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 staff’s 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 forecast—each covering slightly different geographies--put the current Restonwide J/HH ratio near 2.5/1. This is shown in the summary table below.

Community-wide Jobs/Household Ratio 2010
Households
Jobs
J:HH Ratio
US Census--Reston CDP
24,528
64,538
2.63
MWCOG 8.2--Reston Study Area
30,226
69,495
2.30
Note: MWCOG 8.2 Household count is for 2011. 2010 not available.
As we stated before, we believe enlarging that ratio is a major step in the wrong direction. At most, it
should remain at 2.5/1 over the next 20-30 years as we attempt to bring the TOD areas in to some
degree of J/HH balance.
We also risk sustaining the huge J/HH imbalance in Reston’s transit station areas and included TOD areas
if we continue to assume that the gross square foot per office worker grows to 300 GSF. We appreciate
the distinction between GSF, leasable space, useable space, and the many other sub-categories of office
building space outlined in the 2010 standard, but we can find no evidence that office space per worker
has increased and an abundance of evidence that it has, is, and will decrease. We will continue to
monitor and report on this situation.
We continue to recommend an aggressive County posture on air rights over the Dulles Corridor despite
staff’s recommendation of no change in the existing language. (p.8)
1

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 is
exploring 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 hour—the current conditions as
reported 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 operating
speed) 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
that standard, including their intersections with Sunset Hills, the DTR, and Sunrise Valley.
We know of no reason whatsoever that Reston traffic should be treated to a lower LOS standard than
the Tysons area. (Indeed, we are becoming increasingly exasperated with a variety of special
treatments accorded Tysons versus Reston and other emerging urban areas in the County.)
We believe the extension of the planning horizon is appropriate and welcome it in light of the timing of
the new Comprehensive Plan and the uncertainty regarding regional growth. (p. 10)
We agree with staff that efforts to extend the TOD area by enlarging the point of origin are
inappropriate. (p. 11)
We agree that there is a substantial difference in South and North Town Center Sub-Districts and that
limiting South Town Center Sub-District development intensity is appropriate given the current impact
analysis. (p. 12)
We agree that the language concerning a focus on residential development in the Central Sunset Hills
District is appropriate. (p. 13)
2

We agree with the TF comment that the names surrounding some sub-districts are confusing. (p. 14)
We agree with staff’s 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 ¼-mile around the Metrorail station platform. This could
be called “Inner ¼ -mile mixed use” or “Commercial mixed use” (so long as it applied to the ¼-mile
circle) 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 what
these 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 RCA’s 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 be
the 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
Plan language. (p. 17)
We have been concerned about the “bucket” usage problem along with others, but we do not have any
specific recommendations on how to fix this endemic problem. Nonetheless, we would encourage both
parcel consolidation and, as a less effective alternative, coordinated development plans. (p. 18)
We believe that redevelopment proposals in the outer ¼-mile seeking bonus intensity should require
consolidation or coordination if the parcels are less than a minimum size to be determined. We leave to
staff what that threshold should be. (p. 20)
Comments on Versions 2 & 3
Environmental Stewardship
Given Reston’s tradition of environmental consciousness and action, we appreciate the thoroughness
with which this topic is treated in this Plan language. We have only a couple of comments on selected
topics.
3

Green Buildings: We would propose two changes:
 The LEED Silver certification or equivalent should be extended to residential as well as
non-residential development in the Phase 1 area. We appreciate the complexity of the
residential development LEED problem, but believe it is important to sustaining the
environment consistent with the tone of this Plan, Reston’s vision and planning
principles report, and Reston’s tradition.

“Achievement of higher levels of LEED certification is also strongly encouraged.”

Urban Parks, Recreation Facilities and Cultural Facilities
The key to this section is the County’s Urban Park Framework. We believe the key standards there for
acreage for parkland per resident (one acre per 1,000) and workers (one acre per 10,000) severely
underserve the County’s urban residents, current and prospective. They are especially inadequate for
Reston which has placed a high premium on its parks and open spaces since its founding vision and
principles. In addition, park accessibility is important in understanding the value of a park to a
community.
We have examined the performance of urban parks nationwide using the most recent data from the
National Trust for Public Lands (TPL), an organization that advocates for parks and public spaces, and
inserted Reston data for comparision. In brief, our research shows:
 At nearly 23% parkland, Reston is and will continue to be among the leaders nationally in
percent of area devoted to parkland, including regional, county, RA, and private parks and
natural areas.
o Reston is among the top communities nationally in parkland per capita, but its rank will
drop significantly with the population growth anticipated in its transit station areas.
o It accomplishes this despite being currently ranked in the middle of the 109 cities cited
in the TPL list. Its forecast density increase would bring it to the top quarter of the cities
in this list.
o As a result, Reston currently rank high on the list of 100 cities tracked by the TPL in its
“park accessibility” score ranking—a combination of park area and population density—
although its rank will drop from 10th to 13th as population growth outstrips the growth in
parkland.
 The transit station areas fare less well both today and in the future.
o Density—Even if Reston grows even at the diminished rate currently forecast in
MWCOG 8.2, the station areas will become one of the most densely populated areas in
America (rank #6).
o Park Accessibility—The Reston station areas rank in the bottom ten percent of park
accessibility both now and even worse in the future.
 Reston Town Center will become one of the worst “communities” for parks in the country using
TPL’s assessment.
o Its density will be second only to Manhattan Borough in the United States.
o It currently ranks fourth from last in this list in terms of park accessibility and will fall to
next-to-last in 2030 if growth follows the forecast track, just ahead of Hialeah, FL.
For further details on these findings, please read the attached workbook with several spreadsheets.
The steep projected decline in Reston’s TOD and Town Center park scores can be directly attributed to
the County’s Urban Park Framework, which is a minimalist standard at best when compared with the
4

