The Tab for Tysons Transportation: $3 Billion and Counting

by James A. Bacon

How much will it cost to build the transportation improvements needed to accommodate the increased density of the new-and-improved Tysons Corner? The Fairfax Department of Transportation issued updated estimates last week at a meeting of the Tysons committee of the Fairfax County Planning Commission (PCTC) — and the estimate increased 20% from the previous best guess to more than $3 billion.

Here are the numbers:


There is a considerable fudge factor in the numbers given the inherent uncertainty of projecting so far out — and the forecast does not include an estimated $850 million to build a street car circulator within Tysons — but no matter how you add up the numbers, we are talking serious money.

The effort to morph Tysons from a monument to helter skelter, auto-centric sprawl into a model urban community is one of the most ambitious suburban retrofits ever attempted… anywhere. The centerpiece is the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail commuter line that will connect Virginia’s largest business center to Dulles airport and to the rest of the METRO rail system. METRO will have four stations in Tysons. Fairfax County planners are playing by the smart growth handbook. They are increasing densities around METRO stops. They are planning for grid streets and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. They are incorporating mixed uses, including thousands of units of residential. And they are requiring developers to institute Transportation Demand Management plans. Yet the question remains, can Tysons successfully make the transformation? Or was the original design, such as it was, such an abomination that business center cannot make the transition without billions of dollars of outside subsidies?

Roughly half the cost of Rail-to-Dulles will come from commuters on the Dulles Toll Road, a multi-billion dollar transfer of wealth. Now Fairfax planners are saying the county will need another $3 billion (and a lot more if inflation is taken into account) — without any idea of where the money will come from. The feds and the state might cough up some, but most of it will have to come from local sources.

In an ideal world, property owners who will make a killing from added density and proximity to the METRO should share some of the massive increase in value that they did not create. One option would be a special tax district along the lines of the existing tax district that is contributing a modest share of the heavy rail construction cost. Writes one observer:

The problem, and it’s very big problem, is that many landowners are steadfastly refusing to pay for these transportation improvements.  Why, they reason, should they pay this tax when many of them do not plan to redevelop [sic] for a very long time (10-15 years or more) and when their land lies outside of the TOD areas and does not qualify for the much higher densities being given to landowners near the Metro stations. Also, Lerner and Macerich, who are inside the [Transit Oriented Development] area, have already obtained county approval for their significant redevelopments and see no benefit in paying this tax.

The reality is the landowners outside the 1/2-mile TOD areas WILL benefit from the transportation improvements, but they don’t want to pay as they feel the TOD area landowners lopsidedly benefit.   These problems associated with establishing a Tysons tax district are well-known within the Tysons landowner community, but this was the first time  [the Tysons Partnership] has discussed them in public testimony at a PCTC meeting.

Another problem is that, by state law, any money raised from a tax district must be spent within the district. Yet many of the needed transportation improvements are located outside of Tysons.

The improvements are so expensive, there are so many special interests jostling for position and the legal issues are such a thicket that it’s hard to see how the funding issues will ever be resolved. But there is one very important point to keep in mind. If commercial and residential growth doesn’t go into Tysons, where else will it go? And how much will it cost to provide the transportation infrastructure needed to serve it? Fairfax County is in so deep that it has no choice but to bull ahead and figure out how to make it work. Let’s hope they can do it without sucking in too many innocent bystanders.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

59 responses to “The Tab for Tysons Transportation: $3 Billion and Counting”

  1. I have to give it to Jim B. He consistently hits the nail on the head ..on almost a daily basis!

    In this case… he’s got them literally back-to-back with the previous post: ”
    Can “Objective” Ratings for NoVa Transportation Projects Be Truly Objective?”

    what this shows is that … let me change this to a question.

    does this show that the more development you have the deeper into the transportation hole you put yourself because the actual cost of mitigating the additional/increased traffic, far, far exceeds most estimates?

    If what is going on in Tysons is typical…for most development.. what are we to make of it other than the costs for development get put on the backs of citizens – both in terms of costs to add infrastructure but also in terms of increased congestion…. while the benefits of the development go primarily to individuals and companies that appear to gain – at the expense of others.

    tell me I’m wrong.

