Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
2004-01-05 01:01:25 UTC
From the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.fccc.org/News/WashPost_tysons_project.htm
IN THE NEWS
Tysons Project Adds Dimension To Rail Proposal
Officials Call the Need for Metro Service Obvious,
But Numbers May Not Agree --
By Peter Whoriskey Sunday, June 22, 2003
The notion that Metrorail tracks ought to run to Tysons Corner,
the capital region's second-largest jobs hub, is viewed by the
project's many supporters as an article of unassailable common sense.
But as business and political leaders prepare to lobby for
federal money to cover half the estimated $1.5 billion in
construction costs, its fate may ride on one unanswered question.
Will the sprawling highway crossroads area ever become the sort
of dense walkable "downtown" that can spur train travel and
justify the vast investment needed to lay the tracks?
Some believe the answer came last week when the Fairfax County
Board of Supervisors approved a landmark complex of eight towers
on a site between the malls -- Tysons Corner Center and Tysons
Galleria -- and right next to what would be the Tysons Central
Metro stop.
Its boosters say the project sets the tone for a more urban
setting at Tysons Corner. But as an exercise in creating a place
that will accommodate mass transit, the Tysons project is no more
than a faint echo of the most successful Metro stop developments
around suburban Washington.
Compared with the development around the Ballston and Bethesda
stops, for example, the recently approved Tysons project is less
than one-third as dense, provides about 50 percent more parking
and creates a less hospitable environment for pedestrians -- the
roads are wider, the blocks are longer and the streetscapes less lively.
It's not just a matter of aesthetics. As the Federal Transit
Administration determines which rail projects are worthy of
funding, such issues are considered fundamental.
"It's an awkward attempt at transit-oriented development," said
Warren Boeschenstein, a University of Virginia professor who has
studied mass transit's potential in Northern Virginia, referring
to the Tysons project. "It really looks auto-oriented."
Tysons Corner is, of course, unquestionably busy -- and rich in
potential train riders: Besides being an employment center, its
two malls draw more than 25 million visitors annually. The appeal
of train transportation there may be limited. The number of
projected weekday boardings at the Tysons Central Metro stop
is less than half the number of boardings for Ballston or Bethesda,
according to the 2010 and 2025 model projections run by the Dulles
Corridor Rapid Transit Project, which is pushing the rail plan.
Its supporters nevertheless see the new Tysons development as a
marked improvement over the less dense plans previously approved
for the site. For better or worse, the project design in many
senses was a group effort: Many of the key decisions that shaped it
were made not by the developer but by county regulators.
The density and the amount of parking, for example, were set
based on county rules.
"No, it's not Ballston density. It's not a downtown D.C. density,"
said Peter Rosen of Lerner Enterprises. "But it goes back to the
density permitted in the county's comprehensive plan. There was no
point in studying anything greater than that."
"It's a great step forward for mass transit in Fairfax County,"
Bill Lecos, president of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce,
told supervisors during last week's hearing. He then alluded to
the development's role in the competition for federal transit money.
"This sends a critical message to others in terms of the county's
support for mass transit and its importance in advancing the
financing plan."
The race for Federal Transit Administration dollars for
rail projects, in fact, appears extremely competitive.
Metropolitan areas across the country are seeking funding
for a total of about $24 billion in transit projects. Yet
the available funding would cover roughly one-third of that.
To distinguish among the winners and losers, Federal Transit
Administration reviewers grade proposals on three basic issues:
financing, cost effectiveness and land development issues.
"Land use is a critical part of the rating," said Ron Fisher,
director of the agency's Office of Project Planning, who
emphasized that he was not speaking of any particular project.
"We look at density -- the more the better," he said. "We look
at the character of the development -- is it good for pedestrians?"
"Sometimes half of the rating could come down to land use. It's a
reflection of the importance we place on transit-oriented development."
In evaluating development near transit stations, planners generally
focus on land within a half-mile radius -- places close enough for
an easy walk. They favor more density in these areas because more
offices, or more homes, means more potential transit riders.
They also strive to make sure that the area's sidewalks are
comfortable and attractive for pedestrians. In practice, this comes
down to narrower streets, wide sidewalks lined with shops, not the
blank walls of garages. Currently, some workers in Tysons Corner
complain that they eat lunch at their desks simply to avoid the
hassle of crossing streets.
And finally, planners and transit modelers consider the availability
and pricing of parking. More parking simply makes driving, not transit,
more attractive.
In the Tysons area as a whole, there is a relative abundance, much
of it free. The Tysons project will have 2.6 parking spaces for every
1,000 square feet of office space, for example, while projects at
Bethesda and Ballston typically are required to have 1.9 or less.
"I would question seriously the efficacy of the whole project,"
said Chris Nelson, a Virginia Tech urban planning professor based in
Alexandria, who has studied parking ratios near an Atlanta transit
line. "When you're at that amount of parking, that's not a whole lot
different than what you'd get in a suburban office campus."
Advocates for the project nevertheless argue that it should be
considered transit-oriented because it is denser than what was
previously planned for the property. Moreover, as the project is
developed in the coming decades, it is possible that further
additions and refinements may be made.
"This project is not the giant leap forward it could have been,"
said Fairfax County Supervisor Gerald E. Connolly (D), whose
Providence District includes Tysons. But "this rezoning is not
the final word on what will be built there." Like others in
Fairfax County, Connolly too, considers the rail to Tyons
project a necessity with its own overwhelming logic:
"It doesn't even pass the giggle test that this area could not
be served by rail." © 2003 The Washington Post Company
Tysons Master Plan:
http://www.tysons2.com/master.html
http://www.tysons2.com/press_061703.html
http://www.fccc.org/News/WashPost_tysons_project.htm
IN THE NEWS
Tysons Project Adds Dimension To Rail Proposal
Officials Call the Need for Metro Service Obvious,
But Numbers May Not Agree --
By Peter Whoriskey Sunday, June 22, 2003
The notion that Metrorail tracks ought to run to Tysons Corner,
the capital region's second-largest jobs hub, is viewed by the
project's many supporters as an article of unassailable common sense.
