Tysons Rail Will Not Go Underground

This week, Timothy Kaine, Virginia's new Democratic governor, described the dramatic advantages of building a tunnel for Dulles-bound metro rail trains under Fairfax County's Tyson's Corner shopping and commercial complex rather than an elevated flyover. And then he announced that he'd be supporting the flyover.

I don't intend, however, to criticize Gov. Kaine. In fact, as of last week, it seemed clear to almost everyone that the tunnel under Tyson's would be Kaine's choice, and that the state and private interests would be willing to pay the extra costs for the tunnel. Rather, this sudden decision, which is likely to mean the end of what's been a long-winded discussion over how metro rail trains should access Tyson's, is almost entirely the fault of the federal government.

You see, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which judges the quality of mass transportation projects around the country and awards them grants accordingly, is a misguided agency. The principal problem with the FTA is that the "New Starts" process by which it approves grants is slow, confusing, and unfair to the transit agencies of every city that's interested in building a modern transit network.

The specific issue in question in relation to the Dulles Metro Rail Project is whether or not trains traveling on a new line between Dulles Airport and the District of Columbia ought to speed underground when they reach the Tyson's Corner area, or whether they ought to fly above on elevated tracks. The rationale for the construction of this metro line makes the answer obvious: planners, businessmen, and ordinary citizens in Fairfax County are interested in transforming the sprawling area into a vibrant district modeled on a traditional downtown. Such a change is not possible without reworking the area's streets into a grid format and allowing easy access to the metro stations. Everyone knows that having trains moving quietly underground, with street-level access to stations, is clearly preferable to watching trains speed by - loud and often - 35 feet above the streets. There's the added advantage that the tunnels will last twice as long as the elevated tracks.

Why, then, will the project likely be built above ground through Tyson's? Because, as Kaine puts it, "too many unanswered questions remain about cost and timing." And why is that? Because the FTA, influenced by congressmen and the President's personal preferences, cannot answer questions about changes to projects until it makes its yearly report. So transit agencies, and in this case, the Governor of Virginia, are forced to make assumptions based on what local Congressmen tell them (in Virginia, Rep. Wolf). Here, it was assumed that even though the extra cost of tunneling would be paid for by the state and corporations, the federal government would eventually decide that Virginia had the right to no federal funding. Tunnels, they were expected to state, are needless fancies. In a meeting between Kaine and the FTA's administrator James Simpson, the latter told the former that the federal government would have no obligation to the project - which it has supported for years - if the tunnel option were chosen.

It is difficult to imagine why the FTA - if it were influenced by the forces of rationality - would object to improvements to a new transit line that would undoubtedly increase ridership, improve riders' experience, and allow for more efficient land use planning, especially when the federal government wouldn't even have to pay for those changes. But the FTA does not emphasize the important difference between tunnels and elevated tracks when it makes its decisions. Nor does it give local transit agencies the right to decide for themselves what qualities are most important to them when designing their systems.

Admittedly, FTA would probably argue that it has developed a set of rules to analyze whether or not projects ought to be funded, and that process ought to be maintained to simplify the criteria for New Start projects. But the criteria are obviously flawed in this case - the tunnel through Tyson's Corner is far superior to the elevated line and the federal government wouldn't have to pay for those "extras." The extremely long process I described in North Carolina that eventually meant the failure to develop regional rail there is another symptom of these mistaken rules.

Criticism of the Federal Transit Administration, however, is in the end simply an expression of dissatisfaction with the federal government's tight-pocketed approach to funding mass transit. The reason FTA cannot come out in support of a tunnel has little to do with any administrator's personal fetish for overhead railways; rather, the Bush Administration underfunds public transport everywhere. With dozens of cities competing for a very limited supply of the federal pot, FTA can very easily ask for what it wants - exactly what it wants - because there are many other agencies very, very interested in the $2 billion eventually likely to committed to the Dulles Rail Project.

If indeed the Tyson's Corner section of the rail line is built above ground - as seems increasingly likely - it will be very difficult for Virginia's planners to develop a livable "downtown" there in the center of Fairfax. On the other hand, perhaps Dulles Rail could serve as a case study in how to manage development along elevated lines. There certainly are ways to build along such structures in a pedestrian-friendly manner. God knows that many elevated metro rail stations in Chicago, New York, and even Washington could benefit from such an example.