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 Reston’s TOD areas and their
expected growth to 2030 would give Reston’s urban areas the fifth poorest score in the TPL listing. That
standard puts Fairfax County’s 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 Reston’s urbanizing areas and the low
expectation set by the County for parks in urban areas run directly counter to the needs identified by a
panel 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 to
serve Reston’s urban residents.
Precisely because the taking of Reston’s common ground would be a loss to the community’s 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. We
believe a large park—20 acres or more—will be a critical element to Reston’s growth and its reputation
for excellence as a planned community.
We would make one specific recommendation for this section at this time consistent with the above: It
should specify that a proposed community/district recreation center should be built in the transit
station area, not in existing Reston parks or open spaces outside these centers of population growth.
Its construction in a transit station area would not only facilitate local pedestrian/bicycling access, but
also enable users beyond Reston to reach it by Metrorail.
Public Facilities
We appreciate that the public schools portion of the draft plan is not yet complete, yet we acknowledge
that the language here is generally consistent with the discussions we have had with Reston school
board member Pat Hynes and members of the FCPS planning staff. We would make two observations
about this draft text and our discussions:
 Besides locating one elementary school in Town Center North, we believe the second needed
elementary school should be located on the north side of the Wiehle Station area, not
elsewhere in Reston or beyond. The closest Reston elementary school north of the corridor is
Forest Edge, and the prospective students in this area need to have access to a neighborhood
school.
5

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 be
considering 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 RCA’s alternative task force
representative, Dick Rogers. We look forward to those additions in forthcoming versions of this draft
plan.
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 must
lose 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
attention to this concern whenever we believe the task force is asking the Reston community to suffer
so it can gain.
As I mentioned at the last task force meeting, we believe a lot of space can be gained bringing together
most, if not all, the County services that will be required with the build out of the transit station areas.
So far, we have seen little evidence of this thinking—the new police station being a case in point. Here
are a few highlights of our thinking:
 Parking requires a lot of space. Combining county staff and public parking in a single parking
garage that serves all or most of the county purposes can conserve a tremendous amount of
space.
 We believe there is an opportunity for synergy among the public library, the recreation center,
and the elementary school in Town Center North, largely to the benefit of the school.
 It would help if the library/rec center/ school backed to a public park whose facilities may also
be used by the elementary school and rec center.
 We believe the county’s social services offices could easily be co-located with the homeless
shelter in a small footprint high-rise building. This building could also house the Supervisor’s
office and associated community rooms.
6

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

7

Cities by Density
FY2010

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

City
Manhattan Borough, NYC
Reston Town Center 2030
New York City
San Francisco
Jersey City, New Jersey
Reston TOD Area 2030
Reston TOD 2030 @ FC Urban Park Standard
Boston
Santa Ana, California
Chicago
Miami
Newark, New Jersey
Hialeah, Florida
Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Reston Town Center 2010
Long Beach, California
Arlington, Virginia
Los Angeles
Baltimore
Seattle
Oakland
Minneapolis
Anaheim
Buffalo
Detroit
Rochester, New York
St. Louis
Reston Study Area (2030)
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
San Jose
St. Paul, Minnesota
Gilbert, Arizona
Stockton
Las Vegas
Sacramento
Chula Vista, California
Fresno
Irvine, California
Glendale, Arizona
Reston TOD 2010
Norfolk
Chandler, Arizona
Cincinnati
Portland
Atlanta
St. Petersburg
San Diego
Denver
Arlington, Texas
Milwaukee/Milwaukee County
Omaha
Houston
Garland, Texas
Riverside, California
Reston Study Area (2010)
Plano, Texas
Dallas
Mesa, Arizona
Columbus

Land Area
(acres)
14,694
802
195,072
29,884
9,600
1,683
1,683
30,992
17,280
145,362
22,830
15,360
12,160
86,456
39,297
802
32,281
16,000
300,201
51,714
53,677
35,875
35,130
31,360
26,240
88,810
22,400
39,630
9,811
35,573
49,650
111,910
33,920
26,880
35,200
72,514
62,180
30,720
66,791
29,440
35,840
1,683
33,920
36,480
49,898
85,964
84,316
38,400
207,575
98,142
61,322
154,880
74,048
370,818
36,480
49,920
9,811
46,080
219,223
79,990
134,568

Population
1,585,873
41,210
8,391,881
815,358
242,503
41,210
41,210
645,169
340,338
2,851,268
433,136
278,154
218,896
1,547,297
599,657
11,720
462,604
217,483
3,831,868
637,418
616,627
409,189
385,378
337,896
270,240
910,921
207,294
356,587
87,181
310,037
431,369
964,695
281,253
222,075
287,578
567,641
466,676
223,739
479,918
209,716
253,209
11,720
233,333
249,535
333,012
566,143
540,922
244,324
1,306,300
610,345
380,085
959,521
454,731
2,257,926
222,013
297,841
58,404
273,613
1,299,542
467,157
769,332

Density
(People/Acre)
107.92
51.38
43.02
27.28
25.26
24.49
24.49
20.82
19.70
19.61
18.97
18.11
18.00
17.90
15.26
14.61
14.33
13.59
12.76
12.33
11.49
11.41
10.97
10.77
10.30
10.26
9.25
9.00
8.89
8.72
8.69
8.62
8.29
8.26
8.17
7.83
7.51
7.28
7.19
7.12
7.06
6.96
6.88
6.84
6.67
6.59
6.42
6.36
6.29
6.22
6.20
6.20
6.14
6.09
6.09
5.97
5.95
5.94
5.93
5.84
5.72

Total Park
Acres
2,686
34
38,060
5,384
1,660
78
49
4,897
324
11,959
1,198
858
175
10,886
7,464
27
3,331
1,823
23,938
4,905
5,476
5,219
5,121
926
2,180
5,921
1,501
3,478
2,251
3,120
3,130
15,982
3,974
1,330
674
3,072
5,069
907
1,511
7,656
2,160
55
602
1,528
6,817
13,864
3,882
2,963
47,383
5,902
4,684
15,189
9,560
49,643
2,880
4,796
2,228
4,215
29,401
2,244
11,274

Park Acres as
Percent of Land
Area
18.3%
1.4%
19.5%
18.0%
17.3%
4.6%
2.9%
15.8%
1.9%
8.2%
5.2%
5.6%
1.4%
12.6%
19.0%
1.4%
10.3%
11.4%
8.0%
9.5%
10.2%
14.5%
14.6%
3.0%
8.3%
6.7%
6.7%
8.8%
22.9%
8.8%
6.3%
14.3%
11.7%
4.9%
1.9%
4.2%
8.2%
3.0%
2.3%
26.0%
6.0%
3.3%
1.8%
4.2%
13.7%
16.1%
4.6%
7.7%
22.8%
6.0%
7.6%
9.8%
12.9%
13.4%
7.9%
9.6%
22.7%
9.1%
13.4%
2.8%
8.4%

