• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The Revitalization of Quantico, VA

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Charles A. Jr Johnson
Abstract:
Quantico is a small Virginia town that is only accessible through a Marine Corps Base (MCB). This dissertation expresses the difficulties for residents and businesses to lead productive, successful lives in light of security enhancements enacted by MCB after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It discusses acquisition of a separate access road to the town as a foundation for revitalization. It provides a short historical view of Quantico both prior to and after the inception of the Marine Corps Base in 1917. Currently a problem, access is an obstacle to the economic feasibility of Quantico's revitalization; rectifying this issue is essential and may enable a better financial outlook for the town, its businesses, and residents. However, the following question must be answered: Will unrestricted access to the town improve revenue opportunities for a whole municipality and enable revitalization of Quantico? This research helps set up an informational foundation for other towns across the globe seeking revitalization. The short answer to the posited question is: yes, unrestricted access will improve revenue opportunities for the municipality. The original limitation of barriers to the political relationships and climate between the town, the base, Prince William County, and the Commonwealth of Virginia disappeared with discussion briefs held with each political stakeholder from the aforementioned offices. This extra effort prompted the stakeholders to want to assist the town of Quantico in the endeavor to build a separate access road to the base to serve as a foundation for its revitalization. The second limitation, reaching survey respondents, was undiscovered until one month after survey distribution and collection began. This limitation also disappeared by adjusting the survey population and locations of distribution and collection. A recommendation to the town of Quantico is to begin a strategic plan, with Steering Committee oversight during and after the Access Road construction to attract new businesses to create jobs and improve town revenue. When implemented, Leinberger's "Twelve Steps," which encompass a variety of potential actions, can improve the town.

Table of Contents Chapter I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 The Revitalization of Quantico, VA ............................................................................................ 1 Town History ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................................... 2

Research Question ................................................................................................................................ 3

Research Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................ 4

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 4

Assumptions ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Limitations and Assumptions of the Study ............................................................................................. 5

Definition of Terms, Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 5

Organization of the Study...................................................................................................................... 5

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Chapter II ................................................................................................................................... 8 Review of Literature ................................................................................................................... 8 Revitalization........................................................................................................................................ 8

Main Street Example ........................................................................................................................... 11

Access Roads ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Organizational Cooperation ................................................................................................................. 16

Mixed-use Development Future Research ............................................................................................ 16

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Chapter III ................................................................................................................................ 19 Research Methodology.............................................................................................................. 19 Revitalization of Quantico, a Small and Unique Town in Virginia........................................................ 19

Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Ethical Implications ............................................................................................................................ 20

Procedure ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Revitalization Plan Development......................................................................................................... 21

Surveys. .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Data collection and analysis. ............................................................................................................................ 22

Analysis. ......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Dependent variables......................................................................................................................................... 23

Independent variables. ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 24

Chapter IV ................................................................................................................................ 25 Presentation of Data .................................................................................................................. 25 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 25

viii

Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 25

Defense doubling of traffic............................................................................................................................... 25

New connections to military installations.......................................................................................................... 26

Low-type roads with heavy/oversize requirements. ........................................................................................... 26

Index of Data Analysis Procedures ...................................................................................................... 27

Participants...................................................................................................................................................... 27

Age of Demographics. ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Status. ............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Gender. ........................................................................................................................................................... 32

Hypothesis 1 (Ho1). ......................................................................................................................................... 33

Hypothesis testing. .......................................................................................................................................... 35

Null hypothesis................................................................................................................................................ 36

Hypothesis 2 (Ho2). ......................................................................................................................................... 38

Hypothesis 3 (Ho3). ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Factor Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 44

Direct Observation........................................................................................................................................... 44

Reduce Traffic on Gate. ................................................................................................................................... 46

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 47

Chapter V ................................................................................................................................. 48 Conclusions and Future Research .............................................................................................. 48 Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 49

Direct Observation .............................................................................................................................. 51

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................................... 52

Security Concerns. ........................................................................................................................................... 52

Limitations and assumptions of the Study ............................................................................................ 52

Limitations. ..................................................................................................................................................... 52

Assumptions. ................................................................................................................................................... 54

Qualitative future. ............................................................................................................................................ 54

Weakness to limitations. .................................................................................................................................. 55

Additional considerations................................................................................................................................. 56

Additional improvements to the town. .............................................................................................................. 56

Discussion briefs with the political leadership of the town, base, county, and commonwealth. ............................ 56

