Transit
Just talking about Metro to Woodbridge is worthwhile
On Monday, a meeting hosted by Congressman Gerry Connolly will talk about the potential to extend Metro to Woodbridge. The hurdles are large, especially funding, and on the pure transportation merits another mode might be better. However, it's still a good idea for the Congressman and residents of Prince William to talk about Metro.
Photo by wfyurasko on Flickr.
Why talk about an idea which might never happen and might not even be the best of the options? There are many good reasons:
- Talking about Metro gets people excited, and can stimulate the real important conversation about all transit modes.
- It takes a long time to build big transportation facilities, and by the time this happens, Metro might be the best option after all.
- There is political value as well as mobility value in bringing some forms of transit to all communities, not just the densest ones.
- Transportation "megaprojects" tend to suck up all the transportation funding, and transit megaprojects should be among the options when funding comes available.
Metro is a starting point for the broad discussion around transit.
The meeting revolves around a bill Connolly introduced to study running Metro specifically in the area. But as he explained, his goal is "not to prejudge Metro" as the right or wrong mode, but rather to get a conversation going about transit in the area. That is sorely needed.
Earlier this week, we discussed the merits of many transportation options, from light rail to improved VRE to extending the Blue or Yellow Lines (or both). All of these have their pros and cons and any discussion of transit options for southern Fairfax and eastern Prince William should consider them all and more.
But the simple reality is that if Connolly had called a meeting entitled "Discussion of multimodal travel alternatives in the I-95 corridor," almost nobody would show up. But announce a meeting on "Metro to Woodbridge!" and it gets major coverage in the press.
We have to think very long-term.
Prince William County needs to start thinking about transit. If they fill the county with entirely car-dependent development, they'll end up regretting it in 30 years, but it'll be too late to cost-effectively provide any alternatives. Designing more walkable and transit-oriented communities in a few spots and focusing most of the growth there can help the county grow without making traffic worse for all its existing residents.
But these things take a long time. Connolly pointed out that rail in the Dulles corridor was first discussed in a federal document in 1962. 47 years later, Virginia signed the first funding agreement to build it. The question is not just what's best for southern Fairfax and eastern Prince William today, but what's best in 2058 as well.
And for all we know, 47 years from now there will be automated tunnel-building machines which can not only dig tunnels, like today's TBMs, but handle utility relocation and everything else to make building a long tunnel far cheaper than it is today. Or maybe not, but we can't know today.
Transit planning is also politics.
Some argued in the comments on Tuesday's article that we should focus on transit in the core. That is where the capacity crunch is greatest. On the other hand, transit in outer areas will bring transit accessibility to the greatest number of people who lack it today. Not only is that good public policy, but it builds public support for transit generally.
When there's no transit in a community, nobody uses it, nobody builds with it in mind, and so few people can imagine how transit could be a part of their transportation mix. If a big transit project is coming to the area, people have something to look forward to and advocate around.
Also, designing transit for all communities is an important way to bridge the "culture war" gap between the urban and suburban lifestyle. When transit is an element of many communities from the densest urban ones to the lowest-density suburbs (perhaps with different modes, like commuter rail or express buses), it helps prevent or reduce the political dynamic where the more numerous suburban legislators want to cut transit entirely since they have no constituents who use it.
Bad road projects shouldn't be the only megaprojects to choose from.
Finally, our system of government and media has a bias toward transportation megaprojects over many smaller ones. A huge project gets headlines and attention. Leaders, from local to federal, like to be associated with big public works. Big projects make people feel that something significant is getting done.
This is unfortunate, since a larger number of smaller transportation improvements can make more of a difference for less money. As I noted in the Post, Capital Bikeshare (which was itself a big deal) could be built 18 times over for the price of the massive Gainesville interchange rebuild alone. Individual bike lanes, sidewalks, roundabouts, street reconnections, bus lanes, bus service enhancements, and more each cost little but add up to a lot of value.
The 2030 Group/Bob Chase/Rich Parsons survey of unnamed transportation experts fell (or deliberately leapt) into this trap, asking transportation engineers what their short list of 10 big projects would be to address regional mobility. Naturally, those engineers picked 10 very large projects even if 100 or 1,000 small ones would do more.
But if transit advocates simply stop thinking big, the result won't be more sensible projects, but just more big, sprawl-inducing, induced demand-creating road projects. There are always more pie-in-the-sky big freeways. The state DOTs have been studying some of them for decades, like the Tri-County Parkway in Virginia or the I-270 widening in Maryland. If they're turned down, like the Mid-County Highway extension, the DOT brings it back a decade later.