Park Acres per Park Accessibility
1,000 Residents
Score
1.69
0.31
0.83
0.01
4.54
0.88
6.60
1.19
6.85
1.18
1.89
0.09
1.19
0.03
7.59
1.20
0.95
0.02
4.19
0.34
2.77
0.14
3.08
0.17
0.80
0.01
7.04
0.89
12.45
2.36
2.30
0.03
7.20
0.74
8.38
0.96
6.25
0.50
7.70
0.73
8.88
0.91
12.75
1.85
13.29
1.94
2.74
0.08
8.07
0.67
6.50
0.44
7.24
0.49
9.75
0.86
25.82
5.92
10.06
0.89
7.26
0.46
16.57
2.37
14.13
1.65
5.99
0.29
2.34
0.04
5.41
0.23
10.86
0.89
4.05
0.12
3.15
0.07
36.51
9.49
8.53
0.51
4.69
0.15
2.58
0.05
6.12
0.26
20.47
2.80
24.49
3.94
7.18
0.33
12.13
0.93
36.27
8.27
9.67
0.58
12.32
0.94
15.83
1.55
21.02
2.71
21.99
2.95
12.97
1.02
16.10
1.55
38.15
8.66
15.40
1.40
22.62
3.03
4.80
0.13
14.65
1.23

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Raleigh
Madison, Wisconsin
Lincoln, Nebraska
San Antonio
Phoenix
Akron, Ohio
Boise, Idaho
Fort Wayne
Henderson, Nevada
Reno, Nevada
Austin
Tampa
Irving, Texas
Baton Rouge
Albuquerque
Laredo, Texas
North Las Vegas, Nevada
Bakersfield
Tucson
Wichita
Fairfax County (2010)
Orlando
El Paso
Fort Worth
Greensboro, North Carolina
Durham, North Carolina
Memphis
Aurora, Colorado
Indianapolis
Colorado Springs
Tulsa
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Lubbock, Texas
New Orleans
Louisville
Corpus Christi
Virginia Beach
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Birmingham
Kansas City, Missouri
Honolulu/Honolulu County
Scottsdale, Arizona
Nashville/Davidson
Lexington/Fayette
Jacksonville
Oklahoma City
Chesapeake, Virginia
Anchorage/Anchorage Borough

73,600
43,520
48,000
260,832
303,907
39,680
40,320
50,560
51,200
44,160
160,969
71,720
42,880
48,640
115,608
49,920
49,920
72,320
124,588
86,879
252,828
59,520
159,405
187,222
66,560
60,160
178,761
90,880
231,342
118,874
116,891
69,120
72,960
115,840
246,400
99,200
158,903
337,280
95,360
200,664
384,000
117,760
321,280
182,400
537,000
388,463
217,600
1,258,880

405,612
235,419
254,001
1,373,668
1,593,659
207,209
205,707
255,890
256,445
219,636
786,386
343,890
205,541
225,388
529,219
226,124
224,387
324,463
543,910
372,186
1,081,726
235,860
620,456
727,577
255,124
229,171
676,640
323,348
807,584
397,317
389,625
229,828
225,859
354,850
721,594
287,439
433,575
913,639
230,121
482,299
907,574
237,844
605,473
296,545
813,518
560,333
222,455
286,174

5.51
5.41
5.29
5.27
5.24
5.22
5.10
5.06
5.01
4.97
4.89
4.79
4.79
4.63
4.58
4.53
4.49
4.49
4.37
4.28
4.28
3.96
3.89
3.89
3.83
3.81
3.79
3.56
3.49
3.34
3.33
3.33
3.10
3.06
2.93
2.90
2.73
2.71
2.41
2.40
2.36
2.02
1.88
1.63
1.51
1.44
1.02
0.23

12,512
5,246
6,304
23,316
45,020
8,799
2,775
2,400
1,986
2,432
28,911
3,361
1,869
1,374
32,535
1,552
859
8,354
3,892
4,460
39,302
2,941
29,393
11,312
6,186
2,440
9,140
10,155
11,147
11,859
7,336
3,450
2,224
29,851
15,939
2,147
29,497
18,551
2,396
17,272
6,056
17,172
10,765
6,077
44,108
21,841
56,066
501,725

17.0%
12.1%
13.1%
8.9%
14.8%
22.2%
6.9%
4.7%
3.9%
5.5%
18.0%
4.7%
4.4%
2.8%
28.1%
3.1%
1.7%
11.6%
3.1%
5.1%
15.5%
4.9%
18.4%
6.0%
9.3%
4.1%
5.1%
11.2%
4.8%
10.0%
6.3%
5.0%
3.0%
25.8%
6.5%
2.2%
18.6%
5.5%
2.5%
8.6%
1.6%
14.6%
3.4%
3.3%
8.2%
5.6%
25.8%
39.9%

30.85
22.28
24.82
16.97
28.25
42.46
13.49
9.38
7.74
11.07
36.76
9.77
9.09
6.10
61.48
6.86
3.83
25.75
7.16
11.98
36.33
12.47
47.37
15.55
24.25
10.65
13.51
31.41
13.80
29.85
18.83
15.01
9.85
84.12
22.09
7.47
68.03
20.30
10.41
35.81
6.67
72.20
17.78
20.49
54.22
38.98
252.03
1753.22

5.24
2.70
3.25
1.51
4.18
9.43
0.93
0.44
0.30
0.61
6.62
0.46
0.40
0.17
17.28
0.21
0.07
2.99
0.22
0.61
5.65
0.61
8.72
0.93
2.25
0.44
0.69
3.52
0.66
2.98
1.19
0.75
0.30
21.70
1.44
0.16
12.65
1.12
0.26
3.08
0.11
10.54
0.60
0.68
4.45
2.18
65.02
699.53

The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Cities by Percent Parkland
(% of City area in parkland)
FY2010

