Stafford County: Irrational Fear of Density

The word “density” means different things to different people. To some, it conjures images of a dystopic, skyscraper-ridden Manhattan. To others it evokes a crowded, jostling K Street in Washington, D.C. To developer Ted Smart, it means a few blocks of three- and four-story buildings clustered around a Virginia Railway Express station in Stafford County.

For many Stafford residents, it appears, Smart’s vision for a walkable, mixed-use community in the middle of the ‘burbs is frightening. As Bob Burke documents in his story, “The Curse of the ‘D’ Word,” Smart is running into a lot of local resistance to the proposal on the grounds that the density would create too much congestion.

It is imperative that people learn to distinguish between impact of density on local traffic patterns and its impact on regional congestion. Yes, Smart’s Leeland Station would create more localized congestion than would exist on the 626-space parking lot that sits there now. But it would create less congestion regionally than the alternative: sprawling, by-right development. People living in Leeland Station would take fewer, shorter car trips, putting less strain on Stafford County’s road network, than would a comparable number of households living in cul-de-sac subdivisions and five-acre farmettes.

How do we know this? First of all, the community would be designed to provide maximum access to the VRE train station — taking commuters off Stafford’s traffic-clogged roads during rush hour, the time that matters most. Secondly, Leeland Station residents would find that many of their daily needs — drug stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, child care, video stores, whatever — would be located within a very short distance. Even if they were too lazy to walk, the drive would be extremely short. Such trips would not stress the county’s secondary road network. Thirdly, Smart’s plan would efficiently accommodate bus service, which cul de sac and farmettes cannot.

A second point: Smart is willing to provide the county $37 million in proffers and make $17 million in local road improvements on his own. How much proffer money will the county get from by-right development, which, by definition, requires no zoning approvals and no negotiation?

A third point: If Smart provides 1,673 dwelling units, that’s 1,673 fewer households living in scattered, disconnected, low-density locations where it’s impossible to walk anywhere, bicycle anywhere or serve by bus or light rail. Here’s the irony, Leeland residents will be OK with the “congestion” created in Leeland Station itself (a) because the community is designed to handle it, and (b) they want the urban-style amenities the project offers.

If other Stafford residents don’t like the “congested” atmosphere of Leeland station, with all those cars and people, guess what: They don’t have to go there! It’s not as if Leeland would transform the character of the entire county! No one will be taking away their precious cul de sacs and strip shopping centers. I just don’t see how anyone loses by approving Leeland Station. But I see everyone losing if it gets turned down.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

10 responses to “Stafford County: Irrational Fear of Density”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s the problem and TMT has already identified it for Fairfax but it’s true just as much in Stafford. It’s all relative.

    The question is – what do you do with Smart Growth projects when the transportation system is already maxed AND there is absolutely no plans to upgrade it?

    How do you justify to existing residents already burdened with heavily congested roads – the “idea” that it will “benefit” them to allow even more dense development than “by-right”.

    What Mr. Kurpiel is ALSO worried about is impacts of growth on the rest of the infrastructure in the county.

    The county has done a “build-out” analysis of how much additional infrastructure would be required if it is developed fully with the minimum “by-right” development in terms of costs and impacts to the tax rate.

    The numbers are not reassuring. Any way you cut it two bad things will happen:

    1. – The levels of service will likely drop – not only for roads, but endanger their water supply, overcrowd schools, libraries, degradation of 911 rescue… etc.

    2. – The property tax rate will go up JUST to keep the LOS from deteriorating unacceptably

    So.. citizens ask the simple question, like Ms. Kurpiel asked and that is “What is the benefit of this development to the county, it’s citizens and it’s taxpayers”?

    Why should Stafford citizens embrace Smart Growth if it means higher taxes and degraded LOS?

    It’s a trust issue and many voters will vote any supervisor out of office if they support Residential rezones to higher densities.

    It all comes back to transportation and the lack of a cogent policy that assures that land-use decisions are connected to transportation planning.

    People simply do not trust local or State government to deal effectively with growth and, in fact, are more than willing to let the development community call the shots… in Richmond.

  2. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry:

    That is why we need Balanced Communties, not just balanced staion-area, village-scale projects.

    Jim is right, these projects are a lot better than the Business-As-Usual alternative, a whole lot better.

    TMTs frame of reference, Fairfax County, is 244,000 acres and covers all or part of nine Beta Communities. Not a single one of them is planned to become an Alpha (Balanced) Community.

    We have to stop thwarting small-scale (cluster-scale, neighborhood-sclae and village-scale) steps in the right direction by citing communtiy-scale, subregional-scale and New Urban Region-scale dysfunctions.

    At the least the smaller-scale project with help the Geographic Illiterate envision what could happen if six Alpha (Balanced) Villages were put together to create an Alpha (Balanced) Community.

    Jim: Keep plugging away, at some point the lessons will start to sink in.

