The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.

Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.

We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.

Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.

Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.

This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County.

In Fiscal Year 2025, Arlington County will spend $7,051 per resident. For Fairfax County the average spending will be $4,798 per resident. Arlington is spending $2,253 (47%) more per resident despite the alleged cost savings from density and transit-oriented development policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

The school population that is growing is the high needs population which cost more to educate. Wealthy children with fewer needs were sent to Catholic and private schools, especially during the pandemic. Non wealthy kids will muddle through with resources focused on special needs and non English speaking children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.

Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.

We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.

Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.

Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.

This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County.

You can't just look at capital expenditures for a year and call it a day. Especially around here with the way these jurisdictions act. You need to look at total cost, in large part because Fairfax doesn't actually treat a large portion of its water, but rather sends it to Blueplains. That saves Fairfax on capital costs but has operating costs. Fairfax also funds most of its capital construction with bond issuances, so you need to assign that interest cost as well.

You should also factor in that Arlington's infrastructure is 40ish years older on average than FFX infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.

Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.

We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.

Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.

Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.

This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County.

You can't just look at capital expenditures for a year and call it a day. Especially around here with the way these jurisdictions act. You need to look at total cost, in large part because Fairfax doesn't actually treat a large portion of its water, but rather sends it to Blueplains. That saves Fairfax on capital costs but has operating costs. Fairfax also funds most of its capital construction with bond issuances, so you need to assign that interest cost as well.

You should also factor in that Arlington's infrastructure is 40ish years older on average than FFX infrastructure.

I looked at the budget for the next 10 years, not 1 year. These numbers I include bonds and interest. Arlington county just spends a lot more per resident to provide utilities than Fairfax. The same is true for transportation spending. They spend more on almost everything per resident than Fairfax. So your argument that density provides cost savings doesn’t hold water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.

Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.

We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.

Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.

Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.

This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County.

You can't just look at capital expenditures for a year and call it a day. Especially around here with the way these jurisdictions act. You need to look at total cost, in large part because Fairfax doesn't actually treat a large portion of its water, but rather sends it to Blueplains. That saves Fairfax on capital costs but has operating costs. Fairfax also funds most of its capital construction with bond issuances, so you need to assign that interest cost as well.

You should also factor in that Arlington's infrastructure is 40ish years older on average than FFX infrastructure.

I looked at the budget for the next 10 years, not 1 year. These numbers I include bonds and interest. Arlington county just spends a lot more per resident to provide utilities than Fairfax. The same is true for transportation spending. They spend more on almost everything per resident than Fairfax. So your argument that density provides cost savings doesn’t hold water.

Budgets are for casuals, look at the ACFRs. Harder to hide stuff there since they are audited. The budget is likely hiding the roughly $60 million FFX pays to other jurisdictions to handle their outflows.

Arlington W/S = $368 a head
Fairfax W+S=$436 a head

That's with Arlington being older and FFX outsourcing so much of its work to neighboring jurisdictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.

Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.

We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.

Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.

Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.

This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County.

You can't just look at capital expenditures for a year and call it a day. Especially around here with the way these jurisdictions act. You need to look at total cost, in large part because Fairfax doesn't actually treat a large portion of its water, but rather sends it to Blueplains. That saves Fairfax on capital costs but has operating costs. Fairfax also funds most of its capital construction with bond issuances, so you need to assign that interest cost as well.

You should also factor in that Arlington's infrastructure is 40ish years older on average than FFX infrastructure.

I looked at the budget for the next 10 years, not 1 year. These numbers I include bonds and interest. Arlington county just spends a lot more per resident to provide utilities than Fairfax. The same is true for transportation spending. They spend more on almost everything per resident than Fairfax. So your argument that density provides cost savings doesn’t hold water.

Budgets are for casuals, look at the ACFRs. Harder to hide stuff there since they are audited. The budget is likely hiding the roughly $60 million FFX pays to other jurisdictions to handle their outflows.

Arlington W/S = $368 a head
Fairfax W+S=$436 a head

That's with Arlington being older and FFX outsourcing so much of its work to neighboring jurisdictions.

You just made up these numbers and are completely ignoring the fact that Arlington spends 47% more per person each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.

Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.

We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.

Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.

Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.

This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County.

You can't just look at capital expenditures for a year and call it a day. Especially around here with the way these jurisdictions act. You need to look at total cost, in large part because Fairfax doesn't actually treat a large portion of its water, but rather sends it to Blueplains. That saves Fairfax on capital costs but has operating costs. Fairfax also funds most of its capital construction with bond issuances, so you need to assign that interest cost as well.

You should also factor in that Arlington's infrastructure is 40ish years older on average than FFX infrastructure.

I looked at the budget for the next 10 years, not 1 year. These numbers I include bonds and interest. Arlington county just spends a lot more per resident to provide utilities than Fairfax. The same is true for transportation spending. They spend more on almost everything per resident than Fairfax. So your argument that density provides cost savings doesn’t hold water.

Budgets are for casuals, look at the ACFRs. Harder to hide stuff there since they are audited. The budget is likely hiding the roughly $60 million FFX pays to other jurisdictions to handle their outflows.

Arlington W/S = $368 a head
Fairfax W+S=$436 a head

That's with Arlington being older and FFX outsourcing so much of its work to neighboring jurisdictions.

You just made up these numbers and are completely ignoring the fact that Arlington spends 47% more per person each year.

Did you even look at the ACFRs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Alright, in that case not our problem. Density doesn’t save money because the feds and state subsidize infrastructure. So the main concern for impact on taxpayers is school enrollment. Density increased school enrollment and the burden on taxpayers.

You don't pay state or federal taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.

There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.

There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.

No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.

There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.

No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.

The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.

There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.

No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.

The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.

Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Alright, in that case not our problem. Density doesn’t save money because the feds and state subsidize infrastructure. So the main concern for impact on taxpayers is school enrollment. Density increased school enrollment and the burden on taxpayers.

You don't pay state or federal taxes?

County level spending attributable to state and federal funding have almost no impact on my federal/state tax burden or anyone else's for that matter. For every $100 increase in state spending attributable to Arlington, it costs Arlington less than $5 in additional State level taxes. For every $100 increase in federal spending attributable to Arlington, it costs Arlington less than $0.15 in additional federal level taxes. It is completely irrational for a Arlington to be concerned about the impact that their spending has on state or federal budgets because the county loses $95 for every $100 they save Virginia and the county loses $99.85 for every $100 it saves the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.

There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.

No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.

The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.

Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.

You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.

Alright, in that case not our problem. Density doesn’t save money because the feds and state subsidize infrastructure. So the main concern for impact on taxpayers is school enrollment. Density increased school enrollment and the burden on taxpayers.

You don't pay state or federal taxes?

County level spending attributable to state and federal funding have almost no impact on my federal/state tax burden or anyone else's for that matter. For every $100 increase in state spending attributable to Arlington, it costs Arlington less than $5 in additional State level taxes. For every $100 increase in federal spending attributable to Arlington, it costs Arlington less than $0.15 in additional federal level taxes. It is completely irrational for a Arlington to be concerned about the impact that their spending has on state or federal budgets because the county loses $95 for every $100 they save Virginia and the county loses $99.85 for every $100 it saves the federal government.

Wow. We should pay for everything using federal dollars, since apparently those are free. Definitely nothing with that logic.