Further or future research. ................................................................................................................................ 57

Future recommendations. ................................................................................................................................. 58

Vision statement. ............................................................................................................................................. 58

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 59

References ................................................................................................................................ 61 Appendix A: Example Survey Questions .................................................................................. 66 Appendix B: Memorandum of Understanding ........................................................................... 68 Appendix C: Questionnaire Data ............................................................................................... 71 Appendix D: Respondents by Age and Status ........................................................................... 83 Appendix E: JIU Institutional Review Board Approval for Research Project ............................ 88 Appendix F: Notes from Meeting with Congressman Wittman ................................................. 89 Appendix G: Notes from Meeting with Prince William County Supervisor, Maureen Caddigan 90 Appendix H: E-mail from Colonel Choike in Regard to Meeting .............................................. 91 Appendix I: InsideNova Article on Research Project ................................................................ 92

ix

Appendix J: Quantico in Relation to Washington, D.C. ............................................................ 93 Appendix K: Map of Quantico ................................................................................................. 94 Appendix L: Johnson Resume .................................................................................................. 96

List of Tables Table 4-1. Participant Statistics ................................................................................................ 28 Table 4-2. Gender .................................................................................................................... 29 Table 4-3. Respondent age frequency ....................................................................................... 29 Table 4-4. Breakdown of the total participants by age............................................................... 30 Table 4-5. Status Code ............................................................................................................. 32 Table 4-6. Gender .................................................................................................................... 33 Table 4-7. Paired Samples Statistics ......................................................................................... 36 Table 4-8. The Paired Samples Test ......................................................................................... 37 Table 4-9. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) .............................................................................. 38 Table 4-10. Type of desired establishments in the town ............................................................ 39 Table 4-11. Variable Score Coefficient Matrix ......................................................................... 40 Table 4-12 KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity .................................................................... 40 Table 4-13. Total Variance Explained ...................................................................................... 40 Table 4-14 ANOVA ................................................................................................................. 42 Table 4-15. Robust Tests of Equality of Means ........................................................................ 42 Table 4-16. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 43 Table 4-17. Descriptives .......................................................................................................... 43 Table 4-18. Type of establishments desired in the town ............................................................ 45 Table 5-1. Willingness of respondents to serve on a town committee ........................................ 58 Table C-1. Questionnaire data for questions 1-5 ....................................................................... 71 Table C-2. Questionnaire data for questions 6-10 ..................................................................... 76

List of Figures Figure 4–1. Histogram – age distribution of the respondent population..................................... 31 Figure 4-2. Gender of the respondents...................................................................................... 33 Figure 4-3. Respondent breakdown .......................................................................................... 35 Figure 4-4. Scree Plot .............................................................................................................. 41

1

Chapter I The Revitalization of Quantico, VA The town of Quantico is a small Virginia town located on the Potomac River, 36 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. (Appendix J). The town is bordered by the Potomac River and is surrounded by Marine Corps Base (MCB), Quantico, which operates two 24- hour manned security gates that restrict accessibility to the town (Appendix K). Research, surveys, and analysis show how improved access will improve the viability of the town. After extensive research, no other studies pertaining to a lack of access roads detrimentally affecting the viability of a town in the U.S., or in any other country, have been found. The foundation for the revitalization is a separate access road to the town, unencumbered by military requirements. This freedom of access will revitalize the town and improve the life of its residents, the military and federal workers on the base, and the families that live there. With increased businesses, revenue for the community will increase and enable it to better serve its residents. This dissertation discusses the construction and acquisition of a separate access road to the town of Quantico as a foundation for revitalization. Leinberger (2005), while discussing 12 steps to revitalize a community says: “The appeal of traditional downtowns—and the defining characteristic that sets those that are successful apart from their suburban competitors—is largely based on what can be summarized as walkable urbanism” (p. 1). Once access to Quantico is improved by the

