Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Putting Lipstick on a Hog

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Patricia Nicoson, president of the Dulles Corridor Rail Association, puts an optimistic spin on the recent decision by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to pursue the “aerial” option rather than the “tunnel” option for the METRO rail extension through Tysons Corner. Many advocates of the project were dismayed by the decision because running the rail above ground would disrupt connectivity between destinations, making it all the more difficult to redevelop Tysons along the lines of a pedestrian-friendly business district.

In a column in the Reston Observer, Nicoson writes, running the rail line above ground provides a “challenge and an opportunity” to produce “memorable building designs serving as landmarks within Tysons Corner…. Thoughtful design and use of air rights could create a unique urban form at the four stations in Tysons, creating a sense of place missing today.”

A rail line hoisted on pylons need not necessarily interfere with the creation of a walkable street grid or “a public realm of plazas, parks, paths and open spaces.” As Tysons redevelops, she suggests, connectivity can be provided by means of pedestrian bridges.

As a bonus, Nicoson suggests, an elevated METRO line will create a better experience for passengers looking out the window. “An elevated line provides the opportunity to view Tysons as one travels through it, which ought to be an enjoyable experience for riders. … Many are likely to prefer an above-ground experience of rail to descending 80 or more feet below ground in a high-speed elevator to a train station in a tunnel.”

I can’t blame Nicoson for putting the best face on an unfortunate decision, which Gov. Kaine was forced to make or run the risk of losing federal funding for the project. But I’m not sure I’m buying it. As the saying goes, “Puttin’ lipstick on a hog don’t make it purdy.”

Note: See Ed Risse’s response by clicking on “comments.”

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

6 responses to “Putting Lipstick on a Hog”

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Letter from Ed Risse to Patricia Nicoson, Sept. 17, 2006:

    Dear Patty:

    Nice rhetoric in the 15 September Reston Observer on elevated METRO-through-Tysons decision. In spite of your best efforts conflicting geometry, physics, engineering and development costs will result in untenable economics and an impossible-to-overcome spacial distribution of land uses.

    It is an economic impossibility and a great physical challenge to aggregate a critical mass of economic activity and a balance of supporting land uses in the 125- acre station-area with the physical elements you list: “Broad boulevards,” “pedestrian bridges” and scenic views from an elevated track over a public right-of-way. This is a formula for economic failure and physical dysfunction.

    A functional station-area distribution of activity would require a massive superstructure that is incompatible with the design elements you list. Such a scheme would require not just prohibitively expensive superstructure and buildings but also a pooling of and/or transfer of property rights from the total 1,500 acres of Tysons corner to the 500 acres within the four station areas.

    A major factor in the impossibility of making the elevated track work is the cost per square foot and the visual impact of very tall (over 45 stories) buildings needed to create supportive intensity within 1,300 feet of the shared-vehicle system platform. The sweet spot on the U-shaped curve of building costs for buildings that support shared-vehicle systems is between 3 and 12 stories. Building tall buildings for anything but the highest value uses do not make sense. Adding two levels of platforms to accommodate the elevated track makes this configuration an economic nonstarter.

    An elevated guide-way with “broad boulevards,” “pedestrian bridges” and scenic views for METRO riders would yield far too little built space within 1320 feet of the shared-vehicle door. Long, uninteresting walks for users of the station-area land uses do not generate station area synergy or balance.

    The most important space for shared-vehicle system supporting land uses is that development closest to the vehicle door. The only way to achieve condition with an elevated track is to build air-rights platforms over the roadways at and above the elevated track within the 125 acre station-areas. That will be far more expensive than if one starts with the shared-vehicle system in a tunnel.

    If the land owners cannot get together to create a viable distribution of uses (they have not so far) and the project cannot afford to support a tunnel, it surely cannot afford to support two extra levels of air-rights platforms. If there are air-rights platforms then the idea of shared-vehicle passenger views, pedestrian bridges and broad boulevards are “out the window.”

    Nice try to create a positive spin on a bad decision but it would not work.

  2. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Patty Nicosin is a good soul.

    She’s stuck with a very, very ugly pig that doesn’t reduce traffic congestion; is likely to be an eyesore; and will cost at least $4 billion before cost overruns. It would be quite hard, indeed impossible, for anyone to make the El look attractive even with all of the resources of Revlon and Este Lauder combined!