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71

City
Land Area (acres)
Anchorage/Anchorage Borough
1,258,880
Albuquerque
115,608
Irvine, California
29,440
Chesapeake, Virginia
217,600
New Orleans
115,840
Reston Study Area (2030)
9,811
San Diego
207,575
Reston Study Area (2010)
9,811
Akron, Ohio
39,680
New York City
195,072
Washington, D.C.
39,297
Virginia Beach
158,903
El Paso
159,405
Manhattan Borough, NYC
14,694
Austin
160,969
San Francisco
29,884
Jersey City, New Jersey
9,600
Raleigh
73,600
Portland
85,964
Boston
30,992
Fairfax County (2010)
252,828
Phoenix
303,907
Scottsdale, Arizona
117,760
Minneapolis
35,130
Oakland
35,875
San Jose
111,910
Cincinnati
49,898
Dallas
219,223
Houston
370,818
Lincoln, Nebraska
48,000
Omaha
74,048
Philadelphia
86,456
Madison, Wisconsin
43,520
St. Paul, Minnesota
33,920
Bakersfield
72,320
Arlington, Virginia
16,000
Aurora, Colorado
90,880
Long Beach, California
32,281
Seattle
53,677
Colorado Springs
118,874
Milwaukee/Milwaukee County
154,880
Riverside, California
49,920
Baltimore
51,714
Greensboro, North Carolina
66,560
Plano, Texas
46,080
San Antonio
260,832
Pittsburgh
35,573
St. Louis
39,630
Kansas City, Missouri
200,664
Columbus
134,568
Buffalo
26,240
Jacksonville
537,000
Sacramento
62,180
Chicago
145,362
Los Angeles
300,201
Garland, Texas
36,480
St. Petersburg
38,400
Arlington, Texas
61,322
Boise, Idaho
40,320
Rochester, New York
22,400
Detroit
88,810
Louisville
246,400
Tulsa
116,891
Cleveland
49,650
Fort Worth
187,222
Denver
98,142
Glendale, Arizona
35,840
Oklahoma City
388,463
Newark, New Jersey
15,360
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
337,280
Reno, Nevada
44,160

Population
286,174
529,219
209,716
222,455
354,850
87,181
1,306,300
58,404
207,209
8,391,881
599,657
433,575
620,456
1,585,873
786,386
815,358
242,503
405,612
566,143
645,169
1,081,726
1,593,659
237,844
385,378
409,189
964,695
333,012
1,299,542
2,257,926
254,001
454,731
1,547,297
235,419
281,253
324,463
217,483
323,348
462,604
616,627
397,317
959,521
297,841
637,418
255,124
273,613
1,373,668
310,037
356,587
482,299
769,332
270,240
813,518
466,676
2,851,268
3,831,868
222,013
244,324
380,085
205,707
207,294
910,921
721,594
389,625
431,369
727,577
610,345
253,209
560,333
278,154
913,639
219,636

Density
(People/Acre)
0.23
4.58
7.12
1.02
3.06
8.89
6.29
5.95
5.22
43.02
15.26
2.73
3.89
107.92
4.89
27.28
25.26
5.51
6.59
20.82
4.28
5.24
2.02
10.97
11.41
8.62
6.67
5.93
6.09
5.29
6.14
17.90
5.41
8.29
4.49
13.59
3.56
14.33
11.49
3.34
6.20
5.97
12.33
3.83
5.94
5.27
8.72
9.00
2.40
5.72
10.30
1.51
7.51
19.61
12.76
6.09
6.36
6.20
5.10
9.25
10.26
2.93
3.33
8.69
3.89
6.22
7.06
1.44
18.11
2.71
4.97

Total Park
Acres
501,725
32,535
7,656
56,066
29,851
2,251
47,383
2,228
8,799
38,060
7,464
29,497
29,393
2,686
28,911
5,384
1,660
12,512
13,864
4,897
39,302
45,020
17,172
5,121
5,219
15,982
6,817
29,401
49,643
6,304
9,560
10,886
5,246
3,974
8,354
1,823
10,155
3,331
5,476
11,859
15,189
4,796
4,905
6,186
4,215
23,316
3,120
3,478
17,272
11,274
2,180
44,108
5,069
11,959
23,938
2,880
2,963
4,684
2,775
1,501
5,921
15,939
7,336
3,130
11,312
5,902
2,160
21,841
858
18,551
2,432

Park Acres as
Percent of Land
Area
39.9%
28.1%
26.0%
25.8%
25.8%
22.9%
22.8%
22.7%
22.2%
19.5%
19.0%
18.6%
18.4%
18.3%
18.0%
18.0%
17.3%
17.0%
16.1%
15.8%
15.5%
14.8%
14.6%
14.6%
14.5%
14.3%
13.7%
13.4%
13.4%
13.1%
12.9%
12.6%
12.1%
11.7%
11.6%
11.4%
11.2%
10.3%
10.2%
10.0%
9.8%
9.6%
9.5%
9.3%
9.1%
8.9%
8.8%
8.8%
8.6%
8.4%
8.3%
8.2%
8.2%
8.2%
8.0%
7.9%
7.7%
7.6%
6.9%
6.7%
6.7%
6.5%
6.3%
6.3%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.6%
5.6%
5.5%
5.5%

Park Acres per Park Accessibility
1,000 Residents
Score
1753.22
699.53
61.48
17.28
36.51
9.49
252.03
65.02
84.12
21.70
25.82
5.92
36.27
8.27
38.15
8.66
42.46
9.43
4.54
0.88
12.45
2.36
68.03
12.65
47.37
8.72
1.69
0.31
36.76
6.62
6.60
1.19
6.85
1.18
30.85
5.24
24.49
3.94
7.59
1.20
36.33
5.65
28.25
4.18
72.20
10.54
13.29
1.94
12.75
1.85
16.57
2.37
20.47
2.80
22.62
3.03
21.99
2.95
24.82
3.25
21.02
2.71
7.04
0.89
22.28
2.70
14.13
1.65
25.75
2.99
8.38
0.96
31.41
3.52
7.20
0.74
8.88
0.91
29.85
2.98
15.83
1.55
16.10
1.55
7.70
0.73
24.25
2.25
15.40
1.40
16.97
1.51
10.06
0.89
9.75
0.86
35.81
3.08
14.65
1.23
8.07
0.67
54.22
4.45
10.86
0.89
4.19
0.34
6.25
0.50
12.97
1.02
12.13
0.93
12.32
0.94
13.49
0.93
7.24
0.49
6.50
0.44
22.09
1.44
18.83
1.19
7.26
0.46
15.55
0.93
9.67
0.58
8.53
0.51
38.98
2.18
3.08
0.17
20.30
1.12
11.07
0.61

