RCA Comment on Latest Draft Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan Language

7/28/2019 RCA Comment on Latest Draft Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan Language

1/16

June 2, 2013

Heidi Merkel

Senior Planner

Department of Planning & Zoning

Dear Heidi,

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan text language

for the Reston Transit Station Areas. In this case, we are reviewing Version 3, which includes the recent

addition of language on Public Facilities. Our approach in reviewing this draft is as follows:

Follow-up on some earlier comments, including our own, annotated in the draft Plan

Some specific comments on Versions 2 & 3.

Some general thoughts about draft Plan language as it is evolving.

Follow-up on Earlier Comments

We greatly appreciate the staffs efforts to re-examine the general goal of 3.0 jobs/household and the

assumed size of office space per worker. (p. 5)

On the former, we would note that both US Census 2010 data and DPZ data submitted to MWCOG for

the 8.2 version of its forecasteach covering slightly different geographies--put the current Reston-

wide J/HH ratio near 2.5/1. This is shown in the summary table below.

Households Jobs J:HH Ratio

US C R t CDP 24 528 64 538 2 63

Community-wide Jobs/Household Ratio 2010


2/16

US Census Reston CDP 24 528 64 538 2 63

We know that this is an expensive proposition and that, for the time being, there is little likelihood of

sufficient market demand to develop the space over the corridor, but we would argue that is exactly the

reason to acquire those rights promptly. We would note for the record that Supervisor Herrity isexploring the air rights option as a way to help reduce future Dulles Toll Road fare growth, which still

looks huge despite recent state steps to contribute to the building of Phase 2 of the Silver Line. We

would also note that air rights provide the only means to acquire additional land to build many of the

infrastructure projects and amenities that are included in our community vision and the evolving Plan.

When the County (& others) see that the demand is there for developing this space, the price will be all

that much higher, possibly many times higher, both from a construction perspective and simple market

demand pricing. We think now is the best time to make this investment for the future of Reston.

We believe stronger language is needed on alleviating traffic congestion; non-degradation is

inadequate. (p.9)

We greatly appreciate the excellent work that the Department of Transportation has done in evaluating

the various development scenarios we have been through to date. They have been painstakingly

thorough and responsive. Obviously, we do not like the results or their implications for future Reston

congestion on its main corridors. If we were to accomplish non-degradation, we would still have 11

intersections in the Phase 1 study area with LOS F during the peak hourthe current conditions asreported by FCDOT in 2010. According to FCDOT data, the worst gateway intersection delay is

currently (2010) 4-1/2 minutes at Wiehle and Sunset Hills in the evening peak hour. That is not

satisfactory under any reasonable development plan.

We believe the Reston Comprehensive Plan should set a minimum traffic standard at its gateway

intersections (plus those linking to the DTR) of LOS E. This is the core LOS laid out for Tysons

development in a presentation by FCDOT to the Tysons Corner Committee on June 22, 2011. In fact, it

calls for LOS D/E on low speed boulevards (4-8 traffic lanes, 40MPH design speed, 35MPH operatingspeed) in the Tysons area. These standards were incorporated in the Tysons Plan per Transportation

Design Standards for Tysons Corner Urban Center, VDOT in partnership with FCDOT, September 13,

2011, see Table 2, p. DS-3. We believe Wiehle, Reston Parkway, and Fairfax County Parkway all meet


3/16

We agree with the TF comment that the names surrounding some sub-districts are confusing. (p. 14)

We agree with staffs updating the language concerning application of the ratios in the mixed use areas

applies to the entire area, not individual project, BUT we are less certain that the ratios specified are the

appropriate ratios. (p. 15)

First, the use of the phrase transit station mixed use is confusing. We also speak of transit station

areas elsewhere, which include the totality of the TOD areas and beyond. It is important that this piece

of the TOD development area focus on the first -mile around the Metrorail station platform. This could

be called Inner -mile mixed use or Commercial mixed use (so long as it applied to the -milecircle) as a counterpoint to the outer residential mixed use circle, but we leave the wording to you.

