Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of you may not care about all of the dead animal carcasses littering the roadways throughout Loudoun County, but I do.
The deer population in this area has exploded over the last 100 years. They are a nuisance and a danger to the motoring public. The population needs to be culled a bit.
By the way, road building is a reason to argue against building lots of highrises, IMO. If you crammed people into dense urban areas you better hope the road building that's initially put in place is designed so perfectly that the roads that will never need to be widened, added to, or changed in the future. I'm sorry, but that's never happened in the history of urban design. Building dense suburban areas just makes future roadbuilding more of a challenge. IMO.
This is only true if you believe that the only way to fix congestion is to widen the roads. After 100 years of building new and bigger roads congestion is worse than ever. You can't pave your way out of the problem.
This is only true if you believe that the only way to fix congestion is to widen the roads. After 100 years of building new and bigger roads congestion is worse than ever. You can't pave your way out of the problem.
Agreed. Route 7 is a bloody mess at rush-hour for miles, as is I-95, I-495, (and most other roads in NoVA for that matter), and all of these roads are rather wide. You can add two lanes in each direction to each and every congested artery in NoVA and still end up with terrible congestion. Expanding mass transit, increasing density and pedestrian-friendliness (yes, my darn sidewalk griping!) so more people can walk/bike to work, provide financial incentives to promote carpooling, etc. are a few great ways to reduce congestion. NYC has 8.4 million people within a CSA of about 20,000,000 and does a better job of managing its congestion than NoVA, which has a fraction of that. Gee, I wonder why? (Cough...urban sprawl...cough!)
This is only true if you believe that the only way to fix congestion is to widen the roads. After 100 years of building new and bigger roads congestion is worse than ever. You can't pave your way out of the problem.
I agree, and yes I am a big fan of increasing bus and metro service. At the same time, road work is part of reality. And it's much more difficult to do road work in a dense urban area like Tyson's Corner than it is to do road work in a suburban area.
Just curious, if you think that sprawl isn't a problem in Nova, (I'm also guessing that you don't think it's a problem in LA, correct me if I'm wrong) then why do you think that the DC metro area has the second worst traffic in the US next to LA?
Sprawl isn't causing the problem, getting a job a long distance from your home is what causes traffic congestion. You can build a densely packed urban center if you'd like, but traffic will still be bad. People who think it's ok to drive 30+ miles to work will continue to do so whether they live in a skyscraper or in a single family home. And you can live in sprawl and work just a few miles from your home (that's what I do).
It's wishful thinking to presume that if you cram people into highrises they will then get jobs that are just down the street. Good plan in theory, but that's not how it works out. For example, look how many people who live in Ballston drive to Herndon or Springfield or Maryland for their jobs.
Traffic is always going to be a problem in areas that are growing very quickly.
It's not an option, it's a requirement. You can't build a residential development in an agriculturally zoned area.
I'm not sure you really understood Normie's post. She wasn't talking about zoning changes per se, she was talking about the people who try to use zoning as an option for blocking urban sprawl. The 10-acre zoning change was not like your typical zoning changes that are considered on a case-by-case basis, this was a strategy specificially intended to block any development west of Leesburg. The proponents argued vehemently that this zoning change would absolutely bring urban sprawl to a screeching halt.
Normie's point was that the 10-acre zoning change did not, in fact, accomplish its intended goal. Whether or not the goal was admirable is not the point, the point is it did not bring any of the developments to a screeching halt. Sprawl was not stopped, it was pushed further west.
Whether or not there were already developments in WV is a moot point, the point is the very same projects that were slated for western Loudoun were not halted, they were simply moved. (Until, of course, the developers realized that all they had to do was wait for the next election. It is indeed true that that the officials were voted out and the regulations were overturned. Politics in Loudoun are on a see saw these days, if you don't like a new law just wait for the next election. Everything seems to get overturned.)
Agreed. Route 7 is a bloody mess at rush-hour for miles, as is I-95, I-495, (and most other roads in NoVA for that matter), and all of these roads are rather wide. You can add two lanes in each direction to each and every congested artery in NoVA and still end up with terrible congestion. Expanding mass transit, increasing density and pedestrian-friendliness (yes, my darn sidewalk griping!) so more people can walk/bike to work, provide financial incentives to promote carpooling, etc. are a few great ways to reduce congestion. NYC has 8.4 million people within a CSA of about 20,000,000 and does a better job of managing its congestion than NoVA, which has a fraction of that. Gee, I wonder why? (Cough...urban sprawl...cough!)
Well not to be ugly but I couldn't disagree any more with you on that one. Are you kidding? I-95 is wide? It's only 6 lanes wide (HOV doesn't count). That's ridiculously narrow. My little Columbus GA, which is a tenth the size of Northern Virginia, has a three lane freeway. How is it an area of 2 million (this only counting NoVA not the rest of the DMV) has a freeway the same size of a town with less 200,000 people? Atlanta is a poster child for sprawl gone wrong but at least there are decent sized 16 lane freeways which is what any metro area this size should have. So I know there are those who will want to crucify me for typing this: but yes more freeways, wider freeways, 8 lanes in both directions!