  2. FC DOT has informed the Planning Commission that all of the Table 7 improvements are needed or Tysons does not work. The pace of development can affect the timing of the projects, but not their need.
    The biggest problem, which no one will admit in public, is Tysons was planned to be larger than can be sustained by the existing and affordable increases to public facilities. The main fault lies with the Task Force. It simply refused to engage in land use and transportation planning. It never bothered to say “How much infrastructure do we need to grow to X; and can we afford it?”

  3. But, but, but, according to the Smart Groth Coalition, etc. all this density is supposed to SAVE us money on infrastructure.

    The more your gettin nearer the more the costs are slip slidin’ away.

    Paul Simon

  4. But, but, but, according to the Smart Groth Coalition, etc. all this density is supposed to SAVE us money on infrastructure.

    The more your gettin nearer the more the costs are slip slidin’ away.

    Paul Simon

  5. The Smart Growth Coalition is rarely at Tysons meetings and when it is, it is spouting rhetoric. Development requires infrastructure. Infrastructure is expensive. Different types of development put different levels of demand on various types of infrastructure and, hence, have different cost impacts.
    Dulles Rail is a spur and, as such, has real limits on how many people it can handle. Also, the single Potomac River tunnel imposes further limits capacity. The availability of high-quality mixed use development will allow some people to live near where they work. But the bulk of people coming to and from Tysons will drive SOVs. So we need a lot more road capacity. And that capacity is very expensive. The landowners don’t want to pay for it, and neither do the residents and other businesses. Can you blame them?

  6. I wonder if the Smart Growth folks position on the roads in Tysons would be that by putting them there – you’re keeping the vicious cycle going?

    that not having the roads would morph the area into another Arlington?

    I note that Arlington’s view of the HOT Lanes was that they presented a threat to their current settlement pattern by incentivizing SOV travel.

    No such sentiment at Tysons….

    just a devil’s advocate question.

  7. DJRippert Avatar

    Hydra hits it on the head.

    This is the creation of functional settlement patterns that Jim Bacon and Ed Risse have recommended for so long.

    Guess what?

    It costs a bloody fortune.

  8. they cost a bloody fortune if they continue the current accommodation of SOV travel at rush hour.

    I’m not advocating otherwise but pointing out that the folks who advocate functional settlement patterns make no secret that SOV are incompatible with functional settlement patterns.

    Tysons is not a functional settlement pattern – by definition if it continues to prioritize SOV travel at rush hour – it’s that aspect.. having the road capacity to handle rush hour that makes it bloody expensive.

    What would happen to that dollar number if Tysons instituted a cordon toll?

  9. Don the Ripper, you said, “This is the creation of functional settlement patterns that Jim Bacon and Ed Risse have recommended for so long.”

    You couldn’t be more wrong. You’re so wrong that you should hang your head in shame. You normally make an effort to get your facts straight. In this case, you failed miserably.

    I never endorsed the Rail-to-Dulles project. I never endorsed the higher Tysons densities approved by the Fairfax Board. I have frequently criticized the special deals worked out for large, politically connected landowners at the expense of the general public.

    Here’s what happened, as I see it. A political decision was made to build the Rail-to-Dulles project. That project was seen as an opportunity to jump-start the transformation of Tysons Corner. Prominent landowners utilized the opportunity to get Fairfax to enact massive increases in density without any consideration to what it would cost to support that density. Some people, like our frequent commenter TMT, have been trying to get people to focus on the density/infrastructure mismatch for quite a while.

    That’s the fundamental, underlying problem. The massive increase in density is what is creating the need for $3 billion in additional road/highway infrastructure, not the use of New Urbanism design principles or Ed’s unheeded call for a balance between jobs, housing and amenities.

    Yes, Fairfax planners are allowing for a significant increase in residential development, but not nearly enough to create a functional balance. The large majority of people who work at Tysons will have to commute there, creating enormous stress on the transportation system.

    One of the few things that has gone right is that Tysons planners have been applying tools from the New Urbanism playbook to make the new Tysons more workable: grid streets, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, mixed uses, and transit-oriented development, etc. Those changes are very positive. But to blame those practices for the massive, $3 billion unfunded road/highway liability is the height of absurdity.