More importantly, the actual spatial relationships (50%/50% inner and 25%/75% outer respectively)

depend entirely on the square footage we assume per office worker. If we keep DU size at 1,200GSF

and office worker space drops to 200GSF/office worker, these ratios assume about 3 workers for each

resident whereas our current assumptions call for 2 workers per resident. We definitely do not want a

50/50 GSF split in the inner quarter mile if this is the case, and the 25/75 GSF split in the residential

mixed use area may also be off substantially. At this point, we believe it is premature to specify whatthese ratio goals ought to be until we have a better understanding of the underlying GSF per office

worker assumption. (Note: To date, we have assumed that office workers account for about 85% of the

non-residential space and, therefore, it is the driving factor in achieving a desirable J:HH balance in

either part of the TOD area.)

For the record, we will also note that it has been RCAs position that the number of workers and number

of residents in a TOD area should eventually be equal overall. However these relationships work out in

terms of the spatial allocations in the two rings, we believe a 1:1 worker-residential balance should bethe long-term goal achieved in each TOD area (notwithstanding Herndon-Monroe is a half a TOD area).

We believe the more demanding language concerning housing diversity is an excellent addition to the


4/16


5/16

experience of cities across the county. At present, the County ranks well in the TPL park accessibility

scores at 14th

. Nonetheless, applying the Urban Parks Framework to Restons TOD areas and their

expected growth to 2030 would give Restons urban areas the fifth poorest score in the TPL listing. Thatstandard puts Fairfax Countys urban areas in the same ballpark as North Las Vegas, Norfolk, Stockton,

and Santa Ana, CA. This standard is not acceptable for a County that presumes to be a leader in active

lifestyles, urban growth, and attracting a knowledge economy. Indeed, the result of such a policy will

likely be to reduce the growth potential not only of Reston, but other urbanizing areas in the County,

including Tysons.

The combination of the limited planning for parkland in Restons urbanizing areas and the low

expectation set by the County for parks in urban areas run directly counter to the needs identified by apanel of County and RA parks and recreation officials that calls for facilities requiring more than 100

acres of parkland for a variety of game fields and facilities, many of which are captured in the table in

the draft plan. Moreover, it is unfair and inequitable to expect the rest of the community to provide

the space to meet the needs of the urban areas. From a quality of life perspective, the conversion of

existing Reston open spaces and parks to other uses to meet the needs of residents and workers in the

station areas represents as much of a loss to the community as it does a gain to Reston transit station

areas. RCA cannot support this taking of its existing community common ground for other people or

purposes. It makes no more sense than taking parks from Springfield or Annandale or Chantilly toserve Restons urban residents.

Precisely because the taking of Restons common ground would be a loss to the communitys quality of

life, we have argued from the outset of this planning effort for the creation of a large urban park in

Town Center North. We continue to advocate for that large park as a central park for Reston named for

its founder, Robert E. Simon. Not only would such a park provide a critical gathering place for the entire

Reston community, it would greatly reduce the congestion and environmental impact created by

prospective transit station area residents or workers traveling to the farther reaches of Reston. Webelieve a large park20 acres or morewill be a critical element to Restons growth and its reputation

for excellence as a planned community.


6/16

We understand that land availability is the key driver for locating a new middle and high school

along the Rt. 28 corridor, but we wonder about the implementation of bringing Reston students

to this location, especially during peak traffic periods. We anticipate that FCPS may beconsidering school boundary changes to accomplish filling these new schools. We would hope

that those boundary changes maximize the attendance of Reston students in Reston schools

rather than whole transportation of Reston students to the Rt. 28 area. Although it may be

premature to put that kind of language in a Comprehensive Plan, we believe it is important to

note our concern at this time.

We also appreciate your commitment to following up on the issues raised by RCAs alternative task force

representative, Dick Rogers. We look forward to those additions in forthcoming versions of this draftplan.

We have no comment on the Fire & Rescue portion of the draft plan other than to note that we believe

a fire and rescue presence is needed in Reston Town Center as planned.

General Comments

We have two general concerns that the preceding discussion help highlight: The imposition of new infrastructure on the non-urbanizing parts of Reston to meet the needs

of station area residents and workers.

The value of a County consolidated government complex in a single or adjoining buildings to

save land for open space and parks.

