Transit
Will the Silver Line produce sprawl like highways do?
Here in the Washington, DC area, our Metro system is expanding with the Silver Line. It's always great to see transit flourishing, and it will be nice to be able to take the Metro all the way to Dulles without switching to the bus. But does transit expansion give the official thumbs-up to people moving farther and farther outside the urban core?
Park & Ride at Fuqua station in Houston. Photo by FHWA.
The Silver Line will go all the way to Dulles airport and beyond, into exurban Loudon County. The projected station stops are named for highways, not neighborhoods or landmarks: Reston Parkway, Route 28, Route 606, Route 772.
Ten of the 11 new stations will be outside the Capital Beltway, almost doubling the number of Metro stations outside the unofficial boundary of DC's urban territory.
This Silver Line isn't being built to get me from the inner city to our ridiculously far-flung airport. It's to provide all the benefits of transit Land use expert Reid Ewing, a professor of urban planning at the University of Utah and associate editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association, said transit leads to development "It's the fact that you can reach lots of trip attractions within short period of time on transit that causes development around the station," Ewing said. "It doesn't happen inherently. And accessibility, likewise, is a driving force in highway oriented sprawl." Different modes create development in different ways. Even different rail modes, Ewing said, have different potential to induce development. Light rail tends to go slower than heavy rail, and so light rail connectivity far out in the suburbs won't be as much of a boon to a community as a faster line. So it won't attract as many new residents to the area, whether people living in a tight circle around the station and walking to transit, or people living more spread out and driving there.
"With highway expansion you really don't get much concentration of activity because the automobile is so flexible That's why well-planned station area development so key. It doesn't just make for nice, semi-urban enclaves "We have a long, long history in the country of building compact towns around railroad stations," Millar said. "We know that the value of land goes up around stations and intensity of development goes up around stations and that's anti-sprawl." Besides, transit lines typically have to go through a cost-benefit analysis to acquire federal and state funding, and they need to demonstrate a certain level of projected ridership. "That is one reason why you don't have trains to nowhere the way sometimes you have other things to nowhere," said Sarah Kline of Reconnecting America. Transit is generally built in response to outward development, in other words "It's not like roads or highways that were built before these places really grew up," Kline said. "The road gets built and then the suburb grows up and then all of a sudden no one can get into downtown anymore because it's so congested, so they build transit. And yes, transit allows people to still live there. But what would happen if there weren't transit? People wouldn't all be moving in closer because there's not enough affordable housing closer in." Chris Leinberger of Brookings and the University of Michigan writes extensively on the increasing demand for compact urban development. He says the lack of affordable inner-city housing Kline refers to is the product of the failure of real estate developers to adequately fill the enormous demand for compact, walkable neighborhoods. The high prices in the urban core signal the high demand in densely developed areas, according to Leinberger. Does that mean even transit-oriented development on the fringe can be to the detriment of the city itself? The surging desire for walkability can be sated by little suburban downtowns dotted around the periphery instead of by the urban core, building up the suburbs at the expense of downtown. Here in D.C. for example: a person craving urbanism could go to Tysons or Reston or Rockville and contribute to the starvation of Washington, DC itself.
The city's census numbers showed a rise in population this year for the first time since 1950, but we still only have 75 percent of the population we had then. On the other hand, by relieving some of the pressure for compact neighborhoods, densely-built communities outside the city can have the effect of making housing more affordable inside the city. Bill Millar says yes, transit lines stretch farther and farther out into the countryside, but it at least concentrates the development that's occurring there anyway, and makes it more efficient. "Transit makes development more dense, more environmentally friendly, and increases the probability people will use car less," he said. But it can still be done wrong. Portland-area Congressman Earl Blumenauer said transit-oriented development can create walkable, livable communities, but "building nothing but a park-n-ride outside the station will create sprawl." Every transit line has some stations that fail this test Back to the Silver Line: Four of those 11 new stations will be in and around Tysons Corner, which has embarked on a land use plan to redevelop the sprawling, auto-oriented shopping destination suburb into a walkable urban center. The placement of transit stations there fits well with their plan to increase density and pedestrian-friendliness, and even without that plan, Tysons' population justifies a transit line. Cross-posted at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.
Tanya Snyder is editor of Streetsblog Capitol Hill, which covers issues of national transportation policy. She previously covered Congress for Pacifica and public radio. She lives car-free in a transit-oriented and bike-friendly neighborhood of Washington, DC. 
Comments
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
by dan reed! on Mar 20, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
Businesses that have easy access to these employees via close, walkable connections to Silver Line stations will have a competitive advantage over those that don't.