    Tysons does need more density to function properly. But that density needs to be configured in a way that achieves balance Tysons-wide, and at the village and neighborhood levels. And the decision to grant higher density should have been informed by the understanding that density requires supporting infrastructure, and that someone needs to find a way to pay for it.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      It’s always interesting to see reality intrude on theory. First, you say that you never supported the Tyson’s renovation plan currently in place. That’s true. However, you go on to correctly make one comparison after another regarding the plans for Tyson’s Corner and your theoretical view of functional human settlement patterns – you agree that the percentage of residential development in Tyson’s will increase but you then complain that this won’t reach your qualitative view of theoretical perception. You say, “The large majority of people who work at Tysons will have to commute there, creating enormous stress on the transportation system.”. What would be the real world answer to this, Jim? More density! The only way you’ll reduce the amount of commuting for a given residential population is to add more business density. Hence, your theoretical argument against more density falls on it head.

      You write of the height of absurdity. The height of absurdity was the answer I got when I asked where in America today I could see an example of functional human settlement patterns. The absurd answer was Seaside, FL.

      The simple truth is that your theoretical view of functional settlement patterns cannot be implemented without massive spending. Your liberal views of how people should live are incompatible with your conservative notions of low taxes and small government. In Tyson’s Corner, the rubber is meeting the road. In your theoretical world, the rubber meets the sky.

      1. Fine, you’re welcome to disagree with my analysis. (Most everybody does — especially my wife!) Just don’t misrepresent it.

        Now, back to the issues you raised in an effort to obfuscate the fact that you had misrepresented me previously… You said, “Your theoretical view of functional settlement patterns cannot be implemented without massive spending.”

        All development and re-development requires infrastructure spending. (If you’ve devised a way to avoid building public infrastrucure to support growth and development, please let me know!) Two important questions arise from that observation.

        First, some human settlement patterns require less infrastructure spending per capita than others. Do you seriously wish to quibble with that?

        Second, it matters who pays for the spending. I argue that the people who directly benefit/profit from the infrastructure spending are the ones who should pay it to the greatest extent possible. You gotta problem with that? If so, what are your criteria for determining who should be forced to subsidize whom?

  10. I thought Jim B asked an important question that I have not heard a good answer to:

    ” Yes, Fairfax planners are allowing for a significant increase in residential development, but not nearly enough to create a functional balance. ”

    why?

    why are they approving a development that they KNOW will not have enough housing stock to balance the commercial?

    Arlington frets all the time about whether or not they have enough housing stock, particularly affordable stock but Fairfax continues to “import” it’s workers – at great, great cost to existing commuting infrastructure and the need for massive additional.

    I guess I would have thought that the Smart Growth folks as well as the functional settlement folks and Jim B would focus on this mismatch and be heavily critically of it as a deep flaw in their “density” plans.

    thoughts?

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Neither Jim nor Larry have the facts.

        They both observe traffic jams going north on I95 in the morning and then say things like,

        “but Fairfax continues to “import” it’s workers – at great, great cost to existing commuting infrastructure and the need for massive additional.”.

        and …

        “Bingo!”.

        No facts, no figures, no statistics, no numbers.

        Apparently, nobody commutes up I95 to Washington, DC. Or, from Arlington to Washington, DC.

        I guess all those big federal buildings fill up with every morning with residents of Washington, DC.

        Of course, this makes the throngs of people getting off the Orange Line each morning somewhat difficult to understand.

        Really gentlemen….. either find some facts to support your claims or clearly state that those claims are merely a written record of your daydreams.

        1. Don, You’re criticizing arguments that I don’t make. Oh, well, I’m used to it. Anyway…. you want facts? Here they are: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demogrph/census_summaries/2000census_commuting.pdf

          88,900 Fairfax County residents commute to D.C. to work, 49,000 to Arlington and 28,000 to Alexandria.

          44,300 Prince William residents commute to Fairfax, along with 36,000 Loudoun County residents, 7,000 Stafford residents and 3,000 Spottsylvania residents.

          So, Larry is right — Fairfax County does import a boatload of workers. But Fairfax sends out more workers than it imports — it’s a net exporter of workers. And half of all FC workers live and work in the county.

          The main point is that the dominant flow of commuters is from the metropolitan periphery toward locations closer to the urban core. There is some reverse commuting must not much. Only 7,000 Fairfax residents commute to work in Prince William. Fewer than 600 drive to work in Stafford.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            Jim:

            Regarding your arguments, you should be careful about replying “Bingo!” to LarryG’s warped ideas. Once you do that you adopt his comment as your own.

            LarryG’s long running narrative is that Farifax County fails to exercise proper control over land use and, therefore, has to import a huge number of workers for its jobs. He draws a bulls-eye on affordable housing and claims that Fairfax imports workers because there is not enough affordable housing for the jobs in Fairfax to have workers in Fairfax.