    By the by, Larry good response the other day about “dispersion as a solution strategy.” There are an infinte numbers of ways to create Balanced Communities. Just scattering urban land uses at any scale is not one of them. Those who want to build “accessory” dwellings in the Countryside like to talk about the use of scatteration and dispersion but it is only an illusion to confuse those who are trying to achieve Balance, mobility / acess and affordable / accessible housing that is not an energy sink.

    EMR

  3. Bull Elephant Avatar
    Bull Elephant

    I’m a Stafford resident who opposes the Leeland Station project.

    I admit that perhaps I need an education on these issues, but my initial reaction is that high-density growth does not, in fact, cut down on local congestion in either the short or the long term. The only feasible way to do that is to have fewer people.

    First, reliance on VRE as a congestion-reliever is misplaced. This comes, I think, from a notion that VRE is somehow analogous to Metro, in that it is a cheap, quick, reliable, and easy alternative to car travel. It is none of the above, for most people. Moreover, while residents of the proposed development may have a relatively high usage rate of VRE compared to the rest of Stafford, but that in no way means that local roads will be *less* stressed during rush hours. In fact, I’d wager that the vast majority of transits for people living in the proposed community would be on the already over-taxed local road network (e.g., taking the kids to school, transit to local jobs in North Stafford/Quantico, etc.). Further, I disagree that any reasonably anticipated commercial development would keep those new residents’ transit patterns close to home; there is simply no way those residents won’t further clog the unbelievably terribly planned major retail corridors in the area (Rt. 3 in Fredericksburg, and Garrisonville Rd (Rt 610) in North Stafford).

    I also think it’s delusional (and suggestive of an ignorance of the geography) to think that people are going to travel anywhere on bikes or on foot in that area of the county. There is simply nowhere to go around there, and such talk seems naive and utopianist to me.

    It seems to me that the only way such community-based development is going to work in places like Stafford is to place them close to where people want to go (e.g., Rt. 3 and Garrisonville), and use the development proffers to minimize the impact on these already clogged areas.

    Like I said, I may need an education on these issues. Please enlighten me.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Bull Elephant, My argument boiled down to its simplest terms is this: Population growth is coming to Stafford County — you can’t stop it. There is simply too much land zoned for by-right development. People will clog all the roads you mentioned NO MATTER WHAT. What you can do is this: Create transportation-efficient development as an alternative to transportation-inefficient development. Mixed-use, transit-oriented development like Leeland Station will generate traffic, no question. But it will generate fewer and shorter trips compared to the same number of people living in scattered, disconnected, low-density locations. If yoy can cut the average number of trips from 10 per household per day to 8, and the average length of the trips (mostly on county roads) from, say, 60 miles per day to 40, you’ve significantly diminished the impact of development. Furthermore, if you can get the developer to kick in $40 million+ for road improvements, you’re way better off than by-right development, which will contribute nothing.

    What part of that argument do you not agree with?

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Of course, Ed makes the larger point that I neglected. Another way of framing the issue is this: Mixed-use transit-oriented development like Leeland station is preferable on a “micro” scale compared to Business As Usual development. It is not sufficient by itself to create sustainable communities. It simply lacks the scale. It’s equivalent to what Ed might call a “village,” a component of a alpha community. (Ed, please correct my terminology.)

    Only an alpha community has the scale to support an effective bus system and other transportation alternatives. Only an alpha community will have a balance of housing, jobs, shopping, recreation, schools, health care facilities and other amenities — a Leeland-scale “village” is not large enough to support those by itself. The importance of having a balance of uses is that residents can meet most of their needs within a short geographical radius. They may have to drive, but they won’t have to drive far. They’ll put far less strain on the transportation system.

    I haven’t studied these issues as closely as Ed, so I’ll let him correct me when I go astray, but I suspect that a sustainable community with a viable transportation system would probably need 30,000 or 40,000 residents — not the 3,000 or 4,000 residents in Leeland Station. What Stafford really needs is 10 Leeland stations in close proximity.

    But, if you’re not willing to even contemplate planning an alpha community on the “macro” level — which Stafford shows no sign of doing — it should at least get the “micro” level development right.

    One more thing: Ray Hyde and TMT continually make the point that Virginia needs to create more “places” for people to move to. If you’re not going to shoehorn those new “places” into the urban core, where they would do the most good, then create sustainable, economically viable places in outlying counties like Stafford. These places need to resemble alpha communities, not dysfunctional suburbs.

  6. E M Risse Avatar

    Jim:

    Not a thing to “correct.” I put things differently but your point is well made.

    (I am still working on that Glossary, it will part of Trilogy and we can post it on BR for easy reference as soon as it is done.)

    Two other issues.

    When we and others worked long an hard to get VRE up and running, we hoped for just this sort of station area development. That has not been the case. See our column “The Commuting Problem” 17 January 2005 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com for the numbers on development within 15 miles of the VRE stations and the long term implications.