But as business and political leaders prepare to lobby for
federal money to cover half the estimated $1.5 billion in
construction costs, its fate may ride on one unanswered question.
Will the sprawling highway crossroads area ever become the sort
of dense walkable "downtown" that can spur train travel and
justify the vast investment needed to lay the tracks?
Some believe the answer came last week when the Fairfax County
Board of Supervisors approved a landmark complex of eight towers
on a site between the malls -- Tysons Corner Center and Tysons
Galleria -- and right next to what would be the Tysons Central
Metro stop.
Its boosters say the project sets the tone for a more urban
setting at Tysons Corner. But as an exercise in creating a place
that will accommodate mass transit, the Tysons project is no more
than a faint echo of the most successful Metro stop developments
around suburban Washington.
Compared with the development around the Ballston and Bethesda
stops, for example, the recently approved Tysons project is less
than one-third as dense, provides about 50 percent more parking
and creates a less hospitable environment for pedestrians -- the
roads are wider, the blocks are longer and the streetscapes less lively.
It's not just a matter of aesthetics. As the Federal Transit
Administration determines which rail projects are worthy of
funding, such issues are considered fundamental.
"It's an awkward attempt at transit-oriented development," said
Warren Boeschenstein, a University of Virginia professor who has
studied mass transit's potential in Northern Virginia, referring
to the Tysons project. "It really looks auto-oriented."
Tysons Corner is, of course, unquestionably busy -- and rich in
potential train riders: Besides being an employment center, its
two malls draw more than 25 million visitors annually. The appeal
of train transportation there may be limited. The number of
projected weekday boardings at the Tysons Central Metro stop
is less than half the number of boardings for Ballston or Bethesda,
according to the 2010 and 2025 model projections run by the Dulles
Corridor Rapid Transit Project, which is pushing the rail plan.
Its supporters nevertheless see the new Tysons development as a
marked improvement over the less dense plans previously approved
for the site. For better or worse, the project design in many
senses was a group effort: Many of the key decisions that shaped it
were made not by the developer but by county regulators.
The density and the amount of parking, for example, were set
based on county rules.
"No, it's not Ballston density. It's not a downtown D.C. density,"
said Peter Rosen of Lerner Enterprises. "But it goes back to the
density permitted in the county's comprehensive plan. There was no
point in studying anything greater than that."
"It's a great step forward for mass transit in Fairfax County,"
Bill Lecos, president of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce,
told supervisors during last week's hearing. He then alluded to
the development's role in the competition for federal transit money.
"This sends a critical message to others in terms of the county's
support for mass transit and its importance in advancing the
financing plan."
The race for Federal Transit Administration dollars for
rail projects, in fact, appears extremely competitive.
Metropolitan areas across the country are seeking funding
for a total of about $24 billion in transit projects. Yet
the available funding would cover roughly one-third of that.
To distinguish among the winners and losers, Federal Transit
Administration reviewers grade proposals on three basic issues:
financing, cost effectiveness and land development issues.
"Land use is a critical part of the rating," said Ron Fisher,
director of the agency's Office of Project Planning, who
emphasized that he was not speaking of any particular project.
"We look at density -- the more the better," he said. "We look
at the character of the development -- is it good for pedestrians?"
"Sometimes half of the rating could come down to land use. It's a
reflection of the importance we place on transit-oriented development."
In evaluating development near transit stations, planners generally
focus on land within a half-mile radius -- places close enough for
an easy walk. They favor more density in these areas because more
offices, or more homes, means more potential transit riders.
They also strive to make sure that the area's sidewalks are
comfortable and attractive for pedestrians. In practice, this comes
down to narrower streets, wide sidewalks lined with shops, not the
blank walls of garages. Currently, some workers in Tysons Corner
complain that they eat lunch at their desks simply to avoid the
hassle of crossing streets.
And finally, planners and transit modelers consider the availability
and pricing of parking. More parking simply makes driving, not transit,
more attractive.
In the Tysons area as a whole, there is a relative abundance, much
of it free. The Tysons project will have 2.6 parking spaces for every
1,000 square feet of office space, for example, while projects at
Bethesda and Ballston typically are required to have 1.9 or less.
"I would question seriously the efficacy of the whole project,"
said Chris Nelson, a Virginia Tech urban planning professor based in
Alexandria, who has studied parking ratios near an Atlanta transit
line. "When you're at that amount of parking, that's not a whole lot
different than what you'd get in a suburban office campus."
Advocates for the project nevertheless argue that it should be
considered transit-oriented because it is denser than what was
previously planned for the property. Moreover, as the project is
developed in the coming decades, it is possible that further
additions and refinements may be made.
"This project is not the giant leap forward it could have been,"
said Fairfax County Supervisor Gerald E. Connolly (D), whose
Providence District includes Tysons. But "this rezoning is not
the final word on what will be built there." Like others in
Fairfax County, Connolly too, considers the rail to Tyons
project a necessity with its own overwhelming logic:
"It doesn't even pass the giggle test that this area could not
be served by rail." © 2003 The Washington Post Company
Tysons Master Plan:
http://www.tysons2.com/master.html
http://www.tysons2.com/press_061703.html