Post #403: When will the last small house in Vienna be torn down?

Approximately 2050, at the current tear-down rate.

Calculation follows.

  • Years of housing stock remaining =
  • Current housing stock
  • Times % amenable to tear-down
  • Times % not already torn down
  • Divided by new houses being built per year.
  • Years of housing stock remaining =
  • 4,626 (Source:  2019-2020 Town budget, page 24)
  • 80% (total guess)
  • 90% (total guess)
  • 100 (Source: 2019-2020 Town budget, page 277)

= 33 years.

2019 + 33 = 2050, rounded to the nearest ten.

Not sure that the calculation is worth much.  But to me, the interesting fact is the number of building permits in the typical year.  In any given year, the Town only issues about 100 permits for new detached homes.  (And since Vienna is nearly fully built-up, I interpret that as about 100 tear-downs per year).

So, while it seems like tear-downs are everywhere, and it seemed to me that the pace of the tear-down boom has been accelerating, the Town’s data on building permits says otherwise.  It’s about 100/year now, and it was about 100/year in (say) 2014.

It’s probably true that you can’t actually buy a small house in Vienna, to live in, because the lot is worth more as a tear-down than the structure is worth as a residence.  And it’s certainly true that the houses being offered for sale in Vienna appear heavily weighted toward new construction (see Post #308).

But in terms of small houses going extinct in Vienna, nope.  At the current rate, it does not appear that will happen any time soon.

 

Post #402: It’s tough to make predictions, part 2

Time flies.

The Town of Vienna is now in the process of modifying the MAC zoning rules.  And, in addition, it has chosen to rewrite its entire commercial zoning code at the same time.  Presumably, all of that will be done by the time the MAC moratorium is lifted, which (if all goes correctly) will now occur in June 2020.  (For background, see the writeup of the Town Council’s most recent discussion of  rewriting of the zoning rules,  the third item in Post #378).

Two weeks ago I wrote down my prediction for what the revised Town of Vienna commercial zoning will look like (Post #383).  Best guess, when the dust has settled, there won’t be much change to MAC, the Town will apply MAC to most-but-not-all of Maple, and the Town will formalize a policy of allowing commercial buildings to be mostly housing.

In this post, I explain why I think it’s headed in that direction. Continue reading Post #402: It’s tough to make predictions, part 2

Post #401: A correction on commercial buildings

In keeping with my last post, I have to correct something I said about structures built “by right” under our existing commercial zoning, in Post #346.

I pointed to 901 Glyndon and a proposed building across from the US Post Office (145 Church) as examples of by-right commercial buildings that were mostly housing.  Both 901 (already built) and the proposed 145 Church consist of two floors of housing over some retail.  They would not meet (what I thought was) the “primarily commercial” standard written into the zoning rules — that commercial buildings have to be primarily (51%) occupied for commercial use.

I have since been told that neither of these buildings were (or are) being built under the standard zoning rules for commercial property along Maple Avenue in Vienna (zones C1, C1A, C2).

The parcel at 901 Glyndon was zoned commercial prior to the annexation of that land by the Town of Vienna.  So the story there is that, despite being shown as commercial (C1) zoning on the Town’s zoning map, and by Fairfax County’s tax map, apparently it’s not.   Apparently, the zoning is something else, and that something else allowed the construction of a building that is primarily housing, as a commercial building.

The story for the proposed  145 Church building is that in the Church Street zone (C-1B), two floors of housing over some retail is OK.  I tried to pin that down by reading the regulations, but failed.  I have to take that as a matter of faith.

Assuming that’s all correct, the upshot is that neither of these buildings establishes any precedent under the standard commercial zoning that applies on Maple (C1, C1A, C2).

I needed to set that straight before proceeding to my next post.

Post #400: A few corrections regarding traffic and traffic calming.

When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do?”  When seemingly knowledgeable readers offer corrections … I make corrections.

1: The Transportation Safety Commission (TSC) has never been asked to act proactively to prevent a problem.  Implied in Post #394 and Post #395.

False:  An informed reader tells me that the TSC proposed pro-active traffic control measures in at least one situation:  Attempting to limit cut-through traffic in the area around John Marshall Dr NE/MacArthur Ave NE/McKinley St NE (and Talisman Rd.) in anticipation of the road closure and construction improvements of Beulah Rd.  Vienna and Fairfax added speed tables to the area prospectively.

It’s worth putting a pin in this one for several reasons.  First, it shows that TSC can act prospectively, and is not strictly bound by the rules of the Vienna Citizen’s Guide.  Second, you can’t find any trace of this, on-line, on the Town’s website or elsewhere.  (Or, at least, I could not, after considerable searching).  On-line minutes for the TSC only go back to 2017.  This came to light purely by chance, as somebody who knew the facts happened to read my post and was motivated enough to set me straight.  Absent an easily-accessed written record, Vienna’s institutional memory is slowly erased as citizens move onto and off of various boards and commissions.  I think that’s inefficient and unfortunate.