    VRE is dysfunctional, or at least less functional, because of all those scattered urban dwellings. No shared-vehicle system can meet all the mobility needs of the station area businesses, employers, residents, etc. (J / H / S / R / A )

    Shared-vehicle systems work because they serve some high-value trips and at the same time facilitate patterns and densities that allow citizens access and mobility without resort to any vehicle.

    Second:

    What Bull Elephant (love that name) and others fear is that these new units will attract urbane buyers and businesses and Stafford County will also still get the by-right, scattred development.

    What does this mean?

    Well first, there must be a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, or better a “transfer of property rights” (TPR) program as we describe in The Shape of the Future.

    Beyond that, citizens and their represenatives have to get serious about subregional and regional allocation of both jobs and housing to create Balanced Communities. Trickle Down I-95 does not work.

    Finally, all this would be made much easier by fairly allocating all the location variable costs.

    Jim talked about parking in a recent post. Think how things would change if people had to pay the real direct and indirect (e.g. water polution) cost of parking. Parking is a classic location-variable cost.

    Jims point about critical mass to create Balance is right on. The problem is that this means bigger, not smaller projects and without these tools in place it raises the stakes for those who believed:

    That the tooth fairy would deliver roadways,

    That more roadways by themselves or money to build roadways would solve any problem

    That they were the last folks who would want to move into Stafford County.

    EMR

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Population growth is coming to Stafford County — you can’t stop it. There is simply too much land zoned for by-right development. People will clog all the roads you mentioned NO MATTER WHAT.”

    This is the argument that ALL developers uses at public meetings and hearings in Stafford and Spotsylvania and it does not win over anyone for the most part.

    There’s a deep sense of frustration that the only choice that folks have is bad and less bad…rather than a path to a vibrant place where people want to live, work and play.

    Most folks are not policy wonks .. they’re simply looking for the best situation for themselves and they feel almost no ability to cause change so they merely try to adapt the best they can…

    Their first reaction to a “big” development is to think about the numbers of houses…kids..cars… and what those things will do to the local infrastructure and whether or not they will be reasonably mitigated.

    The KNOW that the regional traffic issue is out of hand – that even if the project adequately mitigates the local impacts that arterial roads and I-95 will be further degraded and they simply don’t know how those things will ever get fixed…(improved)…

    I don’t mention these things as argument against Smart Growth but rather to point out the size of the hill that has to be climbed to get ordinary folks to “recognize” the benefits of Smart Growth when they are already up to their asses in alligators….. unless they hear the magic words “drain the swamp”. or worse.. they hear that a few more “good” alligators will soon enter the pool… they’re really not interested if some of those new alligators are “smart” ones.

    Kaine and company, and the pro-taxers are counting on this dynamic to slam dunk their approach….

  8. I’m totally ignorant on this, bu it sounds like what I mean when I say we need more places.

    But, all politics is local. If they wipe out 272 parking spaces for regular people and effectively cordon off the trains sation so that it can be used only by the high rent types, then there will be no one in favor of this.

    Until we get over the idea that NIMBY’s reign, that anyone can say no to anything at no cost to themselves, we will never be able to accomplish anything.

    Have a reverse auction, and move on.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “more places”

    lookeee here: even when given the opportunity – DOD does not want to move jobs …

    300 new jobs may bypass Fort A.P. Hill

    Army claims area surrounding base doesn’t have sufficient housing, medical services, jobs for spouses, or schools.

    An Army proposal that could steer 300 new jobs away from Fort A.P. Hill in Caroline County has ignited a controversy in the region.

    The operations element that contains the 300 civilian and military jobs may be going to Fort Meade in Maryland, while the training would be done at A.P. Hill. The training component carries no new jobs.

    That possibility has upset local government officials in the Fredericksburg area.

    Connors said the Army’s reasoning is perplexing because supervisors last year denied Tricord’s rezoning request for 1,500 homes at New Post. The denial was in part based on A.P. Hill’s argument that the development would encroach on the Army’s 77,000-acre property, he said.

    The Army has a chance to bring jobs to the region, Connors said, and that’s what he is urging.

    “I do not understand why the Army would choose to purposely split the command and operational elements of AWG,” [Sen] Warner wrote.

    Lt. Col. William Wiggins, an Army spokesman, didn’t want to comment at this point.

    http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/122006/12112006/aphill

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    Virginia and Stafford County need to embrance town center development around VRE stations, but it is
    going to require the following:

    -more capacity on the rail line from Richmond to Washington, DC to handle more passenger trains;
    -more upgrade of roads around these stations to facilitate the movement of residents from the
    communities elsewhere in the Fredericksburg region;
    -more employment centers in the projects so residents can work and live in the same communities;
    -and a credit system so that development in rural parts of that county can be moved to these projects,
    allowing the rural landowner to benefit economically from the transfer of development rights.

    Stafford County could be the home of 250,000 people in the next twenty years, twice the size of the
    current population. Much of that increase should take place in such projects. We need a state planning
    department to work with such communities to make these goals happen.

Leave a Reply