We have periodically expressed our concern that the task force sub-committees and others have

expected that the existing Reston community should absorb the infrastructure requirements dictated by

a growing urban corridor. We reject that because it basically says the existing Reston community mustlose something so the new urbanizing station areas may gain something, whether it is worse traffic

congestion, less open space, more crowded schools, and so on. We insist on creating a win-win

situation where the entire community benefits, not just a portion of it. We will continue to bring your


7/16

The fire and rescue station could be part of the ground floor of the office building, including

crew living quarters above the station.

An optimal situation may involve the construction of these facilities in an L around a corner facing

outward. The office building/shelter/station could face the short side of the L. The parking garage

could adjoin the office building on the long side of the L and serve as a divider between office building

and the school/library/rec center complex on the other side of the garage. Behind all of these buildings

would be a public park.

Conclusion

We appreciate the great effort that DPZ has made in bringing the Reston areawide comprehensive plan

draft forward and we know that this involved not only accommodating task force members, but also

extensive discussions with other county staffs. We thank you for your continuing excellent efforts and

look forward to the opportunity to review and comment on future sections.

We hope that you find our comments and suggestions useful as you move forward through this plan

development process.

Sincerely,

Terry Maynard

Reston Citizens Association

Representative to the Reston Master Plan Task Force


8/16

Cities by Density

FY2010

Rank City

Land Area

(acres) Population

Density

(People/Acre)

Total Park

Acres

ar cres as

Percent of Land

Area

Park Acres per

1,000 Residents

Park Accessibility

Score

1 Manhattan Borough, NYC 14,694 1,585,873 107.92 2,686 18.3% 1.69 0.31

2 Reston Town Center 2030 802 41,210 51.38 34 1.4% 0.83 0.01

3 New York City 195,072 8,391,881 43.02 38,060 19.5% 4.54 0.88

4 San Francisco 29,884 815,358 27.28 5,384 18.0% 6.60 1.19

5 Jersey City, New Jersey 9,600 242,503 25.26 1,660 17.3% 6.85 1.18

6 Reston TOD Area 2030 1,683 41,210 24.49 78 4.6% 1.89 0.09

7 Reston T OD 2030 @ FC Urban Park Standard 1,683 41,210 24.49 49 2.9% 1.19 0.03

8 Boston 30,992 645,169 20.82 4,897 15.8% 7.59 1.20

9 Santa Ana, California 17,280 340,338 19.70 324 1.9% 0.95 0.02

10 Chicago 145,362 2,851,268 19.61 11,959 8.2% 4.19 0.34

11 Miami 22,830 433,136 18.97 1,198 5.2% 2.77 0.14

12 Newark, New Jersey 15,360 278,154 18.11 858 5.6% 3.08 0.17

13 Hialeah, Florida 12,160 218,896 18.00 175 1.4% 0.80 0.01

14 Philadelphia 86,456 1,547,297 17.90 10,886 12.6% 7.04 0.89

15 Washington, D.C. 39,297 599,657 15.26 7,464 19.0% 12.45 2.36

16 Reston Town Center 2010 802 11,720 14.61 27 1.4% 2.30 0.03

17 Long Beach, California 32,281 462,604 14.33 3,331 10.3% 7.20 0.74

18 Arlington, Virginia 16,000 217,483 13.59 1,823 11.4% 8.38 0.96

19 Los Angeles 300,201 3,831,868 12.76 23,938 8.0% 6.25 0.50

20 Baltimore 51,714 637,418 12.33 4,905 9.5% 7.70 0.73

21 Seattle 53,677 616,627 11.49 5,476 10.2% 8.88 0.91

22 Oakland 35,875 409,189 11.41 5,219 14.5% 12.75 1.85

23 Minneapolis 35,130 385,378 10.97 5,121 14.6% 13.29 1.94

24 Anaheim 31,360 337,896 10.77 926 3.0% 2.74 0.08

25 Buffalo 26,240 270,240 10.30 2,180 8.3% 8.07 0.67

26 Detroit 88,810 910,921 10.26 5,921 6.7% 6.50 0.44

27 Rochester, New York 22,400 207,294 9.25 1,501 6.7% 7.24 0.49

28 St. Louis 39,630 356,587 9.00 3,478 8.8% 9.75 0.86

29 Reston Study Area (2030) 9,811 87,181 8.89 2,251 22.9% 25.82 5.9230 Pittsburgh 35,573 310,037 8.72 3,120 8.8% 10.06 0.89