2: There’s no plausible explanation for the contradiction between a) the perceived increase in the length of backups at the Maple/Courthouse light and b) VDOT data that show no increase in traffic on that road.  Implied in Post #396.

False:  A reader sent me one possible explanation.  The white lane striping on Kingsley effectively prevents cars from forming two lines at the Nutley/Kingsley intersection, encouraging traffic to filter through the side streets up to Tapawingo or Courthouse.

In the past, two lines would form, for left turns and right turns.  Now, those turning right (north) on Nutley have to wait in line with those making the much-more-difficult left (south) onto Nutley.  And, in general, the length of the queue at that intersection increased for all individuals.

In the case of my correspondent, he no longer takes Kingsley to get to Nutley northbound in the morning.  Instead, he heads up (north) to Tapawingo or Courthouse, and then to Nutley. If enough people did that, it would increase the traffic entering those roads via the neighborhood streets.

Depending on where VDOT habitually sets up its traffic counter(s) on Courthouse, that traffic filtering up the residential streets, from the south, could plausibly slip onto Courthouse without being counted by VDOT.  At any rate, so far, that’s the only explanation I’ve stumbled across that would explain how the apparent backups at the light appear longer, but the objectively counted traffic has not increased.

3. Stop signs are a cheap and effective means for slowing down traffic and improving pedestrian safety.  This was more or less implied in Post #395.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  For the first time, I heard an explicit contrary view that stop signs control speed:  “People notoriously blow through unwarranted stop signs.”

I have always thought of myself as a fairly mainstream kind of guy, but this shows what a sheltered life I have led.  It never even occurred to me that a significant number of people would simply ignore a stop sign.  I mean, what kind of a person drives through a stop sign?  I’m such a nerd, I stop at stop signs even when I’m bicycling.  Which is hardly the norm for adult bicyclists.  (I use a common motorcyclists’ rule:  one foot must be placed flat on the ground.)

The bottom line is that some stop signs may have little effect without active police enforcement.  And that significantly limits their effective use, and makes them a far more costly control measure as well.  As I calculate it, we have about one police officer, per shift, for every 32 acres of Vienna, assuming all they do is traffic enforcement 24/7.  Given our low crime rate, I wouldn’t exactly say they are spread thin, but clearly they can’t provide much enforcement at the typical stop sign.

That said, while some people will blow through stop signs on neighborhood roads (as was reported on Roland Road in my neighborhood), I bet people would think twice before doing so when there routinely are witnesses.  Which means, in practice, on an arterial roadway.  So while stop signs may not be fully effective in the depths of the neighborhood, when traffic is sparse, I would not ignore their potential along a major thoroughfare like Courthouse.  Certainly, I’ve never seen a car blow through the three-way stop at Courthouse and Locust.  Based on that, I’d bet a stop at (e.g.) Courthouse and Ware would be routinely obeyed.

4:  A double-yellow line indicates a major road, or maybe gets painted as a standard safety measure to “narrow the lanes” visually.  That was in Post #395, in the discussion of traffic on Kingsley.

False:  I have now been told that the Town paints a double-yellow line as a matter of course on all the wider roads.  Because Kingsley is 35′ wide, presumably, it got a double-yellow line without regard to any safety consequences.

Post #399: There will be coffee and doughnut in the staff room.

My wife used to email me that line, as a joke, on the anniversary of my  company’s founding.

The joke being “doughnut” (singular), because there was only one employee — me.

I got an email a while back, from a fellow who thought the articles on this website needed by-lines.  I scratched my head a bit at that.  Why should I add my name to the start of every article?  I never wrote him back.

This has now come up again, and I finally get it.  Some people seem to think there’s a team of writers turning out these postings on savemaple.org. 

To which my reply is doughnut (singular).

Savemple.org is blissfully free of team building exercises, staff meetings, performance reviews, consensus forming … and guest writers.  I write everything on this website.  Full stop.  If I can ever convince anyone to do a guest article, you’ll see a by-line. 

If somebody mentions something that I think is worth writing up, sure, I’ll do that.  Happy to steal an idea from any source.  But the research and writeup is solely mine.

And that’s the last you’ll hear of my annual doughnut.

Post #398: Per VDOT, traffic isn’t getting worse in Vienna, or on I-66, …

This post is more-or-less a continuation of Post #396, traffic trend on Courthouse.  I had to download all the VDOT traffic counts to do that, so I figured I might as well package those numbers up in some form that people could access easily.