            This could possibly be a sound argument if Fairfax was a NET importer of workers. The argument that Fairfax blatantly mismanages its housing stock while all surrounding localities intelligently manage theirs could be made if Fairfax was a NET importer of workers.

            However, Fairfax is not a NET importer of workers. In fact, Fairfax is a net EXPORTER of workers. By Larry’s twisted logic that would mean that Fairfax, on average, has more affordable housing than the surrounding localities. This, of course, would cripple his multi-year false argument about the lack of affordable housing in Fairfax County relative to surrounding localities.

            Your point about housing getting cheaper in concentric circles from the center is quite right. McLean seems expensive until you look at the cost of living in Georgetown. Centreville seems cheap until you look at Spotsylvania County. This has nothing to do with the land use policies of any one jurisdiction. It is true the world over. And that is the fatal flaw in LarryG’s argument. You know, the argument to which you replied, “Bingo!”.

  11. The Smart Growth Coalition is rarely at Tysons meetings and when it is, it is spouting rhetoric.

    ===================================================

    That is because they have no logic. They have an agenda to propmote, which they no doubt earnestly BELIEVE witll result in greater well being. Having an agenda, one idea you can work toward is a lot easier than searching for the things that will truthfully provide greater well being.

    Especially if those things are one action in one location and a different action in a differnet location.

  12. but Fairfax continues to “import” it’s workers – at great, great cost to existing commuting infrastructure
    =====================================================Well, OK, but ont he other side of that Fauquier is expoerting its workers, and importing the money they bring home. That money supports the horse farmettes, and the horse farmettes support the esatates and people like me.

    The workers from Fauquier and other locations are building Fairfax, and Loaudon – instead of Fauquier. The result is that Loudoun and Fauquier are worth a lot more money – iven if you divide it up amongst the greater number of people that live there (with the attendant problems that brings).

    TMT and Larry constantly and wrongly claim that only the developers beefit, and existing residents get screwed. That comes from a short term view of what is happening, a cradel to grave view gives a different picture.

  13. Arlington also exports a lot of workers. More than half of Arlington workers do not wrk in Arlington.

    Even if Arlington HAD enough jobs to support everyone who lives there, that might not really mean thy had achieved balance, so long a a majority of residents work elsewhere.

  14. One of the few things that has gone right is that Tysons planners have been applying tools from the New Urbanism playbook to make the new Tysons more workable: grid streets, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, …………

    ==================================================

    But all of those new urbanist tools are just that ——-URBANIST. that playbook is only there to make massively grater densities somewhat more palatable. The new urbanists are calling for massively greater densities, and the Tysons landowners are happy to have it.

  15. First, some human settlement patterns require less infrastructure spending per capita than others. Do you seriously wish to quibble with that?

    ====================================================

    I would not quible with that.

    It is only that it is NOT the densely populated urban areas that require less infrastructure spending per capita.

  16. DJ:
    It costs a bloddy fortune,
    but when you get done you have something.

    A lot of what is built at Tysons will be built by folks from Fauquier and other places. When they go home they will have their wages and not much else, virtually everything being prohibited in Fauquier. When they get done they will have a big bunch of nothing: open space filled with bucolic charm.

    That costs a bundle too. So, if you think that densely packed urban spaces help preserve the countryside, then part of that “costs a bloddy fortune” is being misallocated. Some of that cost ought to be charged against the “savings” that PEC claims come from avoiding development.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Fauquier should rename itself Nimbyville.

      A small group of wealthy citizens are more than willing to sacrifice the economic future for their less fortunate neighbors by using every trick in the book to stave off development. My impression is that the Richie Rich’s in Fauquier largely moved there recently while the less fortunate have lived in that county for generations. Now that the economic radius of the Washington NUR is finally reaching Fauquier the recently arrived rick folk want to build a moat around the county so they can enjoy nature.

      And make no mistake – much the same is true of the landed gentry of McLean when it comes to expanding Tyson’s Corner.

  17. anytime you have a settlement pattern which does not provide enough housing stock for workers – and massive commuting infrastructure is needed – who should pay for that?

    it sounds to me that what Tysons has planned … is …not sustainable.