31 Cleveland 49,650 431,369 8.69 3,130 6.3% 7.26 0.46

32 San Jose 111,910 964,695 8.62 15,982 14.3% 16.57 2.37

33 St. Paul, Minnesota 33,920 281,253 8.29 3,974 11.7% 14.13 1.65

34 Gilbert Arizona 26 880 222 075 8 26 1 330 4 9% 5 99 0 29


9/16

62 Raleigh 73,600 405,612 5.51 12,512 17.0% 30.85 5.24

63 Madison, Wisconsin 43,520 235,419 5.41 5,246 12.1% 22.28 2.70

64 Lincoln, Nebraska 48,000 254,001 5.29 6,304 13.1% 24.82 3.25

65 San Antonio 260,832 1,373,668 5.27 23,316 8.9% 16.97 1.51

66 Phoenix 303,907 1,593,659 5.24 45,020 14.8% 28.25 4.18

67 Akron, Ohio 39,680 207,209 5.22 8,799 22.2% 42.46 9.43

68 Boise, Idaho 40,320 205,707 5.10 2,775 6.9% 13.49 0.93

69 Fort Wayne 50,560 255,890 5.06 2,400 4.7% 9.38 0.44

70 Henderson, Nevada 51,200 256,445 5.01 1,986 3.9% 7.74 0.30

71 Reno, Nevada 44,160 219,636 4.97 2,432 5.5% 11.07 0.61

72 Austin 160,969 786,386 4.89 28,911 18.0% 36.76 6.62

73 Tampa 71,720 343,890 4.79 3,361 4.7% 9.77 0.46

74 Irving, Texas 42,880 205,541 4.79 1,869 4.4% 9.09 0.40

75 Baton Rouge 48,640 225,388 4.63 1,374 2.8% 6.10 0.17

76 Albuquerque 115,608 529,219 4.58 32,535 28.1% 61.48 17.28

77 Laredo, Texas 49,920 226,124 4.53 1,552 3.1% 6.86 0.21

78 North Las Vegas, Nevada 49,920 224,387 4.49 859 1.7% 3.83 0.07

79 Bakersfield 72,320 324,463 4.49 8,354 11.6% 25.75 2.99

80 Tucson 124,588 543,910 4.37 3,892 3.1% 7.16 0.22

81 Wichita 86,879 372,186 4.28 4,460 5.1% 11.98 0.61

82 Fairfax County (2010) 252,828 1,081,726 4.28 39,302 15.5% 36.33 5.65

83 Orlando 59,520 235,860 3.96 2,941 4.9% 12.47 0.61

84 El Paso 159,405 620,456 3.89 29,393 18.4% 47.37 8.72

85 Fort Worth 187,222 727,577 3.89 11,312 6.0% 15.55 0.93

86 Greensboro, North Carolina 66,560 255,124 3.83 6,186 9.3% 24.25 2.25

87 Durham, North Carolina 60,160 229,171 3.81 2,440 4.1% 10.65 0.44

88 Memphis 178,761 676,640 3.79 9,140 5.1% 13.51 0.69

89 Aurora, Colorado 90,880 323,348 3.56 10,155 11.2% 31.41 3.52

90 Indianapolis 231,342 807,584 3.49 11,147 4.8% 13.80 0.6691 Colorado Springs 118,874 397,317 3.34 11,859 10.0% 29.85 2.98

92 Tulsa 116,891 389,625 3.33 7,336 6.3% 18.83 1.19

93 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 69,120 229,828 3.33 3,450 5.0% 15.01 0.75