Now the argument of expanding freeways only creates more traffic comes into play. So I'm not saying that expanding the freeways is the only answer but it would help. The problem with Atlanta is that they widened the freeways but didn't offer other options I mean MARTA is cute but doesn't go to enough places where people actually live and work because only a small percentage actually work in those pretty skyscrapers downtown. In the modern age addressing sprawal means providing transportation options for suburb to suburb commuters.
I say that yes there should be expanded metro service; but along with wider freeways that aren't straight out of 1965 when there were only like 300,000 people in Northern Virginia if that. Actually I would love to walk to work but alas way too expensive to live anywhere walking distance. I tried living closer-in but that didnt' work out. You get what you pay for and what would have been decent and affordable back home was an overcrowded group/flop house with constant blown fuses and inadequate air conditioning. I live further out and my commute is longer plus I spend twice as much money filling up my truck, but I'm much happier. My story is typical Virginia unfortunately.
See one thing that the anti-sprawal rhetoric forgets is the reason behind the sprawl. People aren't just arbitraily living further away from work. Yes the desire for more land is part of it but really and truly most new houses are built on small plots of land anyways. In this area I think it's the lack of affordable homes in the city that has fueled the sprawl in VA. I mean the old saying "drive 'til you qualify" didn't just come from nowhere.
So addressing the housing issue would be key. There in lies the problem. Most people myself included don't want to live in subsidized housing or housing with subsidized neighbors. Call it classist but that's the truth of the matter. So how to make housing affordable in the city without having people living on top of undesirables or decreasing the property values of those that bought their houses at the height of the housing boom? Also what about those that want a nice house that doesn't mean living in an apartment setting? What about those that enjoy the suburban setting but just wish traffic wasnt' so horrible (like me)? I don't have all the answers but addressing housing is key to addressing sprawal.
Last edited by terrence81; 06-23-2009 at 08:22 AM..
It also is a little bit tiring to hear the constant lecture "people should live next to where they work". What if your job near your house ends and you have to take a job elsewhere in the area - are you supposed to just pick up and move every time your job changes? Companies are forever closing offices and consolidiating, and my company is going to do just that on the ridiculously expensive lease for their office building in Reston. In a year we are all moving out to the new Dulles campus where the company is consolidating to. And who knows how long that will last?
The idea of "living close to where you work" is facetious - at least in these modern times where companies relocate offices every few years. I just love it when people lecture everyone about living close to work. There's a lot of reasons why that is impossible.
It also is a little bit tiring to hear the constant lecture "people should live next to where they work". What if your job near your house ends and you have to take a job elsewhere in the area - are you supposed to just pick up and move every time your job changes? Companies are forever closing offices and consolidiating, and my company is going to do just that on the ridiculously expensive lease for their office building in Reston. In a year we are all moving out to the new Dulles campus where the company is consolidating to. And who knows how long that will last?
The idea of "living close to where you work" is facetious - at least in these modern times where companies relocate offices every few years. I just love it when people lecture everyone about living close to work. There's a lot of reasons why that is impossible.
I agree with you. In the four years I worked at UUNET, I worked on Route 50 near Gallows Road; then in Reston off Sunset Hills; then back at a different building on Gallows Road; then finally in Ashburn. For part of that time I lived in South Arlington, and the other part in Falls Church.
It's especially difficult when both spouses work. When we first put in a contract to build our house, my husband and I were both working at UUNET (WorldCom, by that point) in Ashburn, four miles away. By the time the house (and WorldCom) was finished, neither of us worked there anymore. He was working in Herndon and I was working at L'Enfant Plaza.
It also is a little bit tiring to hear the constant lecture "people should live next to where they work". What if your job near your house ends and you have to take a job elsewhere in the area - are you supposed to just pick up and move every time your job changes? Companies are forever closing offices and consolidiating, and my company is going to do just that on the ridiculously expensive lease for their office building in Reston. In a year we are all moving out to the new Dulles campus where the company is consolidating to. And who knows how long that will last?
The idea of "living close to where you work" is facetious - at least in these modern times where companies relocate offices every few years. I just love it when people lecture everyone about living close to work. There's a lot of reasons why that is impossible.
Good point, and you're right that the self-righteous lecturing in this forum in general has become very tiresome. So easy to be holier-than-thou when you're in school or some other sort of bubble (like a job that you thought was guaranteed for life). But life is full of curve balls. You end up making all sorts of compromises you never expected.
I sure hope I haven't come across as lecturing (and if I have I apologize). I really dislike people who are judgemental, to me it's a sign of immaturity (the longer you live the more you see that life isn't so black-and-white and no matter how good your intentions are you'll end up being a minor-league hypocrite in some way or another). So I try to to state opinions, but not lecture--that's my goal, anyway. For the record, I'm one of the people who urges people to try living near their jobs, but I also know all you can do is strive towards an ideal. As you pointed out, jobs can move and even with the best intentions you may still end up with a long commute. I'm the sort of person who quits a job if it moves too far... but I'm lucky to be in a position where I can do that. And who knows, someday my financial situation could change and I will no longer be that lucky.
Anyway, getting back to traffic congestion... sure it's something to avoid if you can, but is it really that big of a deal? Traffic is just part of life. It's like getting mosquito bites or poison ivy, you do what you can to avoid it, but when it happens it's not the end of the world.
Last edited by Caladium; 06-23-2009 at 11:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