    The best thing that could realistically occur would be for the Governor and the General Assembly to agree take the Silver Line away from its route through Tysons Corner and keep in the median of the Dulles Toll Road with only one stop at Tysons. From there, the landowners could construct light rail or BRT to move people through Tysons Corner. While this change would not prevent any risk of cost overruns and the need for operating subsidies, it would reduce the construction costs substantially; improve the cost/benefit ratio; speed trips across the Silver Line; and protect Fairfax County taxpayers against much of the impact of over-development at Tysons without adequate public infrastructure.

    The only downside would be the landowners’ loss of a huge windfall since the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors could not grant the massive increase in density requested by the landowners. But I doubt most people would lose any sleep over that.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m sure Patty got a good laugh.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’ve heard from others that also believe taking Metro West to Dulles and forgetting the Tysons part.

    This.. from ordinary folks who may (or may not) understand the issues .. and I guess I would include myself in that assessment.

    From afar – it “feels” like there is a lot at stake with the Tysons project – for multiple parties – and perhaps for not the same reasons.

    I can see the interest and involvement of those who believe that it presents an opportunity for better land-use that is coordinated with mobility. I guess this is a prime opportunity to show what “good” planning can be.

    I can see the economic interests …this is normal.. opportunities and politics often are bedmates.

    but I feel like I can say this… it seems to me that what people are expecting from Tysons and Metro is far, far more than what they would demand from say.. a new highway and interchange.

    Am I wrong?

    What if we required the same level of design performance (master planning) from a new road or a new interchange BEFORE it would be approved?

    In other words.. opponents of Tysons – both those on or against the tunnel component have identified what they feel are “dealkillers”…. that unless fixed.. doom the project.

    Gawd.. have we ever heard this about new roads?

    just asking… 🙂

  5. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    I strongly suspect that most people who support the extension of Metrorail through Tysons believe that it would reduce traffic congestion. That is a good thing (reducing congestion).

    I used to believe that constructing the Metro extension would bring some measureable traffic relief. But, according to the Commonwealth, it does not. See Table 6.2-2, which I’ve posted on my own infant blog “A Dog with Five Legs.” As I like to ask, is Virginia so flush that it can spend $4 billion on a transportation project that does not improve congestion? I think not.

    What I find extremely telling is that no one who supports the existing project will address that evidence. Patty Nicosin’s best shot has been to argue that it (the Table) just has to be wrong. (I’m not picking on her. She has one ugly pig to dress up. I would be hard pressed to do better.) But query: if Table 6.2-2 is wrong, why should we accept the rest of the EIS?

    The Table demonstrates the real likelihood that a new Tysons Corner, despite all of the hype, will have even more cars and trucks than the existing one does. Yet, too many people pretend otherwise. If Gerry Connolly stood up and said, we will require the new Tysons to have fewer cars and less traffic, it would be one thing. But Mr. Connolly’s colleagues joined him in approving a large increase in parking spaces for the already rezoned Lerner properties. The existing BoS is likely to given the landowners anything that they want. The prior zoning seems to be a pretty strong indication that this so-called coordination of land use and mobility is a farce. But an awful lot of us live near this farce.

    To Larry’s final point, I would also agree that we should do the very same type of analysis for major highway projects. I’ve suggested, in the old Road to Ruin blog, that the State prepare Service Level Agreements for major road projects. Show the taxpayers what they are likely to get for their money.

    We’ll never achieve perfection, but I suspect we could do much better. The low-hanging fruit is abundant. But the low-hanging fruit won’t enrich the landowners.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If folks agree that we have the same fundamental problem with transportation projects be they Metro or Roads could I ask specifically:

    1. – would ANY transportation project that in the process of being built – attracts new development and traffic and enough new congestion to offset potential benefits … pass MUSTER for the purpose of congestion relief?

    2. – The road folks make the argument that new roads while not “relieving” congestion will make it less worse – what a selling point. Is this the case with Tysons also?

    To a certain extent… the term “congestion relief” is a lot like saying “I pay my taxes so build more roads”.

    But perceived “congestion relief” is apparently how many (ALL ?) transportation projects be they roads or transit are SOLD.

    For instance, would the Western Transportation Corridor pass MUSTER on the same issue that Tysons apparently Fails?

    This is the part .. where I feel AGENDAs not only do not belong but are part and parcel of impeding truly understanding what we are accomplishing with our current infrastructure policies.

    I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that what we currently do with roads is grossly expensive and inefficient because we don’t integrate mobility with land-use decisions but as the EIS for Tysons apparently reveals that promoted solution may not be either.

    We’ll have to do a better job of quantifying if we actually want something more than “my way is the best way” approaches. VDOT sort of invented that concept… so probably better for others not to adopt it either.

Leave a Reply

Read More