94 Lubbock, Texas 72,960 225,859 3.10 2,224 3.0% 9.85 0.30

95 New Orleans 115,840 354,850 3.06 29,851 25.8% 84.12 21.70

96 Louisville 246,400 721,594 2.93 15,939 6.5% 22.09 1.44

97 Corpus Christi 99,200 287,439 2.90 2,147 2.2% 7.47 0.16

98 Virginia Beach 158,903 433,575 2.73 29,497 18.6% 68.03 12.65

99 Charlotte/Mecklenburg 337,280 913,639 2.71 18,551 5.5% 20.30 1.12

100 Birmingham 95,360 230,121 2.41 2,396 2.5% 10.41 0.26

101 Kansas City, Missouri 200,664 482,299 2.40 17,272 8.6% 35.81 3.08

102 Honolulu/Honolulu County 384,000 907,574 2.36 6,056 1.6% 6.67 0.11

103 Scottsdale, Arizona 117,760 237,844 2.02 17,172 14.6% 72.20 10.54

104 Nashville/Davidson 321,280 605,473 1.88 10,765 3.4% 17.78 0.60

105 Lexington/Fayette 182,400 296,545 1.63 6,077 3.3% 20.49 0.68

106 Jacksonville 537,000 813,518 1.51 44,108 8.2% 54.22 4.45

107 Oklahoma City 388,463 560,333 1.44 21,841 5.6% 38.98 2.18


10/16

Cities by Percent Parkland

(% of City area in parkland)

FY2010

Rank City Land Area (acres) Population

Density

(People/Acre)

Total Park

Acres

ar cres as

Percent of Land

Area

Park Acres per

1,000 Residents

Park Accessibility

Score

1 Anchorage/Anchorage Borough 1,258,880 286,174 0.23 501,725 39.9% 1753.22 699.53

2 Albuquerque 115,608 529,219 4.58 32,535 28.1% 61.48 17.28

3 Irvine, California 29,440 209,716 7.12 7,656 26.0% 36.51 9.494 Chesapeake, Virginia 217,600 222,455 1.02 56,066 25.8% 252.03 65.02

5 New Orleans 115,840 354,850 3.06 29,851 25.8% 84.12 21.70

6 Reston Study Area (2030) 9,811 87,181 8.89 2,251 22.9% 25.82 5.92

7 San Diego 207,575 1,306,300 6.29 47,383 22.8% 36.27 8.27


9 Akron, Ohio 39,680 207,209 5.22 8,799 22.2% 42.46 9.43

10 New York City 195,072 8,391,881 43.02 38,060 19.5% 4.54 0.88

11 Washington, D.C. 39,297 599,657 15.26 7,464 19.0% 12.45 2.36

12 Virginia Beach 158,903 433,575 2.73 29,497 18.6% 68.03 12.65

13 El Paso 159,405 620,456 3.89 29,393 18.4% 47.37 8.72


15 Austin 160,969 786,386 4.89 28,911 18.0% 36.76 6.62

16 San Francisco 29,884 815,358 27.28 5,384 18.0% 6.60 1.19

17 Jersey City, New Jersey 9,600 242,503 25.26 1,660 17.3% 6.85 1.1818 Raleigh 73,600 405,612 5.51 12,512 17.0% 30.85 5.24

19 Portland 85,964 566,143 6.59 13,864 16.1% 24.49 3.94

20 Boston 30,992 645,169 20.82 4,897 15.8% 7.59 1.20

21 Fairfax County (2010) 252,828 1,081,726 4.28 39,302 15.5% 36.33 5.65

22 Phoenix 303,907 1,593,659 5.24 45,020 14.8% 28.25 4.18


24 Minneapolis 35,130 385,378 10.97 5,121 14.6% 13.29 1.94

25 Oakland 35,875 409,189 11.41 5,219 14.5% 12.75 1.85

26 San Jose 111,910 964,695 8.62 15,982 14.3% 16.57 2.37

27 Cincinnati 49,898 333,012 6.67 6,817 13.7% 20.47 2.80

28 Dallas 219,223 1,299,542 5.93 29,401 13.4% 22.62 3.03

29 Houston 370,818 2,257,926 6.09 49,643 13.4% 21.99 2.95


31 Omaha 74,048 454,731 6.14 9,560 12.9% 21.02 2.71

32 Philadelphia 86,456 1,547,297 17.90 10,886 12.6% 7.04 0.89


34 St. Paul, Minnesota 33,920 281,253 8.29 3,974 11.7% 14.13 1.65

35 Bakersfield 72,320 324,463 4.49 8,354 11.6% 25.75 2.99


37 Aurora Colorado 90 880 323 348 3 56 10 155 11 2% 31 41 3 52

Thelinked imagecannotbedisplayed. Thefilemay havebeen moved,renamed,or deleted.Verify thatthelink pointsto thecorrect fileand location.

Thelinked imagecannotbed isplayed.The filemay havebeen moved,renamed,or deleted.Verify thatthelink pointsto thecorrectfile and location.