These projects float around for a long time with absolutely no money to build them. Then, at some point the economic outlook improves or a governor wants to borrow significant money from a few generations hence, and presto, the projects get funded.
Therefore, it's important to start studying and planning some big transit projects and get those plans closer to "shovel-ready." Maybe the conversation will settle on a more modest solution. Maybe the travel demand and federal funding climate will change and big projects will again become fiscally feasible. Maybe technology will make building subway tunnels cheaper. Or maybe just having the conversation will itself lead to a better vision for the future of this area.
The meeting is Monday, September 26, 6:30 pm at Harbour View, 13200 Marina Way, in Woodbridge.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Half-hour Metro headways are not acceptable
- "Degree density" maps show region's east-west divide
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Planners are the new public health officials
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
I agree that it's a worthwhile discussion. Anything that gets the leadership of PWC thinking about how to become more than a sprawly bedroom community is worthwhile. They were among the hardest hit by the housing bubble and it was due in part because it's a place where people just come to sleep and perhaps do a bit of shopping. Most people have to leave the county to go to work and their commute times are terrible on average. On top of that, many recent developments in the county were designed with only the car in mind.
I do think invoking metro will get people interested, but I think if the barriers for metro and the most practical and cost-effective alternatives can be presented, people will have a better understanding of the issue and more reasonable expectations.
by Vik on Sep 23, 2011 10:38 am
by David Alpert on Sep 23, 2011 10:43 am
by Dan Gamber on Sep 23, 2011 11:07 am
by Joshua on Sep 23, 2011 11:27 am
Frankly, I feel let down. We should be talking about Metro to Woodbridge because we have to have big transit packages in the pipeline? I think this is exactly what led to Metro-to -Reston, which is not such a great idea.
I think what we need to be talking about is walking. People want to live in a "walking" communty. What we see is the best way to build that is heavy rail. Streetcars/light rail might work -- but we haven't seen that yet. Bus clearly doesn't, although it makes as much sense.
In terms of Rt 1, there is a huge opportunity to build another R-B corridor. That is what the goal should be, and the questions about transit should be on what gets us there.
Interesting data on how long it takes the average american to get to work; less than 20 minutes.
by charlie on Sep 23, 2011 11:49 am
Dulles Rail will take some commuters off the roadways. Mixed use development within the TOD areas of Tysons will give people another choice in housing, with some people being able to live where they work.
But transit usage in Tysons will be less than in Bethesda, according to Fairfax County. Moreover, VDOT's engineers concluded the County's estimate was very optimistic.
To allow Tysons to grow from 46 MSF to only 84 MSF, there must be at least $1.5 billion in new road projects. See Table 7 in the Tysons Comp plan. That includes the widening of the Dulles Toll Road by as many as three-to-five lanes. That, in turn, would necessitate the further invasion of six Resource Protection Areas, the tearing down and rebuilding of Dulles Rail support facilities, the paving of portions of Wolf Trap National Park, and the taking of some residential and commercial properties, mainly, but not exclusively, strip takings. And when all of these road projects are built, they are projected to reach failure (i.e., total gridlock on Routes 7, 123, the DTR and the Beltway) every work day evening.
Who is going to pay for these costs? Do Fairfax County residents and businesses need to pay higher taxes? Should the County sell some of its parks to raise money, or add two students to each classroom? The Tysons landowners probably cannot afford to pay these costs. Their rents will skyrocket to levels that make their properties non-competitive. This is reality and needs to be discussed.
There are likely much better transit options for Woodbridge and southern Fairfax County than extending Metrorail. They are the ones that should be explored.
by tmtfairfax on Sep 23, 2011 12:07 pm
You know you quote that every time theres a post about NoVa. If we DON'T expand Tysons, where is that employment going to go? What road projects will be needed to support THAT? What is the frigging base case? Regionwide?
Why dont we have one big thread addressing this, and then we don't need to hear the same (I suspect misleading) factoid cited in EVERY thread on suburban transit?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 23, 2011 1:43 pm
By the way an increase of 40 million sq feet and 1.5 billion in road costs, translates to $38 a square foot in roadway investment. Right now rents in Tysons are about $30 a sq foot per annum. That includes OLDER space, and is in todays depressed market, for a Tysons that lacks transit access. It sounds to me like the benefits of the new space, higher value/rents for existing space, new residential, not to mention external benefits, make this a positive.