    Arlington “works” far, far better than Tysons will and Arlington realizes that the balance between work and housing is the issue. Give them credit for understanding, for instance, that HOT lanes would do harm to their goal of less autos and more walk/transit.

    when you widen roads like they say Tysons will have to do to accommodate the rush hour commuters – you destroy the premise behind grid streets, walk, bike and transit.

    When Fairfax prioritizes roads, especially rush hour roads it not only undermines the supposed benefits of density.. it makes it far, far, more expensive and those costs are born by those who do not want the traffic, do not want the higher taxes and do not want to leave where they live either.

    It’s not the density and additional people that ruins their place to live – it’s the auto traffic.

    It’s well within Fairfax prerogative to import workers. It’s quite another to scam existing residents about the supposed benefits of it.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      If Fairfax County didn’t have enough housing stock for workers then Fairfax would be a net importer of workers. In fact, it is a net exporter.

      You argument is wrong. It has always been wrong.

  18. The reality is the landowners outside the 1/2-mile TOD areas WILL benefit from the transportation improvements,

    ==================================================

    They will eventually benfit from increased proerty value, too, but they choose to ignore that and complain about the higher taxes.

  19. Roughly half the cost of Rail-to-Dulles will come from commuters on the Dulles Toll Road, a multi-billion dollar transfer of wealth.

    ===================================================

    I suppose you could argue that the transfer of wealth is optional: they COULD take the train.

    Except the capacity of th etrain has been co-opted by the new growth at Tysons. Rail to Tysons cannot work without the toll road, even if the Toll road users abandon the road and pay Metfro fares instead.

  20. The landowners don’t want to pay for it, and neither do the residents and other businesses. Can you blame them?

    ====================================================

    In a word, yes. They are being shortsighted and missing or ignoring the good things that will result. Instead of arguing for a fair payment, they want none.

  21. ” They will eventually benfit from increased proerty value, too, but they choose to ignore that and complain about the higher taxes.”

    and a commensurate decrease in other things they value.

    money is not the only metric for value and the people who are affected do have a say so.

    ” The landowners don’t want to pay for it, and neither do the residents and other businesses. Can you blame them?”

    the landowners want MORE than they have right now. The residents want to KEEP what they have right now.

    the landowners are not entitled to increase the value of their holdings at the expense of decrease in the value of the things that residents want and want to keep.

    A neighborhood once with a 2 lane road now split with a 6-lane road with the homes fronting on it bombarded with road noise and litter have lost something they cannot easily replace even if the value of their home has increased – along with higher taxes and they are on a fixed income.

    the residents the “other” property owners – have a right to choose what they want and don’t want.

  22. re: importing or exporting workers

    if you just look at Fairfax itself and ask where their workers come from – that would be a good question.

    but what do you think all the interstate infrastructure is for in the first place and why Tysons says it will need billions of dollars of additional infrastructure?

    there is no other conclusion you can come to when the Tysons project people design a certain level of density and then say they need billions of dollars of additional road infrastructure – they going to be IMPORTING workers.

    If the workers lived NEAR where the businesses were – in a true New Urban Settlement Pattern – the workers walk walk, bike or use transit to work.

    Clearly Tysons is anticipating more of the same exurban commuters.

    how sustainable is such a development if at the very beginning of it they say billions of dollars of additional infrastructure will be needed and the development itself cannot pay for it?

  23. ” So, Larry is right — Fairfax County does import a boatload of workers. But Fairfax sends out more workers than it imports — it’s a net exporter of workers. And half of all FC workers live and work in the county.”

    well the argument I was making was that Tysons Corner apparently is going to “work” more like the conventional Fairfax rather than like a true TOD development.

    and that the plans for Tyson’s corner itself are not balanced in residential vs business. that was more speculation than factual…since I presumed that the need for billions in additional roads was a symptom.

    the original discussion was about whether or not functional settlement patterns have LESS infrastructure cost than non-functional patterns – with folks acknowledging that additional infrastructure is needed.

    it’s still a highly relevant question. Tysons will be in the hole from the get go on transportation infrastructure – and no identified funds for paying for it.

    Arlington, on the other hand does not want I-66 coming into it – because it will cause the need for more surface street infrastructure. Same deal with HOT lanes. Arlington apparently wants you to LIVE IN ARLINGTON if you going to work there or at least nearby enough that you can walk, bike or use transit.

    Tysons started off trying to emulate that … and then failed at it – it appears.