Thelinked imagecannotbedisplayed. Thefilemay havebeen moved,renamed,or deleted.Verify thatthelink pointsto thecorrect fileand location.


11/16

72 Miami 22,830 433,136 18.97 1,198 5.2% 2.77 0.14

73 Memphis 178,761 676,640 3.79 9,140 5.1% 13.51 0.69

74 Wichita 86,879 372,186 4.28 4,460 5.1% 11.98 0.61


76 Orlando 59,520 235,860 3.96 2,941 4.9% 12.47 0.61

77 Gilbert, Arizona 26,880 222,075 8.26 1,330 4.9% 5.99 0.29

78 Indianapolis 231,342 807,584 3.49 11,147 4.8% 13.80 0.66

79 Tampa 71,720 343,890 4.79 3,361 4.7% 9.77 0.46

80 Fort Wayne 50,560 255,890 5.06 2,400 4.7% 9.38 0.44

81 Reston TOD Area 2030 1,683 41,210 24.49 78 4.6% 1.89 0.09

82 Atlanta 84,316 540,922 6.42 3,882 4.6% 7.18 0.33

83 Irving, Texas 42,880 205,541 4.79 1,869 4.4% 9.09 0.40

84 Chandler, Arizona 36,480 249,535 6.84 1,528 4.2% 6.12 0.26

85 Las Vegas 72,514 567,641 7.83 3,072 4.2% 5.41 0.23





90 Reston TOD 2010 1,683 11,720 6.96 55 3.3% 4.69 0.15

91 Tucson 124,588 543,910 4.37 3,892 3.1% 7.16 0.22

92 Laredo, Texas 49,920 226,124 4.53 1,552 3.1% 6.86 0.21

93 Lubbock, Texas 72,960 225,859 3.10 2,224 3.0% 9.85 0.3094 Chula Vista, California 30,720 223,739 7.28 907 3.0% 4.05 0.12

95 Anaheim 31,360 337,896 10.77 926 3.0% 2.74 0.08

96 Reston TOD 2030 @ FC Urban Park Standard 1,683 41,210 24.49 49 2.9% 1.19 0.03

97 Baton Rouge 48,640 225,388 4.63 1,374 2.8% 6.10 0.17

98 Mesa, Arizona 79,990 467,157 5.84 2,244 2.8% 4.80 0.13

99 Birmingham 95,360 230,121 2.41 2,396 2.5% 10.41 0.26

100 Fresno 66,791 479,918 7.19 1,511 2.3% 3.15 0.07

101 Corpus Christi 99,200 287,439 2.90 2,147 2.2% 7.47 0.16

102 Stockton 35,200 287,578 8.17 674 1.9% 2.34 0.04

103 Santa Ana, California 17,280 340,338 19.70 324 1.9% 0.95 0.02

104 Norfolk 33,920 233,333 6.88 602 1.8% 2.58 0.05



107 Reston Town Center 2010 802 11,720 14.61 27 1.4% 2.30 0.03108 Reston Town Center 2030 802 41,210 51.38 34 1.4% 0.83 0.01

109 Hialeah, Florida 12,160 218,896 18.00 175 1.4% 0.80 0.01


12/16


13/16

61 Lubbock, Texas 72,960 225,859 3.10 2,224 3.0% 9.85 0.30

62 Tampa 71,720 343,890 4.79 3,361 4.7% 9.77 0.46

63 St. Louis 39,630 356,587 9.00 3,478 8.8% 9.75 0.86

64 Denver 98,142 610,345 6.22 5,902 6.0% 9.67 0.58

65 Fort Wayne 50,560 255,890 5.06 2,400 4.7% 9.38 0.44

66 Irving, Texas 42,880 205,541 4.79 1,869 4.4% 9.09 0.4067 Seattle 53,677 616,627 11.49 5,476 10.2% 8.88 0.91

68 Glendale, Arizona 35,840 253,209 7.06 2,160 6.0% 8.53 0.51


70 Buffalo 26,240 270,240 10.30 2,180 8.3% 8.07 0.67


72 Baltimore 51,714 637,418 12.33 4,905 9.5% 7.70 0.73

73 Boston 30,992 645,169 20.82 4,897 15.8% 7.59 1.20

74 Corpus Christi 99,200 287,439 2.90 2,147 2.2% 7.47 0.16

75 Cleveland 49,650 431,369 8.69 3,130 6.3% 7.26 0.46

76 Rochester, New York 22,400 207,294 9.25 1,501 6.7% 7.24 0.4977 Long Beach, California 32,281 462,604 14.33 3,331 10.3% 7.20 0.74