72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Miami
Memphis
Wichita
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Orlando
Gilbert, Arizona
Indianapolis
Tampa
Fort Wayne
Reston TOD Area 2030
Atlanta
Irving, Texas
Chandler, Arizona
Las Vegas
Durham, North Carolina
Henderson, Nevada
Nashville/Davidson
Lexington/Fayette
Reston TOD 2010
Tucson
Laredo, Texas
Lubbock, Texas
Chula Vista, California
Anaheim
Reston TOD 2030 @ FC Urban Park Standard
Baton Rouge
Mesa, Arizona
Birmingham
Fresno
Corpus Christi
Stockton
Santa Ana, California
Norfolk
North Las Vegas, Nevada
Honolulu/Honolulu County
Reston Town Center 2010
Reston Town Center 2030
Hialeah, Florida

22,830
178,761
86,879
69,120
59,520
26,880
231,342
71,720
50,560
1,683
84,316
42,880
36,480
72,514
60,160
51,200
321,280
182,400
1,683
124,588
49,920
72,960
30,720
31,360
1,683
48,640
79,990
95,360
66,791
99,200
35,200
17,280
33,920
49,920
384,000
802
802
12,160

433,136
676,640
372,186
229,828
235,860
222,075
807,584
343,890
255,890
41,210
540,922
205,541
249,535
567,641
229,171
256,445
605,473
296,545
11,720
543,910
226,124
225,859
223,739
337,896
41,210
225,388
467,157
230,121
479,918
287,439
287,578
340,338
233,333
224,387
907,574
11,720
41,210
218,896

18.97
3.79
4.28
3.33
3.96
8.26
3.49
4.79
5.06
24.49
6.42
4.79
6.84
7.83
3.81
5.01
1.88
1.63
6.96
4.37
4.53
3.10
7.28
10.77
24.49
4.63
5.84
2.41
7.19
2.90
8.17
19.70
6.88
4.49
2.36
14.61
51.38
18.00

1,198
9,140
4,460
3,450
2,941
1,330
11,147
3,361
2,400
78
3,882
1,869
1,528
3,072
2,440
1,986
10,765
6,077
55
3,892
1,552
2,224
907
926
49
1,374
2,244
2,396
1,511
2,147
674
324
602
859
6,056
27
34
175

5.2%
5.1%
5.1%
5.0%
4.9%
4.9%
4.8%
4.7%
4.7%
4.6%
4.6%
4.4%
4.2%
4.2%
4.1%
3.9%
3.4%
3.3%
3.3%
3.1%
3.1%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.9%
2.8%
2.8%
2.5%
2.3%
2.2%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.6%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%

2.77
13.51
11.98
15.01
12.47
5.99
13.80
9.77
9.38
1.89
7.18
9.09
6.12
5.41
10.65
7.74
17.78
20.49
4.69
7.16
6.86
9.85
4.05
2.74
1.19
6.10
4.80
10.41
3.15
7.47
2.34
0.95
2.58
3.83
6.67
2.30
0.83
0.80

0.14
0.69
0.61
0.75
0.61
0.29
0.66
0.46
0.44
0.09
0.33
0.40
0.26
0.23
0.44
0.30
0.60
0.68
0.15
0.22
0.21
0.30
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.17
0.13
0.26
0.07
0.16
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.01

Park Area per 1,000 Residents
FY2010

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

City
Anchorage/Anchorage Borough
Chesapeake, Virginia
New Orleans
Scottsdale, Arizona
Virginia Beach
Albuquerque
Jacksonville
El Paso
Akron, Ohio
Oklahoma City
Reston Study Area (2010)
Austin
Irvine, California
Fairfax County (2010)
San Diego
Kansas City, Missouri
Aurora, Colorado
Raleigh
Colorado Springs
Phoenix
Reston Study Area (2030)
Bakersfield
Lincoln, Nebraska
Portland
Greensboro, North Carolina
Dallas
Madison, Wisconsin
Louisville
Houston
Omaha
Lexington/Fayette
Cincinnati
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Tulsa
Nashville/Davidson
San Antonio
San Jose
Riverside, California
Milwaukee/Milwaukee County
Fort Worth
Plano, Texas
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Columbus
St. Paul, Minnesota
Indianapolis
Memphis
Boise, Idaho
Minneapolis
Garland, Texas
Oakland
Orlando
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Texas
St. Petersburg
Wichita
Reno, Nevada
Sacramento
Durham, North Carolina
Birmingham
Pittsburgh

Land Area
(acres)
Population
1,258,880
286,174
217,600
222,455
115,840
354,850
117,760
237,844
158,903
433,575
115,608
529,219
537,000
813,518
159,405
620,456
39,680
207,209
388,463
560,333
9,811
58,404
160,969
786,386
29,440
209,716
252,828 1,081,726
207,575 1,306,300
200,664
482,299
90,880
323,348
73,600
405,612
118,874
397,317
303,907 1,593,659
9,811
87,181
72,320
324,463
48,000
254,001
85,964
566,143
66,560
255,124
219,223 1,299,542
43,520
235,419
246,400
721,594
370,818 2,257,926
74,048
454,731
182,400
296,545
49,898
333,012
337,280
913,639
116,891
389,625
321,280
605,473
260,832 1,373,668
111,910
964,695
49,920
297,841
154,880
959,521
187,222
727,577
46,080
273,613
69,120
229,828
134,568
769,332
33,920
281,253
231,342
807,584
178,761
676,640
40,320
205,707
35,130
385,378
36,480
222,013
35,875
409,189
59,520
235,860
39,297
599,657
61,322
380,085
38,400
244,324
86,879
372,186
44,160
219,636
62,180
466,676
60,160
229,171
95,360
230,121
35,573
310,037

Density
(People/Acre)
0.23
1.02
3.06
2.02
2.73
4.58
1.51
3.89
5.22
1.44
5.95
4.89
7.12
4.28
6.29
2.40
3.56
5.51
3.34
5.24
8.89
4.49
5.29
6.59
3.83
5.93
5.41
2.93
6.09
6.14
1.63
6.67
2.71
3.33
1.88
5.27
8.62
5.97
6.20
3.89
5.94
3.33
5.72
8.29
3.49
3.79
5.10
10.97
6.09
11.41
3.96
15.26
6.20
6.36
4.28
4.97
7.51
3.81
2.41
8.72