Having employers at and immediately around suburban stations in Tyson -- or in Prince George's County stations -- will be good for close-in communities, and DC particularly -- because it will make inner jurisdiction communities the places with the greatest access to employment opportunities in the region.
by jnb on Mar 20, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
What a silly statement. If you lived in Reston, for example, instead of downtown DC, would you still call the airport 'far-flung'? Would you still call giving people in, for example, Metro access, 'producing sprawl'.
This article goes a long way in exposing the fundamental weaknesses, and myoptic viewpoint of the so-called 'smartgrowthers' ... the very shortsighted folks who can only see life from the own limited perspective. The folks who can't even phatomed that others may want something different from what they want, and that they have no right to impose their lifestyle on others. I guess the world will always have people like this who cause friction by insisting everyone buy on to their ideas. Hence why we have wars.
by Lance on Mar 20, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
by Lance on Mar 20, 2011 11:59 am • link • report
It will be interesting to see which businesses move to Tysons to take advantage of rail, even though the overall rents will be much higher.
There will also be a problem with capacity on the Silver Line and on the Orange Line west of East Falls Church. The biggest winner in the arrival of the Silver Line will be the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that should see much improved rail service. I've seen one estimate that suggests a 50% improvement in rush hour service.
by tmtfairfax on Mar 20, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Mar 20, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report
by Charlie on Mar 20, 2011 12:31 pm • link • report
by Mark on Mar 20, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report
The Silver Line will strengthen the transit-oriented parts of the area by moving Tysons and Reston into the accessible domain. (Much like late-night train service is important in guaranteeing full accessibility.)
by Ben Ross on Mar 20, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report
Then Metro opened with it's huge free Springfield parking garage and everyone moved from Springfield (including my boss) to Prince William County and exchanged the driving commute from Springfield to DC for the one from Prince William County to Springfield Metro. Ditto Shady Grove and Frederick County.
The net effect on the environment was a big negative if those exurbs wouldn't have otherwise been built as fast.
I'm sure the developers who bought land in Western Loudoun and West Virginia were a major source of pressure in Virginia for the Silver line. I'm also sure eventually most if not a majority of plates on cars at the furthest Silver line garage will have West Virginia plates.
by Tom Coumaris on Mar 20, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report
"The folks who can't even phatomed that others may want something different from what they want, and that they have no right to impose their lifestyle on others."
That sounds like a perfect description of people who insist that everything be build with the car in mind, thus giving people no choice in how destinations are accessed. But I suppose you're
In most parts of Fairfax and Loudon counties if someone wants to access ANYTHING there they are FORCED to use a car. If this isn't a perfect description of "forcing their lifestyle on others" then I don't know what is. But I suppose your "fundamental weaknesses, and myoptic viewpoint" prevents you from seeing this.
by Steven on Mar 20, 2011 5:34 pm • link • report
Care to clarify what you mean here?
by Syrine on Mar 20, 2011 6:34 pm • link • report
Um, I highly doubt that. Look at any other Sunbelt city that boomed during the same period (yes, DC goes in the same bucket as Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, etcetera). Just as much buildout - to be honest, Metro helped preserve the concentration of business in the CBD much more than it would have without it.
by AA on Mar 20, 2011 6:38 pm • link • report
Do you think that development wouldn't have happened without the metro? Or that if instead of metro being built we built a series of highways into and through DC that the same patterns wouldn't have also happened? I don't think its the metro per se but rather the decisions about land use/transportation decisions immediately around the stations.
by Canaan on Mar 20, 2011 7:06 pm • link • report
by Mr Access on Mar 20, 2011 8:05 pm • link • report
I predict Phase II gets canned before too long. Hopefully, the money will be diverted to a better project such as a rail line along Rt.7 that connects Tysons with King Street. This would be Virginia's equivalent of MD's Purple Line.
by Falls Church on Mar 20, 2011 9:17 pm • link • report
Oh wait!
Nothing in the article suggests that Phase II should be built. Every "smart growth" goal could be met by Metro to Tysons. Maybe one more stop to Reston Town Center.
by charlie on Mar 20, 2011 9:50 pm • link • report
We were told then that businesses and government would flee the city without freeways. Did not happen.
When Metro was built the exurbs that couldn't be built without an urban freeway system blossomed.
by Tom Coumaris on Mar 21, 2011 1:42 am • link • report
You have a point there. I was a tad unsettled by the concept of "starving the city" being something that can happen. Development should occur in service to the people, not the city or the transit mode. I'd love to see little town centers grow up around DC. It might not be good for those who want DC to be the only place that sees any growth, but it contributes greatly to the livability of the entire region not to mention the town that would then have anchors.
Where I grew up outside San Francisco, "downtown" meant my town's CBD, not San Francisco's. Not only that, but the town not more than 8 minute's drive away (not via a freeway) had a downtown, as did the one 10 minutes the other direction. Hop on a freeway and there are another 5 little CBDs that anchor towns of 1,200 to 25,000, each with their own character, shops, and users. This occurred thanks to the geography unique to our county, Marin, but in the DC region it can happen because of TOD.