What I found when I did that is that, per VDOT, traffic counts are stable-to-declining throughout Vienna.  So it’s not just Courthouse where VDOT shows no increase in vehicle counts.  It’s pretty much all of Vienna … including I-66.

Hmm.

The data file below is an Excel workbook (.xls) summarizing 2006 – 2018 Town of Vienna traffic counts on the VDOT website.

VDOT traffic counts 9-27-2019

Here are a few things to note.

  • VDOT only routinely measures traffic on a handful of Vienna streets.  Various other entities (the Town, or developers) will do ad-hoc counts on other streets.
  • VDOT has detailed data for a few years prior to 2005, but that’s only publicly available as .pdf files.  If you have a particular interest in a particular road, for 2001 – 2004, you can look that up on the VDOT website.
  • VDOT shows a traffic count for every year, but it only actually measures traffic roughly once every three years.  In between measurements, it extrapolates based on an assumed rate of growth.  The workbook above only shows the years in which VDOT made an actual traffic measurement on a street.
  • VDOT typically measures traffic for just a few days, so there will be some random variation from year to year based on exact traffic conditions during those two days.

My main takeway is that there has been no strong upward trend in cars on the road more-or-less anywhere in Vienna.  Or, at least, that’s what VDOT says.  This assumes that VDOTs methods are consistent across years.

Here are two ways to see that, both telling the same story.  The first is a count of “vehicle miles traveled” in Vienna, excluding I-66, per VDOT.  This is a VDOT estimate of all the miles, that all vehicles combined, traveled on Vienna streets in any one year.  The second is a simpler way to get at an aggregate, totaling the vehicle counts across the 24 street segments in Vienna that were reported consistently over the entire period.  Either way you do it, there’s no trend to speak of.  Both of these graphs exclude I-66.

Post #397: Our assets become our liabilities, round 3.

At the 9/24/2019 Transportation Safety Commission meeting, one citizen said that the Parkwood School is likely to close, following the death of its founder and long-time director.  That little private school is located at the corner of  Marshall Road and Ware Street.  For all appearances, other than for the extensive on-site parking, it looks like handful of 1950’s houses on a spacious lots.  In the picture below, the Vienna Aquatic Club pool is in the background, and most of the foreground is Parkwood School.

That citizen was hoping the Town might buy the land and make it a park, rather than let it be developed.   So that prompts the re-run of a point I made in this prior post and this prior postOur assets become our liabilities.

In Vienna and the rest of Northern Virginia, a significant piece of open space used to be an asset to a neighborhood.  It kept residential or commercial density down, it might have added a nice bit of greenery, and so on.  Always harmless, typically beneficial.

But now any significant bit of open space is a potential liability as well.  If redeveloped in the current economic climate, the result will be larger structures and higher density than the surrounding neighborhood.  A neighborhood without such open space is stable.  Change occurs one small lot at a time.  But a neighborhood with some large open space risks leap-frogging from its current state to … whatever is most profitably built these days.  And, in general, for a larger piece of land, that means some form of higher-density housing.

Per the Fairfax County tax maps, the school in its entirety sits on about 4.3 acres of land.  (All five lots circled above are owned by the same trust.)  To put that in perspective, the new six-house development across from Westwood County Club occupies 2.7 acres.  The Tequila Grand/444 Maple West development occupies about 2.75 acres.

If not rezoned to higher density, but merely subdivided under the current RS-16 zoning (minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet), the three current structures could be replaced with eleven new houses.  Given market conditions, there is little doubt that the houses would be as large as could be fit onto the lots.

I’d like to think that a developer would not try to get it rezoned to higher density, given the land area involved.  But these days, you just can’t tell.  The school is, after all, directly across from a large church, not other houses.  It backs to a swim club (Vienna Aquatic Club), not houses.  And it’s a very convenient commute to Metro from there.  If rezoned for townhouses, a quick reading of the zoning law suggests they could squeeze in maybe 30 or so under our current townhouse zoning of 8/acre, plus a bit of required open space.

Anyway, Vienna is totally unprepared to buy new park land.  At least as far as I can tell.  There’s no plan for parks and no contingency fund for purchasing such land.  (In fact, oddly enough, much of what we have as park land today used to be the locations of our local sewage treatment plants.  Those areas were converted to parks when sewage treatment became centralized in the 1960s.)  The idea of preserving this fairly significant piece of land as open space for future generations is appealing.  But it ain’t gonna happen.

 

Post #396: Courthouse traffic trend?

At last night’s Transportation Safety Commission (TSC) meeting, there was a lot of complaint about rising levels of traffic on Courthouse.  And I have to say, that matches my perception.  I see afternoon rush hour backups at the Maple/Nutley light that reach past Meadow Lane playground.  And … I just don’t recall seeing that a few years ago.