2

construction of an access road, the implementation of Leinberger’s 12 steps would further increase the town’s viability. Town History In the early 1900s, Quantico known for its shipyards, was a minimally inhabited area. In 1914, World War I began in Europe; the United States began involvement in 1917, which caused a need for more military bases. The government leased 53 acres of land next to Quantico for the Department of the Navy, which became Camp Quantico. Marines began training at the camp from then on, and the small town of 200 residents became engaged with training Marines and sailors numbering up to 1350 at a time (Gernand & Krowl, 2004). The base continued to become the education location for all Marine officers, as well as the home of the Marine Corps University. Camp Quantico continued to acquire more land surrounding the town and grew through every conflict in which the U.S. was involved. This growth caused the camp, which eventually became MCB Quantico, to surround the municipality. Quantico is the only U.S. town in this predicament. The foundation for the revitalization of the town of Quantico is a separate access road to the town that is separate from the MCB to drive to the town. Statement of the Problem The residents and businesses of the town of Quantico are facing difficult economic hardships. The sole access to the town is through MCB’s gates manned by military police (MP) personnel 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Local businesses have failed because of the security, known as Force Protection Conditions (FPCON), required to mitigate terrorist threats against the military base, thus limiting the access to civilian business and industry. These FPCONs mandate an unclassified controlled entry into the base, and subsequently Quantico; only licensed and insured drivers, whose vehicles are

3

subject to search by MPs, may pass through the gates of the base and proceed to the town of Quantico. This security discourages and limits access for those wishing to locate, work in, or patronize businesses in Quantico. The problem is severe enough that Quantico has 76 available business spaces within the town. Prior to 9/11, of the 64 existing businesses, 26 failed due to post 9/11 security enhancements; an additional 11 businesses started and failed. The total loss of businesses, after the implementation of heightened security procedures, is 37 (Debra Kidwell, Town Treasurer, personal communication, 2009). The updating of municipal codes that followed the occupation of retail spaces created greater difficulties. When the businesses ceased, no new tenant could occupy the dwelling until the updating of that space reflected current code compliance. Code requirements have so far taken 12 of the overall empty spaces off the market, shrinking potential revenue for the community. Quantico has minimal retail opportunities in the town. It lacks a grocery store, medical facilities, pharmacy, and gas station. Residents must drive a minimum of five miles for these services and must leave and return via the MP checkpoints. The requirement to seek services elsewhere results in the town’s loss of taxable revenues and business permits by 20% (Debra Kidwell, personal communication, 2009). This loss of revenue impairs the town’s ability to maintain the infrastructure and viability, which is one of the many deterrents to the town’s revitalization. Research Question This paper answers the research question: Will unrestricted access to the town improve revenue opportunities for a whole municipality and enable revitalization of Quantico? Using secondary research of other small towns, with similar sustainability

4

problems, and that have been revitalized, this paper demonstrates how faltering towns can overcome obstacles to revitalization using a “lessons learned approach” (Baaz, Holmberg, Nilsson, Olsson, & Sandberg, 2010). This research helps set up a procedural foundation for towns seeking revitalization. Research Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 (Ho1) : If a new and a separate road providing unrestricted town access is constructed, then the general population will have access to new retail and service establishments providing, additional tax revenue thereby increasing opportunity for revitalization. Hypothesis 2 (Ho2) : If Quantico is able to complete the funding of the two Quantico Town Project Accomplishment Codes (QT-PACs), then the town will have greater access. Hypothesis 3 (Ho3) : If Quantico is able to revitalize, then it will become a sustainable town for residents and businesses. Significance of the Study The historical relationship of Quantico since the base came into being is in comparison to the current sustainable situation of the town, and the MCB adjacent to the town. Assumptions are based on the results of this comparison. It is important to note, however, that the town is not a part of the base and is, officially and legally, a separate community adjacent to the MCB. If the base were to shut down in light of terrorist threats, the town businesses and residents would have no ingress or egress capabilities. Assumptions The assumptions of this research study are:

5

1. Survey respondents will be truthful and answer the survey with clarity and no hidden political agendas. 2. The survey results (data) will follow the analysis results and will use the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) correctly. Limitations and Assumptions of the Study The political relationships between the town, the base, and Prince William County are potential barriers; however, research, education, and planning meetings have the potential for mitigating these barriers. These will be addressed in Chapter 5. Definition of Terms, Abbreviations 1. ANOVA: Analysis of Variance 2. CO: Commanding Officer 3. Col: Colonel 4. Lessons learned approach: Understanding and handling known barriers in literature and encouraging excellence and challenges in positive and negative situations. (Baaz, et al., 2010) 5. MCB: Marine Corps Base 6. NFE: Non-Federal Employee 7. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; a computer program used for statistical analysis 8. QT-PAC: Quantico Town Project Accomplishment Codes 9. VDOT: Virginia Department of Transportation Organization of the Study Sustainability is a strategic mindset that applies to future businesses, with leaders and employees of the organization being able to “do more with less” (Raftery, 2009).