Total Park
Acres
501,725
56,066
29,851
17,172
29,497
32,535
44,108
29,393
8,799
21,841
2,228
28,911
7,656
39,302
47,383
17,272
10,155
12,512
11,859
45,020
2,251
8,354
6,304
13,864
6,186
29,401
5,246
15,939
49,643
9,560
6,077
6,817
18,551
7,336
10,765
23,316
15,982
4,796
15,189
11,312
4,215
3,450
11,274
3,974
11,147
9,140
2,775
5,121
2,880
5,219
2,941
7,464
4,684
2,963
4,460
2,432
5,069
2,440
2,396
3,120

Park Acres as
Percent of Land
Area
39.9%
25.8%
25.8%
14.6%
18.6%
28.1%
8.2%
18.4%
22.2%
5.6%
22.7%
18.0%
26.0%
15.5%
22.8%
8.6%
11.2%
17.0%
10.0%
14.8%
22.9%
11.6%
13.1%
16.1%
9.3%
13.4%
12.1%
6.5%
13.4%
12.9%
3.3%
13.7%
5.5%
6.3%
3.4%
8.9%
14.3%
9.6%
9.8%
6.0%
9.1%
5.0%
8.4%
11.7%
4.8%
5.1%
6.9%
14.6%
7.9%
14.5%
4.9%
19.0%
7.6%
7.7%
5.1%
5.5%
8.2%
4.1%
2.5%
8.8%

Park Acres per
1,000
Residents
1753.22
252.03
84.12
72.20
68.03
61.48
54.22
47.37
42.46
38.98
38.15
36.76
36.51
36.33
36.27
35.81
31.41
30.85
29.85
28.25
25.82
25.75
24.82
24.49
24.25
22.62
22.28
22.09
21.99
21.02
20.49
20.47
20.30
18.83
17.78
16.97
16.57
16.10
15.83
15.55
15.40
15.01
14.65
14.13
13.80
13.51
13.49
13.29
12.97
12.75
12.47
12.45
12.32
12.13
11.98
11.07
10.86
10.65
10.41
10.06

Park
Accessibility
Score
699.53
65.02
21.70
10.54
12.65
17.28
4.45
8.72
9.43
2.18
8.66
6.62
9.49
5.65
8.27
3.08
3.52
5.24
2.98
4.18
5.92
2.99
3.25
3.94
2.25
3.03
2.70
1.44
2.95
2.71
0.68
2.80
1.12
1.19
0.60
1.51
2.37
1.55
1.55
0.93
1.40
0.75
1.23
1.65
0.66
0.69
0.93
1.94
1.02
1.85
0.61
2.36
0.94
0.93
0.61
0.61
0.89
0.44
0.26
0.89

61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Lubbock, Texas
Tampa
St. Louis
Denver
Fort Wayne
Irving, Texas
Seattle
Glendale, Arizona
Arlington, Virginia
Buffalo
Henderson, Nevada
Baltimore
Boston
Corpus Christi
Cleveland
Rochester, New York
Long Beach, California
Atlanta
Tucson
Philadelphia
Laredo, Texas
Jersey City, New Jersey
Honolulu/Honolulu County
San Francisco
Detroit
Los Angeles
Chandler, Arizona
Baton Rouge
Gilbert, Arizona
Las Vegas
Mesa, Arizona
Reston TOD 2010
New York City
Chicago
Chula Vista, California
North Las Vegas, Nevada
Fresno
Newark, New Jersey
Miami
Anaheim
Norfolk
Stockton
Reston Town Center 2010
Reston TOD Area 2030
Manhattan Borough, NYC
Reston TOD 2030 @ FC Urban Park Standard
Santa Ana, California
Reston Town Center 2030
Hialeah, Florida

72,960
71,720
39,630
98,142
50,560
42,880
53,677
35,840
16,000
26,240
51,200
51,714
30,992
99,200
49,650
22,400
32,281
84,316
124,588
86,456
49,920
9,600
384,000
29,884
88,810
300,201
36,480
48,640
26,880
72,514
79,990
1,683
195,072
145,362
30,720
49,920
66,791
15,360
22,830
31,360
33,920
35,200
802
1,683
14,694
1,683
17,280
802
12,160

225,859
343,890
356,587
610,345
255,890
205,541
616,627
253,209
217,483
270,240
256,445
637,418
645,169
287,439
431,369
207,294
462,604
540,922
543,910
1,547,297
226,124
242,503
907,574
815,358
910,921
3,831,868
249,535
225,388
222,075
567,641
467,157
11,720
8,391,881
2,851,268
223,739
224,387
479,918
278,154
433,136
337,896
233,333
287,578
11,720
41,210
1,585,873
41,210
340,338
41,210
218,896

3.10
4.79
9.00
6.22
5.06
4.79
11.49
7.06
13.59
10.30
5.01
12.33
20.82
2.90
8.69
9.25
14.33
6.42
4.37
17.90
4.53
25.26
2.36
27.28
10.26
12.76
6.84
4.63
8.26
7.83
5.84
6.96
43.02
19.61
7.28
4.49
7.19
18.11
18.97
10.77
6.88
8.17
14.61
24.49
107.92
24.49
19.70
51.38
18.00

2,224
3,361
3,478
5,902
2,400
1,869
5,476
2,160
1,823
2,180
1,986
4,905
4,897
2,147
3,130
1,501
3,331
3,882
3,892
10,886
1,552
1,660
6,056
5,384
5,921
23,938
1,528
1,374
1,330
3,072
2,244
55
38,060
11,959
907
859
1,511
858
1,198
926
602
674
27
78
2,686
49
324
34
175

3.0%
4.7%
8.8%
6.0%
4.7%
4.4%
10.2%
6.0%
11.4%
8.3%
3.9%
9.5%
15.8%
2.2%
6.3%
6.7%
10.3%
4.6%
3.1%
12.6%
3.1%
17.3%
1.6%
18.0%
6.7%
8.0%
4.2%
2.8%
4.9%
4.2%
2.8%
3.3%
19.5%
8.2%
3.0%
1.7%
2.3%
5.6%
5.2%
3.0%
1.8%
1.9%
1.4%
4.6%
18.3%
2.9%
1.9%
1.4%
1.4%