78 Atlanta 84,316 540,922 6.42 3,882 4.6% 7.18 0.33

79 Tucson 124,588 543,910 4.37 3,892 3.1% 7.16 0.22

80 Philadelphia 86,456 1,547,297 17.90 10,886 12.6% 7.04 0.89

81 Laredo, Texas 49,920 226,124 4.53 1,552 3.1% 6.86 0.21

82 Jersey City, New Jersey 9,600 242,503 25.26 1,660 17.3% 6.85 1.18


84 San Francisco 29,884 815,358 27.28 5,384 18.0% 6.60 1.19

85 Detroit 88,810 910,921 10.26 5,921 6.7% 6.50 0.44

86 Los Angeles 300,201 3,831,868 12.76 23,938 8.0% 6.25 0.50

87 Chandler, Arizona 36,480 249,535 6.84 1,528 4.2% 6.12 0.2688 Baton Rouge 48,640 225,388 4.63 1,374 2.8% 6.10 0.17

89 Gilbert, Arizona 26,880 222,075 8.26 1,330 4.9% 5.99 0.29

90 Las Vegas 72,514 567,641 7.83 3,072 4.2% 5.41 0.23

91 Mesa, Arizona 79,990 467,157 5.84 2,244 2.8% 4.80 0.13

92 Reston TOD 2010 1,683 11,720 6.96 55 3.3% 4.69 0.15

93 New York City 195,072 8,391,881 43.02 38,060 19.5% 4.54 0.88

94 Chicago 145,362 2,851,268 19.61 11,959 8.2% 4.19 0.34

95 Chula Vista, California 30,720 223,739 7.28 907 3.0% 4.05 0.12


97 Fresno 66,791 479,918 7.19 1,511 2.3% 3.15 0.07


99 Miami 22,830 433,136 18.97 1,198 5.2% 2.77 0.14

100 Anaheim 31,360 337,896 10.77 926 3.0% 2.74 0.08

101 Norfolk 33,920 233,333 6.88 602 1.8% 2.58 0.05


14/16

Park Accessibility Score(Combining park area and intensity)

FY2010

Rank City

Land Area

(acres) Population

Density

(People/Acre)

Total Park

Acres

Park Acres as

Percent of Land

Area

Park Acres per

1,000

Residents

Park

Accessibility

Score

1 Anchorage/Anchorage Borough 1,258,880 286,174 0.23 501,725 39.9% 1753.22 699.53

2 Chesapeake, Virginia 217,600 222,455 1.02 56,066 25.8% 252.03 65.02

3 New Orleans 115,840 354,850 3.06 29,851 25.8% 84.12 21.704 Albuquerque 115,608 529,219 4.58 32,535 28.1% 61.48 17.28

5 Virginia Beach 158,903 433,575 2.73 29,497 18.6% 68.03 12.65


7 Irvine, California 29,440 209,716 7.12 7,656 26.0% 36.51 9.49

8 Akron, Ohio 39,680 207,209 5.22 8,799 22.2% 42.46 9.43

9 El Paso 159,405 620,456 3.89 29,393 18.4% 47.37 8.72


11 San Diego 207,575 1,306,300 6.29 47,383 22.8% 36.27 8.27

12 Austin 160,969 786,386 4.89 28,911 18.0% 36.76 6.62


14 Fairfax County (2010) 252,828 1,081,726 4.28 39,302 15.5% 36.33 5.6515 Raleigh 73,600 405,612 5.51 12,512 17.0% 30.85 5.24