And yeah, I know thats rough and not a full benefit cost analysis. But all TMT provides is a couple of factoids.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 23, 2011 2:00 pm
Aside from that, I agree Dan Gamber on getting "S-Bahn"-like lines up and going. The beltway should serve as a "fence" for near-to-long term Metro enhancements. Anything outside should be commuter rail primarily.
by John M on Sep 23, 2011 2:03 pm
by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Sep 23, 2011 3:23 pm
by Steven Yates on Sep 23, 2011 3:36 pm
@steve - I think the main core bottlenecks people discuss are the transfer stations (L'enfant, gallery place, and metro center) and the Potomac crossings - so if they take metro within the core, and dont transfer (mostly get off at Union station and take the red line) then they arent impacting the most congested parts of the core. Of course if they get off at Lenfant, and get on the metro there, thats something else.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 23, 2011 3:56 pm
Plenty of room left in South Dakota, last time I checked. No need to keep cramming everything into NoVA and DC-area.
It's time eveyone breaks away from the "grow or die" mentality that, among other things, is the reason we are (and always will, no matter how many solar panels you put on your roof) paving over every square inch and destroying out natural resources.
by BS_Dawg on Sep 23, 2011 3:59 pm
by Canaan on Sep 23, 2011 4:18 pm
Plenty of room left in South Dakota, last time I checked. No need to keep cramming everything into NoVA and DC-area."
I think its unrealistic to think that if we dont build tysons, all that growth will leave the metro area. The economics will draw it hear if we dont effectively ban growth - even if fairfax wanted to and ALL adjacent counties cooperated, I dont think Richmond would allow it. And in that case we would have to consider all the lost tax revenues, including income and sales tax revenues, etc, etc.
I mean no growth is a viable political position, but its not really a viable way to look at the cost and benefits of the Tysons redevelopment.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 23, 2011 4:55 pm
An engineer and an architect took ASHTO standards and mapped the rights of way needs beyond what VDOT owns or controls. The additional rights of way requirements extend into RPAs, residents' backyards, and Wolf Trap National Park. Here is a link to one set of the maps. http://www.mcleancitizens.org/tysonsdulles.asp This information was presented to the Planning Commission, supervisors, members of the General Assembly and the public.
One of the reasons there needs to be such a big expansion of the Dulles Toll Road is because so many people who will work in a larger Tysons Corner will live west of Tysons, will drive home and cause existing road capacity to be exhausted. This is after Dulles Rail and the construction of presumably high-quality mixed use development.
I would think most people would find this to be problematic. These are not factoids. These are references to data and studies upon which Fairfax County made its land use decision on Tysons. It is also part of the analysis done by the County that won the Daniel Burnham Award.
If much of this growth did not occur in Tysons Corner, but west of Tysons and much of it outside Fairfax County, there would not be a need to expand the DTR by as many as three-to-five lanes. The new Tysons Corner will continue to be auto-centric.
by tmtfairfax on Sep 23, 2011 5:00 pm
- http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2011/03/short-term-vs-long-term-thinking.html
As a Dcer, this is very scary to me.
2. That being said, in the other post, is why I mentioned the idea of an integrated passenger rail system for the "region". Serving PWC by Metrorail (heavy rail) doesn't seem to make sense for that mode type. Although yes, it's just as far to Far Rockaway from Manhattan and it's via heavy rail. (Then again, Alon Levy had some great posts I think in Transport Politic about better integration of railroad passenger service within NYC. NOt that it would help Far Rockaway.)
Woodbridge is 22 miles from DC, and probably about 11 miles from Springfield.
by Richard Layman on Sep 23, 2011 7:39 pm
WRT Joshua's comment, I am not sure I agree with you about development and transit. Polycentric transit is polycentric development, just with pods of density. (Belmont _Cities in Full_).
by Richard Layman on Sep 23, 2011 7:41 pm
The Georgelas Group has proposed a good start, with high-rise rental housing within the TOD area at the Tysons Spring Hill station. The building will include 20% workforce housing. It is hard to argue with this proposal in concept.
But if the bloggers here had attended the County's meetings on Tysons or talked to other real estate developers after a Tysons Partnership meeting, for example, they would have also heard some skepticism as to whether this and other projects will be built. Some argue the cost of concrete and steel construction will make the project sit for years. Only time will tell. The Tysons Partnership knows that their buildings will be very expensive and carry a substantial premium in the market. Can Tysons attract the type of residents who will be willing to pay much higher rents?