  24. The Plan is to have 100,000 plus or minus residents and 200,000 workers. This brings better balance to Tysons, which has less than 20,000 residents today and 100,000 and some workers. There never was a proposal to bring the two into parity.

  25. the premise behind Tysons (I thought) was to REDUCE the in and out and to build a sustainable place where people could “live, work, shop and play” without having to commute.

    at least I thought… that was the premise behind TOD and mixed-use in general….

    I KNOW this DOES NOT WORK in exurban places like Fredericksburg where the work component is a I-95 commute to NoVa to the tune of about 100k cars a day.

    but I thought there was a better chance of this becoming a reality in a place like Arlington and Tysons Corner.

    Is Tysons Corner at the end of the day going to be much different than the rest of Fairfax?

    or will it be more like Arlington?

    or.. is Arlington already like Fairfax and there is little to no difference?

  26. @TMT, JAB – Have ya’ll seen this:

    Wilbur Smith Assoc forecasting record knocked hard in report for Reston VA group

    http://goo.gl/oLBwh

  27. @TMT, JAB – Have ya’ll seen this:

    Wilbur Smith Assoc forecasting record knocked hard in report for Reston VA group

    http://goo.gl/oLBwh

  28. Larry, I did see this. I’m still reading it. I emailed a copy to JAB with the hope it’s posted and discussed here. I know the Reston Citizens Association board quite well, as well as Terry Maynard, the author of the analysis. He is a former analyst for the CIA.

  29. and a commensurate decrease in other things they value.

    money is not the only metric for value and the people who are affected do have a say so.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Precisely.

    BUT THEY DO NET GET TO SET ANY VALUE THEY WANT BY CLAIMING THE VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE.

    The price of “NO” is not free.

    We set values on subjective things every day. We know how this is done.
    What is needed is a process for determining these system wide lifecycle costs that is agreed upon, and then let the results of the process fallwhere they may.

    Can’t be done, you will say, to which my response is BS. You write a set of specifications and a manufactuing plan, and when you follow it you can be assured the result will be quality product. some people might still not like it, but they cannot deny it is a quality product.

  30. A small group of wealthy citizens are more than willing to sacrifice the economic future for their less fortunate neighbors by using every trick in the book to stave off development. My impression is that the Richie Rich’s in Fauquier largely moved there recently while the less fortunate have lived in that county for generations.

    ============================================

    Within my small circle and my church, that is exactly the situation.

  31. This situation turns on its head the comments that Larry and TMT make about existing citizens. That is why you need a dispassionate method of fully assessing all costs — to everyone. subjective and otherwise.

    PEC claims that conservation means a few billion in savings to the state. OK I acceept that, but so what. By itself it is a meaninglwss claim because it says nothing about the costs of conservation.

    It is completely bogus. And we have dozens of constituencies all making claims, based on any method they choose. Probably ALL of them have some merit. we have, as Larry points out, a process. But it is horribly disjointed, disorganized, mis_weighted, etc.

    Somewhere in there, there is an answer. But no one, not even those organizations that claim to vbe working for the public benefit are even willing to consider looking for it, because it might not agree with their pre disposed agenda.

    As a result, they are all screwing us.

  32. anytime you have a settlement pattern which does not provide enough housing stock for workers – and massive commuting infrastructure is needed – who should pay for that?

    ==========================================

    Easy. The organizations that need the workers. They are the primary beneficiaries, not the workers who have to drive onthe roads. That is just bass ackwards.

    I don’t understand why this is so hard to see. Sprinkling your workers needs all over the countryside is an external cost, just like any other kind of pollution, and the costs should be assessed the same way.

    That should not be hard to understand.

    You fix that problem, and watch how fast companies move to where the people are.

  33. Arlington “works” far, far better than Tysons will and Arlington realizes that the balance between work and housing is the issue.

    ==================================

    Nonsense.

    More than half of Arlington workers work outside the county: they are commuters, like everyplace else.

    Arlington has been there for a hundred years, and has had time to sort itself out. this is a life cycle problem, and Arlington and Tysons are on different parts of the curve. Even Metro has been there for thirty, and it is just now meeting the passneger projections that got it built.

  34. Is Tysons Corner at the end of the day going to be much different than the rest of Fairfax?

    or will it be more like Arlington?

    ===================================

    Come back in another hundred years, and see.

    A better question is this: Are Tysons and Arlingont REALLY more cost effective than the rest of Fairfax?