16 Jacksonville 537,000 813,518 1.51 44,108 8.2% 54.22 4.45

17 Phoenix 303,907 1,593,659 5.24 45,020 14.8% 28.25 4.18

18 Portland 85,964 566,143 6.59 13,864 16.1% 24.49 3.94

19 Aurora, Colorado 90,880 323,348 3.56 10,155 11.2% 31.41 3.52


21 Kansas City, Missouri 200,664 482,299 2.40 17,272 8.6% 35.81 3.08

22 Dallas 219,223 1,299,542 5.93 29,401 13.4% 22.62 3.03

23 Bakersfield 72,320 324,463 4.49 8,354 11.6% 25.75 2.99

24 Colorado Springs 118,874 397,317 3.34 11,859 10.0% 29.85 2.98

25 Houston 370,818 2,257,926 6.09 49,643 13.4% 21.99 2.95

26 Cincinnati 49,898 333,012 6.67 6,817 13.7% 20.47 2.80

27 Omaha 74,048 454,731 6.14 9,560 12.9% 21.02 2.71


29 San Jose 111 910 964 695 8 62 15 982 14 3% 16 57 2 37


15/16

55 Philadelphia 86,456 1,547,297 17.90 10,886 12.6% 7.04 0.89

56 Pittsburgh 35,573 310,037 8.72 3,120 8.8% 10.06 0.89

57 New York City 195,072 8,391,881 43.02 38,060 19.5% 4.54 0.88

58 St. Louis 39,630 356,587 9.00 3,478 8.8% 9.75 0.86


60 Long Beach, California 32,281 462,604 14.33 3,331 10.3% 7.20 0.7461 Baltimore 51,714 637,418 12.33 4,905 9.5% 7.70 0.73

62 Memphis 178,761 676,640 3.79 9,140 5.1% 13.51 0.69


64 Buffalo 26,240 270,240 10.30 2,180 8.3% 8.07 0.67

65 Indianapolis 231,342 807,584 3.49 11,147 4.8% 13.80 0.66

66 Wichita 86,879 372,186 4.28 4,460 5.1% 11.98 0.61

67 Orlando 59,520 235,860 3.96 2,941 4.9% 12.47 0.61

68 Reno, Nevada 44,160 219,636 4.97 2,432 5.5% 11.07 0.61


70 Denver 98,142 610,345 6.22 5,902 6.0% 9.67 0.58

71 Glendale, Arizona 35,840 253,209 7.06 2,160 6.0% 8.53 0.51

72 Los Angeles 300,201 3,831,868 12.76 23,938 8.0% 6.25 0.50

73 Rochester, New York 22,400 207,294 9.25 1,501 6.7% 7.24 0.49

74 Tampa 71,720 343,890 4.79 3,361 4.7% 9.77 0.46

75 Cleveland 49,650 431,369 8.69 3,130 6.3% 7.26 0.46

76 Fort Wayne 50,560 255,890 5.06 2,400 4.7% 9.38 0.44


78 Detroit 88,810 910,921 10.26 5,921 6.7% 6.50 0.44

79 Irving, Texas 42,880 205,541 4.79 1,869 4.4% 9.09 0.40

80 Chicago 145,362 2,851,268 19.61 11,959 8.2% 4.19 0.34

81 Atlanta 84,316 540,922 6.42 3,882 4.6% 7.18 0.33



84 Lubbock, Texas 72,960 225,859 3.10 2,224 3.0% 9.85 0.30

85 Gilbert, Arizona 26,880 222,075 8.26 1,330 4.9% 5.99 0.29

86 Birmingham 95,360 230,121 2.41 2,396 2.5% 10.41 0.26

87 Chandler, Arizona 36,480 249,535 6.84 1,528 4.2% 6.12 0.26

88 Las Vegas 72,514 567,641 7.83 3,072 4.2% 5.41 0.23

89 Tucson 124,588 543,910 4.37 3,892 3.1% 7.16 0.22

90 Laredo, Texas 49,920 226,124 4.53 1,552 3.1% 6.86 0.21


92 Baton Rouge 48,640 225,388 4.63 1,374 2.8% 6.10 0.17

93 Corpus Christi 99,200 287,439 2.90 2,147 2.2% 7.47 0.16

94 Reston TOD 2010 1,683 11,720 6.96 55 3.3% 4.69 0.15

95 Miami 22,830 433,136 18.97 1,198 5.2% 2.77 0.14

96 Mesa, Arizona 79,990 467,157 5.84 2,244 2.8% 4.80 0.13


16/16

Documents

RCA Comment on Latest Draft Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan Language