9.85
9.77
9.75
9.67
9.38
9.09
8.88
8.53
8.38
8.07
7.74
7.70
7.59
7.47
7.26
7.24
7.20
7.18
7.16
7.04
6.86
6.85
6.67
6.60
6.50
6.25
6.12
6.10
5.99
5.41
4.80
4.69
4.54
4.19
4.05
3.83
3.15
3.08
2.77
2.74
2.58
2.34
2.30
1.89
1.69
1.19
0.95
0.83
0.80

0.30
0.46
0.86
0.58
0.44
0.40
0.91
0.51
0.96
0.67
0.30
0.73
1.20
0.16
0.46
0.49
0.74
0.33
0.22
0.89
0.21
1.18
0.11
1.19
0.44
0.50
0.26
0.17
0.29
0.23
0.13
0.15
0.88
0.34
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.17
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.31
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01

Park Accessibility Score
(Combining park area and intensity)
FY2010

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

City
Anchorage/Anchorage Borough
Chesapeake, Virginia
New Orleans
Albuquerque
Virginia Beach
Scottsdale, Arizona
Irvine, California
Akron, Ohio
El Paso
Reston Study Area (2010)
San Diego
Austin
Reston Study Area (2030)
Fairfax County (2010)
Raleigh
Jacksonville
Phoenix
Portland
Aurora, Colorado
Lincoln, Nebraska
Kansas City, Missouri
Dallas
Bakersfield
Colorado Springs
Houston
Cincinnati
Omaha
Madison, Wisconsin
San Jose
Washington, D.C.
Greensboro, North Carolina
Oklahoma City
Minneapolis
Oakland
St. Paul, Minnesota
Milwaukee/Milwaukee County
Riverside, California
San Antonio
Louisville
Plano, Texas
Columbus
Boston
San Francisco
Tulsa
Jersey City, New Jersey
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Garland, Texas
Arlington, Virginia
Arlington, Texas
St. Petersburg
Fort Worth
Boise, Idaho
Seattle
Sacramento

Land Area
(acres)
Population
1,258,880
286,174
217,600
222,455
115,840
354,850
115,608
529,219
158,903
433,575
117,760
237,844
29,440
209,716
39,680
207,209
159,405
620,456
58,404
9,811
207,575 1,306,300
160,969
786,386
87,181
9,811
252,828 1,081,726
73,600
405,612
537,000
813,518
303,907 1,593,659
85,964
566,143
90,880
323,348
48,000
254,001
200,664
482,299
219,223 1,299,542
72,320
324,463
118,874
397,317
370,818 2,257,926
49,898
333,012
74,048
454,731
43,520
235,419
111,910
964,695
39,297
599,657
66,560
255,124
388,463
560,333
35,130
385,378
35,875
409,189
33,920
281,253
154,880
959,521
49,920
297,841
260,832 1,373,668
246,400
721,594
46,080
273,613
134,568
769,332
30,992
645,169
29,884
815,358
116,891
389,625
9,600
242,503
337,280
913,639
36,480
222,013
16,000
217,483
61,322
380,085
38,400
244,324
187,222
727,577
40,320
205,707
53,677
616,627
62,180
466,676

Density
(People/Acre)
0.23
1.02
3.06
4.58
2.73
2.02
7.12
5.22
3.89
5.95
6.29
4.89
8.89
4.28
5.51
1.51
5.24
6.59
3.56
5.29
2.40
5.93
4.49
3.34
6.09
6.67
6.14
5.41
8.62
15.26
3.83
1.44
10.97
11.41
8.29
6.20
5.97
5.27
2.93
5.94
5.72
20.82
27.28
3.33
25.26
2.71
6.09
13.59
6.20
6.36
3.89
5.10
11.49
7.51

Park Acres as Park Acres per
Total Park Percent of Land
1,000
Acres
Area
Residents
501,725
39.9%
1753.22
56,066
25.8%
252.03
29,851
25.8%
84.12
32,535
28.1%
61.48
29,497
18.6%
68.03
17,172
14.6%
72.20
7,656
26.0%
36.51
8,799
22.2%
42.46
29,393
18.4%
47.37
22.7%
38.15
2,228
47,383
22.8%
36.27
28,911
18.0%
36.76
25.82
2,251
22.9%
15.5%
36.33
39,302
12,512
17.0%
30.85
44,108
8.2%
54.22
45,020
14.8%
28.25
13,864
16.1%
24.49
10,155
11.2%
31.41
6,304
13.1%
24.82
17,272
8.6%
35.81
29,401
13.4%
22.62
8,354
11.6%
25.75
11,859
10.0%
29.85
49,643
13.4%
21.99
6,817
13.7%
20.47
9,560
12.9%
21.02
5,246
12.1%
22.28
15,982
14.3%
16.57
7,464
19.0%
12.45
6,186
9.3%
24.25
21,841
5.6%
38.98
5,121
14.6%
13.29
5,219
14.5%
12.75
3,974
11.7%
14.13
15,189
9.8%
15.83
4,796
9.6%
16.10
23,316
8.9%
16.97
15,939
6.5%
22.09
4,215
9.1%
15.40
11,274
8.4%
14.65
4,897
15.8%
7.59
5,384
18.0%
6.60
7,336
6.3%
18.83
1,660
17.3%
6.85
18,551
5.5%
20.30
2,880
7.9%
12.97
1,823
11.4%
8.38
4,684
7.6%
12.32
2,963
7.7%
12.13
11,312
6.0%
15.55
2,775
6.9%
13.49
5,476
10.2%
8.88
5,069
8.2%
10.86

Park
Accessibility
Score
699.53
65.02
21.70
17.28
12.65
10.54
9.49
9.43
8.72
8.66
8.27
6.62
5.92
5.65
5.24
4.45
4.18
3.94
3.52
3.25
3.08
3.03
2.99
2.98
2.95
2.80
2.71
2.70
2.37
2.36
2.25
2.18
1.94
1.85
1.65
1.55
1.55
1.51
1.44
1.40
1.23
1.20
1.19
1.19
1.18
1.12
1.02
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.89