    For that matter, is Fauquier really the superior economic model that its advocates claim? If they are anywhere near correct, then Tysons is a stupendous boondoggle.

    We ought to first know on first principles, which is the best model. Then with that knowledge in hand, we can agree if it is really what we want to do.

    Suppose tha Fauquier turns out to be a far superior reconomic model. In order to implement it on a wide scale, we would need to plan on eliminating or preventing a lot of people, but the ones that are left would live very well indeed.

  35. they cost a bloody fortune if they continue the current accommodation of SOV travel at rush hour.

    =======================================

    They really cost a bloody fortune if you plan on carryoing all those people by rail. But you are agenda hammering, and missing the point entirely.

    There is no example anywhwere I know of where people live better lifestyles at lower cost in dense urban agglomertions.

    Regardless of the transport system. Maybe it works if yougive everyone a segway, but that has not been tried yet.

  36. The Plan is to have 100,000 plus or minus residents and 200,000 workers. This brings better balance to Tysons, which has less than 20,000 residents today and 100,000 and some workers. There never was a proposal to bring the two into parity.

    ======================================

    So you still need to move 80 -100000 people twice a day. And now you need to move them in and out of a place that is twice as crowded.

    Sounds like a good plan, right?

    Where is the improvement?

  37. Don the Ripper, Yeah, I’ll concede I should have looked up the numbers first and “Bingo”ed later. On the other hand, I still share Larry’s view that Fairfax needs to evolve toward more efficient human settlement patterns. (So do a lot of other places — and, yes, including Henrico.)

  38. ” There is no example anywhwere I know of where people live better lifestyles at lower cost in dense urban agglomertions.”

    that’s not necessarily true and it is subjective to boot and finally the existing residents DO have a say so in it.

    There are dense agglomerations where the auto is not given priority and walking, biking and transit are.

    It starts with a street that you can get across on foot without risk of life.

    2 lane city-grid streets do that. 4 and 6 lane “arterials” do not. Most of the pedestrian injuries and fatalities in NoVa are people trying to get across roads too wide and too dangerous for pedestrians.

    At many intersections in NoVa there is NO accommodation for pedestrian at all.. no ped cross walks, no ped on-demand count-down signals, none.

    you cross these 6-lane no-man-land at great risk and what we say if someone tries to cross is that they are “dumb” for trying. Probably so.. but if someone tells you that they want to “improve” your community with TOD new urban, ped/bike “friendly” development and at the same time they are telling you that 6-lane roads are needed – something is big-time rotten in Denmark.

    don’t get me wrong here.. I’m NOT advocating one thing or another – I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that density can’t be anything other than a living hell or close to it – when, in fact, we know the simple difference for bike/ped between a two-lane street and a 6-lane highway.

    those are choices. Existing residents have a right to NOT be sold a bill of goods.

  39. ” So you still need to move 80 -100000 people twice a day. And now you need to move them in and out of a place that is twice as crowded.”

    well that’s the problem isn’t it? We are told that Tyson’s is a change to the typical way that Fairfax has operated but is it?

    I take note of what Jack the Rip…er is the Don the Rip… of the tremendous “churn” of commuters in and out of Fairfax that may well be the typical norm for the entire beltway/region of not only NoVa but Md/Dc and according to Hydra – Arlington also (I’d like more proof…..).

    I have to say.. then.. why would anyone think an ultra-dense Tysons WOULD work any different than the rest of Fairfax? And the answer is – it won’t and the proof of that is the “need” for a couple billion worth of additional infrastructure…. that the developers of Tysons expect someone other than their business enterprises to pay for.

    Just FYI – down our way – the last two big commercial developments had a transportation district put around them with a supplementary tax on the properties to pay off the infrastructure costs. it was not only not optional but no residential people had to pay that extra tax.

    Now.. in all fairness.. neither of the commercial developments were ‘mixed-use’ either and the last mixed-use development that was approved ..did not have a transportation district put around it.

  40. Look, the point not to avoid sucking in too many innocent bystanders. The point is to identify, assign, and protect the property rights that they have, and to ignore the property rights they imagine they have: the ones that actually belong to their neighbors.

    The very same ones they would oblect to having trampeled were the roles reversed.

  41. Look, the point not to avoid sucking in too many innocent bystanders. The point is to identify, assign, and protect the property rights that they have, and to ignore the property rights they imagine they have: the ones that actually belong to their neighbors.

