Universal dismay — that’s the public reaction to the decision to stick with the elevated rail system in Tysons Corner. With a $4 billion expenditure at stake and the potential that the rail system in Tysons Corner would last 120 years with a tunnel, compared to 60 years for the elevated design, it’s worth the fight to keep the tunnel option alive.
Our congressional delegation says it feared federal funds would be lost because of “cost effectiveness” criteria if Virginia switched to the tunnel option. Yet, the elevated system poses far greater risks that it will fail to achieve ridership and cost effectiveness goals than does the tunnel.
An elevated system above two virtual “highways,” Routes 7 and 123, will make it very difficult to create the inspired and pedestrian-friendly urban design necessary to attract enough riders to the system. It is simply human nature that longer, less convenient and more sterile walking environments from transit stations to homes, offices and stores reduce the desire to combine transit and walking.
Moreover, the years of disruptive construction and traffic are likely to chase both small retail businesses and major corporations to outlying areas. Tysons Corner may never recover.
In fact, developers who favor massive additional growth around Dulles Airport probably wish to push the system to Dulles as fast as possible, saving time and money on the Tysons Corner segment. And with Tysons Corner less attractive and less competitive due to disruptive construction, there’s yet more opportunity to lure corporations away.
Too many boosters are treating the rail system as a trophy and marketing tool, yet fail to understand how critical it is to integrate transit into a pedestrian-friendly urban fabric. A case in point is the recent effort to cut essential facilities for maximizing pedestrian access tothe stations. If we don’t want the $4 billion investment to turn into a white elephant, then we have to get the urban design right. The tunnel offers the best opportunity to do this.
We need look no farther than Arlington’s Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor to see the value of an underground rail line. Arlington and the federal government invested an additional $300 million (in 1970s dollars) to build the line underground instead of in the middle of Interstate 66, as was first proposed. The Metro revitalized a declining inner suburb, generating 30 million square feet of development and more than $10 billion in assessed value, with very little increase in traffic. Car ownership and car trips are significantly lower than regional averages.
Fifty-four percent of workers in the R-B corridor use transit (38 percent), carpool (8 percent), or walk to work (8 percent). Unlike the outer stations on the Orange Line, the R-B corridor stations generate trips in both directions throughout the day, maximizing the value of the investment. Development focused at the stations uses just 2.4 square miles of land instead of the 14 square miles that would have been paved over under with conventional suburban development.
As important as the urban design advantages are the relative life-cycle costs. The American Society of Engineers analysis clearly demonstrates that the a tunnel will have a 120-year life and lower maintenance costs compared to the 60-year life of an elevated system.
So, here’s a proposal: Adopt a “two-track” approach, funding a reasonable amount of engineering design and cost analysis for the tunnel while continuing to design the elevated system. Then evaluate these more detailed proposals in a competitive procurement that considers all lifecycle costs. This would also allow Fairfax County’s Tysons Corner urban redesign study to link up with the station area planning. It might even provoke design solutions that make the elevated system succeed.
The governor, congressional delegation, architects, urban planners, land owners, business leaders, local officials and residents, The Washington Post and the smart growth community all believe a tunnel is the best option for rail in Tysons Corner. So let’s give it a chance and be sure that we’ve done this right.
Stewart Schwartz is executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth
