Thursday, September 17, 2009
 

New version of Tysons plan language released

Fairfax County planning staff have released the second version of proposed plan language [large PDF file] for redevelopment of Tysons. Development densities in the new version are much lower than those proposed by the Tysons Land Use Task Force.

The main reason given for the lower density is the inability of the transportation network to support increased traffic. From the Post article Tysons Redevelopment Plans Don't Square With Tysons Vision:
Before developers can build high-rises, even near the Metrorail stations, planners say, the area's already clogged road network will need to expand to accommodate the extra development because many of the new residents and office workers will drive [emphasis added: Why is the county assuming new residents and office works will drive? If Tysons is planned as a true mixed-use community, many people will be able to walk and bike and take transit to get around]. That would require three new interchanges on the Dulles Toll Road; another lane on the Beltway between Interstate 66 and Route 7, in addition to the high-occupancy toll lanes now under construction; and wider lanes on other local roads.
However, similar development occurred in the Ballston Corridor without increased traffic congestion; many more people now take transit or bike and walk.

A major change from the first version is the removal of bike lanes from the removal of bike lanes from the Boulevard cross section text. Version 1: "5 foot on-road dedicated bike lane per direction, where applicable." A complete bicycle transportation network is not possible without a provision for bicyclists to reach destinations along Routes 7, 123, and International Drive.

We are also concerned about statements contained in the Bicycle Network section on p. 62: "The expanded street network and the associated street types will improve connectivity and provide a safer environment for bikes by providing sidewalks and dedicated bike lanes." The last place for bicyclists in an urban area like Tysons is on the sidewalk. There is also no mention in this section of shower and changing facilities for employees.

These recommendations will be refined by a contractor-led bicycle plan for the greater Tysons area. The county is developing guidelines for a plan that will build on the bicycle plan that we presented to the Planning Commission Tysons Committee in February.

We will continue to monitor the plan language as it develops over the next several months.

Labels:

Comments:
Figures..

Who should we write to about this?
 
I suggest contacting your Planning Commissioner. Those who are on the Tysons Committee are Walter Alcorn (At-Large, Chair), Frank de la Fe (Hunter Mill), Jay Donahue (Dranesville), Ken Lawrence (Providence), and Rodney Lusk (Lee). Individual email addresses are not listed on the county website, so you can use plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov to contact one or all.

I would also contact your representative on the Board of Supervisors.
 
Hmm, I got a response:

The September 15 Washington Post article was not a good source since it was written prior to release of the revised Plan. The revised Plan, known as Straw Man II, was presented to the Planning Commission's Tysons Committee on September 16.

You can learn about the Plan's treatment of intensity, transportation modes other than auto, and bike lanes by downloading it from http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/tysonscorner/drafts/tysons_strawman2_09162009.pdf.


I haven't had a chance to read it yet - just passing it along.
 
Yeah, I realized that after I started to look at it in detail. I guess they assumed that I was reacting to the WaPo article.

I suppose some of it was my fault too - in part, my comments were in response to the WaPo article, which made it sound like they were backing away from TOD by focusing on more roads and less density.

Regarding the change in densities, is that in the strawman document anywhere, or is that something that the WaPo was getting from elsewhere? The media is notorious for getting things wrong.

The dropping of the bike lanes in boulevards is the only concrete thing that I could find in the actual document that was problematic.
 
It's funny because Straw Man II seems to have more robust language about complete streets. But the Boulevards seem even more "incomplete" than in the Straw Man I cross-sections. Fairfax and Wilson Drives in Arlington near the Metro stations function very well for all users with on-street parking, bike lanes and generally four travel lanes. Those are boulevards. These look more like car sewers. Bike lanes would help, but the streets would still be extremely difficult to cross.
 
The densities proposed by the Task Force ranged from 6.0 FAR around the stations to 1.75 1/2 mile away from the stations (page 39 of the Task Force Report). Staff is recommending a maximum density of 4.75 FAR around the stations and 2.0 1/2 mile from the stations (page 27 in the Strawman II document.

These will both allow very dense development; the question is, will 4.75 FAR be enough of an incentive to allow developers to contribute enough to the grid of streets, parks, and other contributions needed to transform Tysons?
 

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007