6

The town of Quantico has had periods of sustainable success since the establishment of the Marine Corps in 1917. The town has had several grocery stores; it has also had farming, multiple gas stations, numerous restaurants, and many other retail establishments. However, since the increase in security and the loss of businesses and jobs, the town has declined with few, if any of these resources left intact. A key indicator of the success of businesses in the town was, and still is, cyclic with the population of the Marine Corps Base. When Marines deployed to combat, e.g., WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, the town suffered setbacks, and yet the businesses were able to survive because the families of deployed Marines living on the base continued to patronize those businesses in the town of Quantico (Gernand & Krowl, 2004). Access to the town was not a problem for residents, businesses, patrons, and visitors until the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil of September 11, 2001. Security requirements abruptly changed on the MCB, and access to the town became severely restricted. During the most recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the town has not been able to prosper and remains in decline because of increased security. The failure of 37 businesses, and the loss of 12 store spaces due to municipal code requirements, is the result of limited access to the town over the past nine years (Debra Kidwell, personal communication, 2009). On the surface, sustainability is not a strong asset of the town. These 12 empty spaces housed retail establishments that existed prior to the municipal building code changes. To further complicate matters, the economic situation made it difficult for proprietors to update their facilities to comply with the new building codes. This left the town with an obvious catch-22—no new business could

7

occupy the vacated spaces until the buildings’ construction and facilities complied with the new municipal building codes. The town is not unlike many companies in today’s economic times in that it needs to balance the old habits (“the way things have always been done”) with the new (appropriate business practices). Many of today’s companies are still “locked in the past” when they should be creating a vision looking ahead to the future (Senge, Kruschwitz, Laur, and Schley, 2008, p. 284). Quantico has been operating in the same manner for over 20 years. This necessitates the need for new ideas and the development of a forward-thinking vision plan for the town. The vision plan for the town should include what it wants the revitalization to do, such as improve services and goods, both economic and social, for stakeholders, businesses, customers, and residents. However, the scope of this study is to address the access to the town. Summary Quantico, VA is a unique town with access and sustainability problems that revitalization could overcome. Restricted access, due to the heightened security at MCB, inhibits the viability of the town. The failure of 37 businesses, and the loss of 12 store spaces due to municipal code requirements, is the result of limited access to the town. Sustainability is a key to any municipality, and that is the goal for the town and this study, which specifically concentrates on improving access. The revitalization of the town is a large project that will improve the business and life of the town.

8

Chapter II Review of Literature This chapter reviews the literature for revitalizing a small town by laying a foundation for repairing its infrastructure to serve its residents. Alternate access is the foundation for this revitalization. Research pertaining to a community’s accessibility is lacking and this study can serve to increase knowledge of access roads in literature. By addressing town access first, the revitalization effort could succeed in making Quantico an affluent self-sustaining town. Revitalization “Downtown revitalization requires a high degree of cooperation and is best achieved when a unique ‘private/public’ processes [is] used” (Leinberger, 2005, p. 1). There are 12 steps highlighted as tools for any town to use revitalize their community. Walkable urbanism is a potentially employable goal for town improvement. Community sustainability will improve because “as the demand for walkable urbanism, continues to grow, so does the number of revitalized downtowns” (Leinberger, 2005, p. 21). Walkable urbanism describes a part of the community where everything is reachable by foot—people are beginning to want to work and live closer to their community. This is a cultural phenomenon. Leinberger’s 12 steps encompass a variety of potential actions that, when implemented, can improve a community. They are: 1. Capture the Vision,

9

2. Develop a Strategic Plan, 3. Forge a Healthy Private/Public Partnership, 4. Make the Right Thing Easy, 5. Establish Business Improvement Districts and Other Non-Profits, 6. Create a Catalytic Development Company, 7. Create an Urban Entertainment District, 8. Develop a Rental Housing Market, 9. Pioneer an Affordability Strategy, 10. Focus on For-Sale Housing, 11. Develop a Local-Serving Retail Strategy, and 12. Re-create a Strong Office Market. (Leinberger, 2005, p. 5) When Quantico eliminates the limitations concerning access to the town, some or all of the steps will be available to Quantico. Using a lessons learned approach (Thomas & Bromley, 2003), Quantico can investigate and use methods used in Britain to overcome ‘past problems’ of its small towns. Since the 1960’s, Britain has developed new types of shopping facilities and these are mostly in decentralized locations (Thomas & Bromley, 2003; Thomas, Bromley, & Tallon, 2006). This decentralized scenario is similar to Quantico and its access problem. Shopping attractions, such as a national chain store, e.g., Walmart or Target, attract shoppers. With this information, survey questions were created that allowed Quantico’s respondents to express their desires to shop within the town. The allure of “small towns and small town life” are “sometimes idealized in movies and the media and perhaps in our own memories as well” (Harris & Tanaka,