Don't bash the burbs for not being DC; bash the burbs for being hostile to their own residents, and encourage them to become the best they could be.
by OctaviusIII on Mar 21, 2011 1:52 am • link • report
Please, don't faint.
[semi-unrelated] The thing I don't understand is why it is that with documented success stories like Bethesda and Arlington why there isn't more of a concerted effort to revise standards which force more compact growth on designated areas (and not everywhere and on everyone, which defeats the purpose of the power of choice)
by C. R. on Mar 21, 2011 5:53 am • link • report
The Silver Line should have gone to Tyson's and stopped, but it's too late now. The rail connection from Dulles to Tyson's or to DC should have been regional rail, like Paris's RER or London's new Crossrail.
by Greg D. on Mar 21, 2011 7:58 am • link • report
Dense, walkable areas may spring up around a few stations, but don't be surprised if the 1,000 new residents by the station are matched by 15,000 new residents who moved to auto-dependent areas just beyond walking distance of the station. Even if the residents are more likely to use Metro to commute, they're still less likely than their Arlington counterparts to do so and they likely won't use the subway much for non-commuting trips.
It's unwise that we continue to expand the system so far outward while neglecting the many improvements we could make closer in for areas that are already compact and walkable but lack Metro service.
by Eric Fidler on Mar 21, 2011 9:40 am • link • report
HA. HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
HA.
Ahem.
Continue.
by varun on Mar 21, 2011 10:19 am • link • report
Ultimately, as cities and their environs grow, the "urban core," however you choose to percieve it, expands.
And when you impose a draconian height limit, you just force businesses and people to locate themselves farther away from DC.
by EJ on Mar 21, 2011 11:23 am • link • report
by tmtfairfax on Mar 21, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report
With the way things are looking the Red Line will be going to Fredrick/Mt Airy, Blue Line to Dumfries/Beverly Beach, Green to La Plata/Baltimore and the Orange to Severna Park to Haymarket within 40 years.
In the case of Tysons Corner why was the Orange Line was not routed there either skipping West Falls Church or Dunn Loring.
by kk on Mar 21, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report
by mike c. on Mar 21, 2011 2:48 pm • link • report
They are two very different issues. The original WMATA design is about polycentrism and while it may not push sprawl, it doesn't lead to significant improvements in terms of compact development (that's the Belmont thesis).
But the idea of adding stations and access, and also changing land use planning controls and spatial patterns towards compact development, as evidenced by the stations serving Tysons Corner and Reston will lead to intensification and an increased use of transit in ways that will maintain Fairfax County's ability to compete in an environment where automobility is significantly more expensive.
Besides reading Belmont, I'd also recommend this:
http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1546
by Richard Layman on Mar 21, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report
by jipasd on Mar 21, 2011 4:26 pm • link • report
Land near the stations further from Tysons will be less expensive, so we should expect development there. Just as jobs have moved west from Tysons in the past, so to will they continue to move west to take advantage of lower costs and the proximity of many workers living west of Fairfax County.
by tmtfairfax on Mar 21, 2011 6:13 pm • link • report
As Alex Block points out, though, "growth" does not equal "sprawl." Many suburban commuter rail extensions, with their giant Park & Ride lots, are just as capable as highways at enabling auto-oriented sprawl. Heavy rail is more likely to induce compact TOD instead.
by Payton on Mar 22, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report
Is the Purple Line a bad idea, then? Look at where Silver Spring is going: light rail to the next town center over, heavy rail into the city core, and commuter rail to the nearest big city. This is great, and instead of building out heavy rail to Dulles, Virginia should bring Tysons into the Metro network, then focus on helping people get between the areas in the gap between the Orange/Silver and Blue/Yellow lines with a light rail or streetcar system. If Northern Virginia residents can use public transit to commute to other parts of that area, rather than just into and out of D.C., there would be less need for a costly second tunnel or other core heavy rail improvements and the area as a whole would be better for it, partly because there's only so much D.C.'s core can grow with the height limit.
As OctaviusIII said, it's the residents of the metro area we should focus on, and I think that over time a reasonable balance between the needs of walking/transit-oriented people and car owners in the area has evolved. There are a lot of neighborhoods inside the Beltway someone can live in without needing a car, but the parkways and avenues make it very driveable as well (I'm thinking mainly of Rosslyn and the Pentagon/Crystal City area). Those who want a car can live outside 495, but still use park-and-ride or commuter rail to get into the city. If the Silver Line lets more people get jobs (in N.Va/DC) or homes (in Loudoun/W.Va) they'd prefer, I'm all for it.
by jakeod on Mar 22, 2011 9:26 pm • link • report
Add a Comment