionally, the streets are scaled appropriately for vehicle and pedestrian traffic (contrary to Route 123, among others). LCOR's plan also centralizes parks, instead of spreading out green space with no regards to what's actually usable.

LCOR certainly feels that the tower-in-the-park school of urbanity is dead. Their proposal neatly encompasses traditional city planning elements that have more recently become the hallmarks of smart growth. Street-front retail, centralized parks, and walkable block sizes are all excellent attributes of the plan for McLean's Commons, and serve as an example for how other projects should be planned for Tysons Corner.

A proposal by defense contractor Mitre to expand their campus is decidedly less urban in nature. Instead of utilizing their land for a plan that acts in accordance with the urban vision for Tysons, Mitre ignores every tenet of building a walkable, urban community. Mitre's proposal envisions an additional two office buildings with 1.4 million square feet of space, as well as the construction of another elevated parking garage.

Construction of more office space is clearly in the cards for Tysons, but Mitre's plan has several glaring problems. It ignores any potential future street grid in favor of keeping winding roads typical of suburban office campuses. Those winding roads are accompanied by an additional massive parking structure, and though Mitre's proposal is within walking distance of the new station, they ignore any accommodations that could be made to make their new campus pedestrian-friendly. This would make the use of the Tysons East station by any future employees laughable.

Unlike LCOR's plan, there is no mix of uses, nor do the proposed buildings even front the streets. And Mitre sticks to the failed model of spreading open space randomly throughout their plan, effectively creating dead areas.

Contrasting LCOR's plan with Mitre's shows that not all parties involved in the redevelopment of Tysons Corner believe that a more urbanist plan is the best option. If plans like Mitre's continue to be submitted and receive approval, Tysons will not be able to achieve its goal of becoming a walkable city that's not as reliant on auto trips in and out, nor avoid perpetual gridlock for adjacent McLean and Vienna.

Lerner's master plan, viewable in this attached image from Kohn Pedersen Fox, is completely inadequate if Tysons is to be made into an urban community. Unfortunately, the county's review process has not stopped projects such as this one, or forced them to adopt good design practices this development was approved years ago, before the current review processes were in place.

There are several key issues with the Lerner plan. The most prominent is the anti-urban street pattern, which relies on cul-de-sacs for street access to the buildings. Lerner's neglect for Tysons' proposed new street grid is a serious and major flaw. Their development proposal is a replication of the towers in the park movement that became obsolete many years ago.

The failure to include any new through streets is a major problem, as it hinders the improved accessibility that the Metro expansion is supposed to promote. Calming the crossing of Chain Bridge Road (Route 123) is not likely to be practical, and that elevated walkways will have to suffice there, but it's not acceptable for Lerner to completely neglect any aspects of walkability in the interior of their multi-block development.

Lerner's plan includes only minimal street front retail. For that matter, it includes very minimal street front anything, since the buildings don't interact with any sort of grid. Meanwhile, the site plan shows at least two new additional massive parking lots.

With poor pedestrian access to large new buildings and continued reliance on the car, Lerner's proposal threatens to overwhelm the area's infrastructure and defeat the purpose of bringing Metro to Tysons.

Lerner's plan should be modified to feature actual city blocks rather than cul-de-sacs and superblocks, and to bring every building up to the street front. Rather than leaving vast areas of land open on the fringes, Lerner should create a single consolidated urban park for their proposal.

Furthermore, Lerner should integrate the new Metro station more effectively with their proposal. In its current form, the station appears to lack an entrance from the sidewalk, feeding directly into a private office building. This would discourage pedestrian traffic to the rest of the neighborhood.

Also, it does not appear any thought was given to placing the tallest buildings closest to the Metro. The plan should be modified so there is easy public access to the Metro station, and so buildings closest to the station are scaled significantly larger than those further away.

Another problem is parking. Lerner's plan includes several above ground garages, which destroy the pedestrian experience and encourage driving. Underground parking should be a primary feature of any new Tysons Corner developments, especially for projects so close to a Metro station.

To encourage these changes, particularly underground parking, Fairfax County might consider density or height bonuses in the most appropriate areas. The county's tentative 400' height limit in Tysons is arbitrary and does little to foster high quality redevelopment. There are no views to preserve in Tysons Corner, so there is no reason developers should be prevented from building tall towers. Indeed, tall, iconic buildings could help Tysons to be perceived as a true urban center.

Tysons Corner does not have to be a horrible place. If it is to improve, developers will have to get serious about changing the type of buildings they put there, and Fairfax County will have to be equally serious about following its impressive Transforming Tysons plan.

If Tysons is to change for the better, the Lerner proposal cannot be built in its current form. It is sorely deficient in embracing urbanity, and is the same type of development that has made traffic in Tysons so bad. With Fairfax County's help, Lerner should learn from past mistakes and reorganize their site plan to be first and foremost urban and pedestrian friendly.

Update: Brian Worthy from Fairfax County pointed out that this plan was approved under Tysons' previous land use plan, which permitted this type of design. It would be prescient of the county to try to convince Lerner to move toward a more urban solution, which could increase their profits as well as creating a development that better fits into the future of Tysons.