10

2002, p. 2). Actual small communities do not always measure up to Hollywood idealizations, but, in reality, offer alternative lifestyles in comparison to lifestyles offered in larger metropolitan areas. This is a view many former Marines hold of Quantico. “Small towns may seem to have fewer and smaller problems, but they also have fewer and smaller resources to deal with those problems” (Harris & Tanaka, 2002, p. 2). Quantico has to overcome its difficulties with access so that it can revitalize and attract those former Marines who wish to retire and live in the town. Agency theory, though political in nature, examines the relationship in which one party (agent) acts for another (principal). In this study, the town of Quantico is the principle, and the MCB is the agent. The town, without a separate access road, has the problem of deterioration and decline due to the MCB’s ability to restrict public access to the town. This theory can—and does address—how problems derived from agent- principal relationships are dealt with, and how agents employ strategies seen as necessary while giving the perception that those strategies are not coming from the principal (Getz, 2002). A new access road to the town of Quantico is a simple example of how the agency theory works. Before discussion of the agency theory as it pertains to Quantico and the MCB can occur, it is important to establish that Quantico is a separate municipality from the base and has existed over 100 years longer than the base has. The general public is not typically aware of this and often assumes that the principal (Quantico) is a part of the agent (MCB) when, in fact, the principal is actually a separate entity from the agent. Since WWI, the Department of Defense (DoD) (the agent’s agent) has acquired all the lands surrounding the municipality. However, the actions of the base directly affect it.

11

Because access to the principal must take place via the agent’s roads, residents, visitors, and customers have to abide by the base’s regulations to drive on its roads. People without proper identification or registration for their vehicles cannot drive to the town (Marine Corps Base Order, 2007). This limited access is why the town has endured difficulties directly related to actions of the base; specifically, the aforementioned increase of security resulting from the 9/11 terror attacks. Prior to 9/11 there were no obstacles to anyone who wanted to drive to the town. The access road, once built, will eliminate traffic through the base, and will increases MCB’s security while providing unrestricted access to the town. Town revitalization occurs all over the United States due to programs such as Main Street USA. Main Street is a federally funded program that assists towns in their revitalization efforts. Manassas, a town located within 35 miles of Quantico, accomplished this in 2003 (Dono & Glisson, 2003). A strong example of using grants from entities such as Main Street USA is noteworthy for any revitalization project. Historically, Main Street USA is an organization that considers municipalities. Manassas, VA, has received grants from Main Street USA three times in the past seven years (Manassas Visitor’s Center, 2010). Main Street Example The success of Manassas provides an example for other Virginia municipalities follow. “Manassas has proven its dedication to preserving its old town character,” affirms Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Main Street … its leaders and residents recognized the power of collaboration, keeping ahead of sprawl and empowering the downtown” (Dono & Glisson, 2003, p. 7). Manassas is a noteworthy organizational example of applying change to the community; it recognized

12

its deficiencies, overcame them, and improved its status in Northern Virginia. Manassas is no longer known solely for its Civil War battle locations—it is a thriving suburb of Washington, D.C. It so completely embraced the changes to its community that it earned two additional Main Street USA awards for further town improvements. The Main Street Messenger (2002) discusses The Main Street Program and explains the requirement process for receiving grants. “Only the Main Street organization in participating communities could submit applications on behalf of local projects, properties and businesses” (Main Street Messenger, 2002, p. 1). This information identifies sources of revenue an economically depressed town can use. Stanley (2007) discusses two neighborhoods on each coast of the U.S. and their revitalization. While these are not towns, they are communities within towns that faced failure. Two new urban neighborhoods are sprouting up on sites that were ready for rejuvenation. Using smart planning and a cooperative effort between public and private entities, East Beach, a 100-acre project in Norfolk, VA, which was once a collection of crime-ridden housing, and Villebois, formerly home to the state mental hospital in Wilsonville, OR, are on their way to becoming dynamic traditional neighborhood developments. These neighborhoods are redeveloping as planned communities in a process similar to how Quantico can seek a public and private venture for funding to repair its infrastructure (accessibility) to revitalize the town. East Beach developed varying zoning restrictions and used urban development practices to build homes and create a small “Annapolis” area by the Chesapeake Bay “with apartments over marina-related shops, restaurants, and a plaza or market square”