Long story short, VDOT data show no upward trend in traffic on Courthouse Road.  This probably comes as a surprise to the people who live on Courthouse.  It certainly goes against my perception of traffic on Courthouse.  But the numbers are what they are.

VDOT traffic counts are available on this page.  Please note that while they show a count for every year, for every monitored street, it looks like they only do an actual measurement (for Courthouse) every third year.  In-between, it looks like they just just gap-fill by trending the data forward.

Here’s the VDOT count of average weekday traffic, every third year from 2003 to 2018, in cars per day:

So I just thought I’d throw that out there.  I have a few ideas of what might be causing this, but it’s hard even to guess as to how to support or refute any proposed explanation.

Just to forestall one possible argument, the peak hour traffic is no more concentrated now than it was back in 2003.  Throughout this period, just under 10% of the daily traffic occurred during the peak hour of the day.

So what’s the explanation? One way to explain it is that everybody is wrong.  Traffic hasn’t picked up.  Traffic was actually worse in 2003, on Courthouse, than it is today.  Perception and memory can be flawed, so you can’t rule that out.

Otherwise, I’m stumped.  I just can’t quite picture a plausible scenario where an increasing number of cars is getting onto that street, but evading the VDOT traffic counter.

Perhaps traffic is more concentrated for very brief periods of time, leading to brief (but extreme) backups.  Those “micro-bursts” of traffic would then make an impression that we would tend to remember.

Could the recent (2016?) re-timing of the Maple Avenue lights have anything to do with this?  Could that have bunched traffic up more effectively on Courthouse?

 Here’s my best guess.  I noted earlier that we really have a large number of tear-downs going on in the Town of Vienna (Post #308).  Could the deep PM backups at the Courthouse/Nutley light be a “quitting time” phenomenon?  In effect, we now have a large local workforce of construction workers.  My vague recollection (from one summer working as a carpenter’s helper) was that, come 5 PM, that’s quitting time.  And everybody knocks off.  So I wonder if we have enough of a local construction labor force now that it is affecting the “peakiness” of traffic on Courthouse.  Not enough to materially raise the daily counts, say.  But just enough, added at around the same time, into the existing PM rush hour, that it materially boosts the length of the backup at the Nutley/Maple light.  And I then  perceive those long (but short-lived) lines of cars as “traffic sure has gotten a lot worse”.

No way to validate that one way or the other.  But for sure, the hard numbers in this case are strongly at odds with the common perception.

 

Post #394: Tonight’s Transportation Safety Commission meeting: Please don’t boil the frog. Update 2

Tuesday, 9/24/2019 at 8:00 PM in Town Hall, Transportation Safety Commission will meet and take public comment on traffic safety issues in the neighborhood bordered by Maple, Nutley, and Courthouse. This includes both current issues and “impact of future development on those issues”.

Citizens are invited to speak, with a time limit of three minutes.

For background, see Post #389.  If you live in the area bounded by Courthouse, Maple, and Nutley, consider attending tonight’s meeting and speaking up.  The meeting starts at 8 PM.


In this post, I want to state what I hope to get out of this meeting.  Likely, I will be adding to this post over the course of the day.

Mainly, I hope that the TSC will consider what can be done to address the future impact that MAC development will have.  To me, that’s what makes this  inherently different from anything the TSC has ever done.

The TSC listens to citizen complaints about current conditions all the time.   There is a process in place for citizens to petition for measures to address existing  problems (the Citizen’s Guide to Traffic Calming in Vienna (.pdf).   The TSC occasionally has a town-wide review of extant problem areas,  most recently in 2008 and 2010.

But the TSC has never been asked to come up with proactive measures to address the expected future fallout from a change in Vienna’s zoning rules.  That’s new.  And to me, given the context, that’s the main point of this exercise.

There is a process in place for dealing with current problems.  For any current problem, if we who live in this neighborhood were sufficiently upset, and someone wanted to go to the trouble of collecting signatures from the required 75%/50% of all affected households, then we could go through the procedures outlined in the Citizen’s Guide (cited above) to deal with any current problems.

Aside:  Sidewalks, however, seem to be a separate issue, and not nearly as transparent as other safety measures.  Although sidewalks are never mentioned in the Citizen’s Guide (cited above), it appears that citizen requests for sidewalks must go through the petition process outlined in the Guide.  A revised version of that Guide (still in draft form) does, in fact, mention sidewalks.

But there is no process within Vienna for dealing with the likely future problems from redevelopment.  And yet (see below), a full build-out of Maple under MAC zoning will surely generate some significant traffic issues.  So, to me, this should be about how best to deal with the traffic impacts that are projected to arise as MAC zoning converts Maple Avenue into a high-density housing district. Continue reading Post #394: Tonight’s Transportation Safety Commission meeting: Please don’t boil the frog. Update 2