    The very same ones they would oblect to having trampeled were the roles reversed.

  42. There are dense agglomerations where the auto is not given priority and walking, biking and transit are.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Name one. Timbuktu and Mogadishu come to mind.

  43. Ever been to Fez?

    There hare almost no cars in Fez because the streets are about four feet wide.

  44. New York City, Portland, Ore, San Franscisco, Seattle, Wash and a wide variety of towns with grid streets with a large number of legal ped crossings.

    NoVa is characterized in most places by 6-lane roads that are anything but ped friendly much less prioritized for ped.

    this is not an either / or proposition. All the cities names also have areas that are not ped friendly and are in fact dangerous for peds but there are areas that ARE prioritized for ped and not auto – auto is heavily restricted and transit prevails.

    The problem with Tysons is they started out saying it was going to be a ped-prioritized area and it ended up like most of the rest of NoVa with 4 and 6 lane streets and major impediments to bike/ped.

    that in and of itself might be a debatable issue but the PREMISE of Tysons was as a BENEFIT of having a mixed-use development that WOULD ALSO be cheaper because it would promote live, work, shop and play and what ended up was yet another typical Fairfax style auto-prioritized development with taxpayers having to not only not get the benefit of ped/bike friendly but also the insult of having to pay higher taxes for prioritizing auto.

    so they basically promoted a less infrastructure-intensive, less costly type of development and what they delivered was neither.

  45. never been to Fez and I’m not advocating 3rd world standards for New Urban development.

    I’m also a serious skeptic of New Urbanism and Smart Growth but I do very much recognize the difference between a place where ped/bike rule and autos are by invite and restricted and one where autos rule and bike/ped is near impossible and very dangerous.

    Much of NoVa non-Recreational areas are exceptionally dangerous for ped and bike – much more so that say even downtown DC.

    Tysons was promoted on the concept of being more like downtown DC in terms of grid streets and a place where ped/bike could be used to get around and it appears that Tysons is going to end up much like a lot of existing Fairfax with large isolated business campuses that the only way to get from the business campus to shopping or hope or recreation is by car and on foot – it’s still appears to be going to be exceptionally dangerous for ped/bike beyond a very small footprint.

  46. Tysons is scheduled to have a grid of streets similar to those in Arlington or the District. The tab is $519 M through 2030 and an additional $336 M through 2050. The traffic engineers say that a grid helps disperse traffic congestion. From what I have seen, that rings quite true. The conflict comes in that the landowners want short blocks for easier walking. VDOT wants longer blocks to prevent air pollution from a lot of stop and go traffic. I believe the two sides are making some progress in their discussions.
    Personally, I think they should build skywalks between buildings as in Downtown Minneapolis or Des Moines, Iowa. Move some retail to the second floor. Minneapolis and Des Moines have the cold winters. We have horrible heat and humidity.

  47. The traffic engineers say that a grid helps disperse traffic congestion.

    ==============================

    I never heard a trraffic engineer say that, only new urbanists and CSG.

    It is interesting that you now realize dispersion is how you get rid of congestion. I don’t see any evidence that a grid does that. It seems intuitively obvious to me, the smaller the grid, the more intersections, the more interaction, the more waiting, the more uncertainty, and the more waste.

    Which is precisely why new urbanists lofve it: they hate cars and they know that congestion is their friend. How screwed up is that? the more they annoy people and interfere with their travel, the more they win?

    In Connecticut there is an office building in which the driveway goes right through the front door. The interior core of the building is the arking garage and the offices are all on the outside, where they all have a view of the surrounding greenspace: no parking lot views.

    And no grid.

    If the traffic engineers know what is best, why is this politicized? Let them do their job.

  48. Much of NoVa non-Recreational areas are exceptionally dangerous for ped and bike – much more so that say even downtown DC.

    That is also true for mortorcycles. I rode mine when I lived in the District, but got rid of it when I moved to the Burbs: too dangerous.

  49. and major impediments to bike/ped.

    ==================================

    The major impediment being that it is simply too big.

  50. people want places where they can walk and bike but they want to be able to drive there.

    🙂

    most folks would not try to drive a car in NYC, right? they accept that.

    people who visit NY don’t even bother to rent a car in fact …they just assume that it will be such a problem that they easily accept the idea of transit, cabs and walking.

    right?

  51. Last I knew, cabs are still mostly cars. Cabs carry more people in new York than New York Transit.

Leave a Reply