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
New York City
St. Louis
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Long Beach, California
Baltimore
Memphis
Lexington/Fayette
Buffalo
Indianapolis
Wichita
Orlando
Reno, Nevada
Nashville/Davidson
Denver
Glendale, Arizona
Los Angeles
Rochester, New York
Tampa
Cleveland
Fort Wayne
Durham, North Carolina
Detroit
Irving, Texas
Chicago
Atlanta
Manhattan Borough, NYC
Henderson, Nevada
Lubbock, Texas
Gilbert, Arizona
Birmingham
Chandler, Arizona
Las Vegas
Tucson
Laredo, Texas
Newark, New Jersey
Baton Rouge
Corpus Christi
Reston TOD 2010
Miami
Mesa, Arizona
Chula Vista, California
Honolulu/Honolulu County
Reston TOD Area 2030
Anaheim
Fresno
North Las Vegas, Nevada
Norfolk
Stockton
Reston TOD 2030 @ FC Urban Park Standard
Reston Town Center 2010
Santa Ana, California
Reston Town Center 2030
Hialeah, Florida

86,456
35,573
195,072
39,630
69,120
32,281
51,714
178,761
182,400
26,240
231,342
86,879
59,520
44,160
321,280
98,142
35,840
300,201
22,400
71,720
49,650
50,560
60,160
88,810
42,880
145,362
84,316
14,694
51,200
72,960
26,880
95,360
36,480
72,514
124,588
49,920
15,360
48,640
99,200
1,683
22,830
79,990
30,720
384,000
1,683
31,360
66,791
49,920
33,920
35,200
1,683
802
17,280
802
12,160

1,547,297
310,037
8,391,881
356,587
229,828
462,604
637,418
676,640
296,545
270,240
807,584
372,186
235,860
219,636
605,473
610,345
253,209
3,831,868
207,294
343,890
431,369
255,890
229,171
910,921
205,541
2,851,268
540,922
1,585,873
256,445
225,859
222,075
230,121
249,535
567,641
543,910
226,124
278,154
225,388
287,439
11,720
433,136
467,157
223,739
907,574
41,210
337,896
479,918
224,387
233,333
287,578
41,210
11,720
340,338
41,210
218,896

17.90
8.72
43.02
9.00
3.33
14.33
12.33
3.79
1.63
10.30
3.49
4.28
3.96
4.97
1.88
6.22
7.06
12.76
9.25
4.79
8.69
5.06
3.81
10.26
4.79
19.61
6.42
107.92
5.01
3.10
8.26
2.41
6.84
7.83
4.37
4.53
18.11
4.63
2.90
6.96
18.97
5.84
7.28
2.36
24.49
10.77
7.19
4.49
6.88
8.17
24.49
14.61
19.70
51.38
18.00

10,886
3,120
38,060
3,478
3,450
3,331
4,905
9,140
6,077
2,180
11,147
4,460
2,941
2,432
10,765
5,902
2,160
23,938
1,501
3,361
3,130
2,400
2,440
5,921
1,869
11,959
3,882
2,686
1,986
2,224
1,330
2,396
1,528
3,072
3,892
1,552
858
1,374
2,147
55
1,198
2,244
907
6,056
78
926
1,511
859
602
674
49
27
324
34
175

12.6%
8.8%
19.5%
8.8%
5.0%
10.3%
9.5%
5.1%
3.3%
8.3%
4.8%
5.1%
4.9%
5.5%
3.4%
6.0%
6.0%
8.0%
6.7%
4.7%
6.3%
4.7%
4.1%
6.7%
4.4%
8.2%
4.6%
18.3%
3.9%
3.0%
4.9%
2.5%
4.2%
4.2%
3.1%
3.1%
5.6%
2.8%
2.2%
3.3%
5.2%
2.8%
3.0%
1.6%
4.6%
3.0%
2.3%
1.7%
1.8%
1.9%
2.9%
1.4%
1.9%
1.4%
1.4%

7.04
10.06
4.54
9.75
15.01
7.20
7.70
13.51
20.49
8.07
13.80
11.98
12.47
11.07
17.78
9.67
8.53
6.25
7.24
9.77
7.26
9.38
10.65
6.50
9.09
4.19
7.18
1.69
7.74
9.85
5.99
10.41
6.12
5.41
7.16
6.86
3.08
6.10
7.47
4.69
2.77
4.80
4.05
6.67
1.89
2.74
3.15
3.83
2.58
2.34
1.19
2.30
0.95
0.83
0.80

0.89
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.58
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.46
0.46
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.40
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01

Parks in Reston, Reston TOD, & RTC Study Areas
Parkland (Ac)
Regional
County
RA
Total Public
Private

Reston Study Area(1)
2010
2030
50
50
802
802
1,350
1,350

TOD Study Area (2)
Reston Town Center (3)
2010
2030
2010
2030
Comment
24
24
12
12 NVRPA's W&OD Trail
5
5
5
5 "Reston Town Green"
-

12.12121
12.12121

2,202
26

2,202
49

29
26

29
49

17
10

17
17 SVNP (16 ac), RTC (Presidents, Fountain Square, Town Square (10 ac); proposed N & S RTC parks (7 ac))

2,228

2,251

55

78

27

34 Wiehle (Sunset Hills--8 ac, Isaac Newton--8 ac)

Land Area (Ac)
Total Parks as %
Total Land

9,811

9,811

1,683

1,683

802

802

22.7%

22.9%

3.4%

4.2%

Population
Employment
Park Acres per
1,000 residents

58,404
68,290

87,181
84,877

11,720
62,605

41,210
78,297

6,596
34,747

19,406
43,629

38.15

25.82

4.69

1.89

4.09

1.75

Urban
9.9
3.5
13.4

29.1
4.4
33.5

3.3%

4.6%

Fairfax Park Standard
Standard:
Suburban
Urban
Residents
292.0
435.9
17.6
61.8
Employees
6.3
7.8
Total
292.0
435.9
23.8
69.6
(1) Jobs & population data based on FC submission for MWCOG 8.2

(2) Jobs and population data based on DPZ calculation of Suburban Center estimate of FC MWCOG
8.2 submission.
(3) Jobs & population data are prorated based on RTC's existing and forecast share of total in
Scenario G.