Of course, Tysons has major advantages over Woodbridge. Tysons is extremely successful today. Woodbridge is, well, Woodbridge. Investing in heavy rail to Woodbridge in light of the real learnings from Tysons is extremely risky.
by tmtfairfax on Sep 24, 2011 10:23 am
WRT construction costs see http://places.designobserver.com/media/pdf/Explaining_Res_803.pdf
by Richard Layman on Sep 24, 2011 5:28 pm
by Corey on Sep 25, 2011 2:22 am
IMO, the key to good transit use is finding dedicated right-of-way and not necessarily laying steel track. That is one of the main reasons HOT Lanes are so valuable. Fairfax County will have reliable bus service on the Beltway for the first time. That will make a big difference and its is one of the main reasons so many civic groups support HOT Lanes. If Maryland had them, the traffic volumes to and from Tysons would drop.
by tmtfairfax on Sep 25, 2011 10:03 am
My concept uses a 150' long articulated three unit hybrid loading at high level platforms that can be run in multiple units. They would be capable of collecting current from both third rail and overhead trolley or catenary. High platform loading is used to maintain compatibility with the existing metrorail system. The articulated units would have the same loading capacity as an existing metrorail married pair.
The idea behind the concept is building rail transit at the cost of light rail and having the bonus capability of being able to run the trains in the existing metrorail system. The idea is not without precedent, several transit properties during the first half of the last century granted trackage rights to interurban railroads to reach the urban core.
The corridors where this schema could be used is the Jefferson Davis Highway VA US-1 corridor from Huntington to Woodbridge, the combined Columbia Pike Little River Turnpike corridor from the Pentagon to Fairfax City and the Branch Avenue corridor from Branch Avenue to Waldorf.
Like I said I dreamed this up almost 15 years ago so the artwork is based on the existing mrtrorail rolling stock. If the concept were to become reality the hybrid units would look more like the next generation of rolling stock that WMATA will be bring on line in a few years.
by Sand Box John on Sep 25, 2011 10:19 am
To summarize, your factoids do NOT demonstrate a negative cost benefit for Tysons redevelopment, OR that the Coalition for Smart Growth is fraudulent. I would request, in view of that, that you stop posting it as if it were an unanswerable argument against all TOD proposals in NoVa
by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 26, 2011 1:04 pm
As for Rt. 1--there is a very easy solution to relieve a lot of the congestion in Potomac Yards area of Rt.1--add a Potomac Yards station on the existing rail line. Right now the blue line goes right behind the Potomac Yards strip mall off of Rt. 1. All WMATA would have to do is build a small station--maybe even a walkway to the Regal Cinema or the Target further South and bang--suddenly a lot more people might take the Metro to get out to that area that is currently too far from Crystal City or Braddock Rd.
I know there were plans to use light rail for that area, but I don't see why there's a need, when heavy rail already goes right through it. It's these sorts of decisions that baffle me.
by LuvDusty on Sep 26, 2011 1:11 pm
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors rejected the proposal to spread high density beyond the TOD because it violated county policy and it is unlikey that people will walk to and from transit in all weather. Both Schwartz and Mendelsohn argued for an expansion, but were rejected. Both argued more growth could be accommodated outside the TOD areas. Their views lost.
The traffic projections apply irrespective of where the growth comes. George Mason University modeled growth patterns and made three projections, which were considered by Fairfax County in preparing both the Comp Plan and the traffic analyses. Everyone except for some landowners outside the TOD and the Smartgrowthers agreed that 84 million square feet is the limit on growth at Tysons (with rail, $1.5 billion of additional road capacity, and high-quality mixed use development) because road capacity maxes out. The only way to grow beyond that is if growth can come without any additional vehicle trips. Few people think that can happen. Some of us were at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings and know what was decided and why.
The open questions are how the $1.7 billion of road and non-rail transit costs will be allocated and who will pay them. All of my figures have come from either Fairfax County or VDOT documents. Where do you support your conclusions?
I see smart growth as being inconsistent with the need to add $1.5 billion in road capacity. I see it as being inconsistent with taking land from a national park or encroaching on six more RPAs. I see smart growth as being inconsistent with absolute gridlock on the Beltway, the DTR, Route 7 and Route 123. Yet this is what Tysons is forecasted to produce. Is Tysons still smart growth?
by tmtfairfax on Sep 26, 2011 4:01 pm
As for taking land from a National Park, Ive been to Wolftrap. This isnt like taking land from Shenandoah NP. Cute. Assuming the actual project design can't come up with alternatives to what CS envisions.
Oh, and Id be very surprised if VDOT wasn't, shall we say conservative, in estimating future highway needs due to Tysons growth.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 27, 2011 12:43 pm
Add a Comment