Archive for April 2009
Who Said…
…regarding the need to change traditionally-separate land use planning and transportation in Northern Virginia:
“…We need to grow differently. This is where we’re going to put our efforts.” We literally passed a resolution that said transit-oriented development is the future of Fairfax County and should be, will be, our primary development strategy.
There’s no question that a lot of highway miles were taken off the plan, but I’m not sure we would have ever built enough highways to have kept ahead of the congestion… I’m not sure more highways would be the answer for the next 25 years in any case. We have to change not just how we move around, but we have to change how we live, where we go, and that’s the real benefit of transit-oriented development. It’s the land use, not just a mode of transportation…
Lessons Learned from Falls Church’s bus system
Falls Church has two Metro stations on either side of the city, plus Metrobus service – but the city was bold and obtained grants to finance additional local bus service, known as GEORGE.
GEORGE helped to stimulate some Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). According to comments on an opinion piece in the Falls Church Times, GEORGE was a factor in the approval of City Center, which the city describes as a “landmark urban village project.”
Now the city’s contribution to finance the bus system is on the chopping block, because the costs exceeds the benefits. (National publicity from the Washington Post calling GEORGE a “transit boondoggle” can’t help…) GEORGE may be canceled next Monday, and Prince William can learn two key lessons from that experience.
The purpose of a rail transit system
Most of the online comments on news stories published by The Virginian-Pilot in Hampton Roads have a sour, even acid tone. However, one person (“mlsimons”) who commented on an April 24 story identified what problem will be cured by the proposed light rail system that will connect Norfolk with the Atlantic Ocean waterfront.
When it comes time to fund VRE expansion in Prince William County, the cost will be high. No matter how generous the state/Federal government may be at the start with initial construction subsidies, county taxpayers will end up financing a high percentage of operations and maintenance.
“mlsimons” explained why investing in VRE could be a good deal – but we could still screw it up, if the Board of County Supervisors does not use all of its “carrots” and “sticks” for land use planning and shape future growth so we approve transit-oriented development (TOD) and reject more-of-the-same sprawl:
Planning Commission approves elimination of proffers (no, this is not April Fool…)
On April 15, low-tax advocates held a “tea party” at McCoart. That evening, the Planning Commission decided the county should drop proffer requirements for Urban Mixed Use and Village Mixed Use planning districts.
If the Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) endorsed that approach, taxpayers rather than developers would absorb the costs for public services stimulated by new residents. Developers would contribute nothing for new schools, roads, police/fire stations, libraries, and parks. A supervisor who votes for the Land Use Chapter proposed by the Planning Commission would be voting to raise taxes on current residents.
Looks like political suicide, to raise taxes and give developers a free ride ( “if a developer doesn’t pick up that cost, then the taxpayer does“) … so how could this strategy make sense?
“Potomac Town Center”
Want to create a town center in Prince William?
Skip the land use planning process – wait for developers to build things, then just change the signs on I-95. That’s why Rippon will disappear soon, to be replaced by “Potomac Town Center.”
Aha! Where “urban mixed use designation areas” could be approved…
On Wednesday, April 15, the Planning Commission will consider Plan B to update the Land Use Chapter for the Comp Plan on April 15. (Plan A was drafted by Planning Department staff.)
Plan B includes a proposal to create “urban” and “suburban” mixed use designation areas. Unfortunately, Plan B includes no map indicating where such developments might be approved, especially the “urban” areas that would require a minimum of 100 acres.
No need to stay in the dark; the locations can be identified and displayed. The following maps may not be 100% complete or perfect, but now you can check out where Plan B proposes growth to occur.
Before we define solutions, let’s define the problem
The demographers predict in the March 15 Demographic Factsheet that 165,000 new residents will come to Prince William over the next 20 years. To absorb the new residents, Prince William will need about 55,000 new residential units by 2030.
The March 12, 2008 Build-Out Analysis says “In summary, there is capacity for 46,336 additional dwelling units to be built.” Without any changes in the current Comprehensive Plan, we could absorb about 135,000 new residents in those already-planned residential units.
To house the last 30,000 arrivals, we need to build 20% more houses than would be permitted in the current Comp Plan. Right now, however, we have vast amounts of property ready for developers that could accommodate 15 years of population growth. (The extra 30,000 more people predicted by 2030 that will need housing? They ain’t on the doorstep now.)
So why are our planners trying to up-plan and up-zone for even more people? What problem are they fixing?
Proposed Centers – Potomac Communities, Triangle, Neabsco Mills
The county has plans for revitalizing the area east of I-95, the Potomac Communities. Wow, do we have plans.
In revising the Land Use Chapter, we’re sticking with tradition and making more plans. The staff’s proposal (Plan A) calls for Centers of Community at Triangle and Neabsco Mills, and to continue the pattern of inviting developers to submit proposals for any place within the whole Potomac Communities region.
But what are we doing to trigger the revitalization? Why should we expect to see any different results from the newest plan?
Read the rest of this entry »
Plab A vs. Plan B – go for Plan B re: “phasing development”
The Planning Commission will consider two drafts of the updated Land Use Chapter on April 15. Both drafts (A and B) are fatally flawed.
The eight planning commissioners have the authority/responsibility to produce a good plan. Fortunately they have more than two options. The planning commissioners are not required to pick just one version on April 15.
Since both versions are seriously inadequate, the Planning Commission should start with one draft, delete the bad parts, and incorporate the good parts from the other draft. A hybrid document with the best of both versions could be far better than A or B.
One place where Draft B has better language than Draft A: guidance on phasing development.
Proposed Centers – North Woodbridge
Modern development at Woodbridge was triggered by the completion of the Shirley Highway (now I-95) over 50 years ago. The new highway offered easy access to the jobs in the Pentagon and DC, and spurred Cecil Hylton to build Marumsco Village in 1954.
Now the area is proposed for redevelopment and revitalization. A November, 2008 North Woodbridge Charrette discussed how to upscale the concrete plant and the rest of this gateway into Prince William, giving it a “makeover.”
In the April, 2009, county planning staff proposed an Urban Mixed Use (UMU) district in North Woodbridge, in the staff draft of a new Land Use Chapter/Map for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. There’s logic to this proposal, but the staff must have been wearing blinders when they drew the UMU boundary.