13

(Stanley, 2007). Quantico could follow East Beach’s example and develop a similar venture. Access Roads The American Planning Association's (APA) Great Places in America program— now in its third year—aims to show how good planning, urban design, and architecture can create places that people value for generations (Finucan-Clarkson, Johnson, & Weaver, 2009). The article describes 10 community roads, some within towns, and some through rural areas, which offers additional information for Quantico to reference. Due to the limited information about community accessibility, the need for research on road construction benefits could have strong implications for business and communities and could improve the body of knowledge publically available for revitalization projects. The BRAC commission in its final report of 2005 (131) recommends moving commands from various installations in Northern Virginia and Maryland to MCB Quantico. It lists the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the Defense Security Service (DSS), the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), and the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID). These commands are scheduled to move aboard MCB Quantico by September 15, 2011 (BRAC 2005). “The Agencies will bring approximately 2658 additional people to Marine Corps Base Quantico (351 military, 1752 civilians and 555 contractors; with an additional student population average of 263 per day)” (BRAC, 2005, section 131). The added personnel and traffic to the existing road infrastructure causes a need for redevelopment of major arteries to the base and further restricts access to the town of Quantico.

14

Harrison & Roth (2010) discuss the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) report on how to achieve sensitive solutions for building road projects, which may be “perceived as having clear and measurable adverse impacts on the communities through which they pass” (p. 34). This is a potential problem for Quantico to consider when it begins applying to have a road installed to facilitate access to the town. Population growth in towns require all types of access to bring and take services and commodities from the town (Meyboom, 2009). In reference to Quantico, the only difference is that not all people will be able to pass through the town. Kenyon and Black (2001) discuss small towns in Australia and small inland, remote rural communities, and the decline of population and business loss. This decline is not new, but has intensified over the last two decades. They discuss “widespread economic and demographic decline of many small towns” (p. 1). Kenyon and Black also point out other small communities and their economic persistence, stability, and growth. Like these localities, Quantico is isolated because of the limited access resulting from increased MCB security. It is vital that it discovers methods to achieve economic and community improvement. Napolitano, De Nisco, and Riviezzo (2004) explain urban revitalization as a process whose elements include “physical setting (retail venues, cultural venues, activity venues, leisure venues, general ambience) and the contract personnel within all those venues” (p. 9). They explain unseen elements that are basic services or necessities of town centers, such as parking and restaurants, which can raise the overall quality of the visit experience (Napolitano, De Nisco, & Riviezzo, 2008). This was useful in developing survey questions to learn what respondents’ desire for Quantico.

Full document contains 108 pages
Abstract: Quantico is a small Virginia town that is only accessible through a Marine Corps Base (MCB). This dissertation expresses the difficulties for residents and businesses to lead productive, successful lives in light of security enhancements enacted by MCB after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It discusses acquisition of a separate access road to the town as a foundation for revitalization. It provides a short historical view of Quantico both prior to and after the inception of the Marine Corps Base in 1917. Currently a problem, access is an obstacle to the economic feasibility of Quantico's revitalization; rectifying this issue is essential and may enable a better financial outlook for the town, its businesses, and residents. However, the following question must be answered: Will unrestricted access to the town improve revenue opportunities for a whole municipality and enable revitalization of Quantico? This research helps set up an informational foundation for other towns across the globe seeking revitalization. The short answer to the posited question is: yes, unrestricted access will improve revenue opportunities for the municipality. The original limitation of barriers to the political relationships and climate between the town, the base, Prince William County, and the Commonwealth of Virginia disappeared with discussion briefs held with each political stakeholder from the aforementioned offices. This extra effort prompted the stakeholders to want to assist the town of Quantico in the endeavor to build a separate access road to the base to serve as a foundation for its revitalization. The second limitation, reaching survey respondents, was undiscovered until one month after survey distribution and collection began. This limitation also disappeared by adjusting the survey population and locations of distribution and collection. A recommendation to the town of Quantico is to begin a strategic plan, with Steering Committee oversight during and after the Access Road construction to attract new businesses to create jobs and improve town revenue. When implemented, Leinberger's "Twelve Steps," which encompass a variety of potential actions, can improve the town.