I couldn't agree more with
this analysis:
A number of Washington area urbanists have spoken out on the foolishness of extending Metrorail to Centreville. I think they have a point — Metro is the highest capacity, and most expensive, transit option in the area. Long-distance extensions should only be considered if there is the potential for a major change in land-use. The Silver Line, for instance, constitutes a third trunk line through Fairfax County. That establishes a case around which light rail can be constructed to create a local network, and of course it will facilitate the transformation of Tysons Corner, which is a very worth goal. Other outer suburb locations with slightly less potential will be better served by light rail connections to trunk lines or commuter rail.
But it’s striking to me that capacity expansion in the District is the very last thing on this list. It should be the first. The Silver Line is going to pay off in a big way for Virginia, but the return will be less than it could be thanks to capacity limitations in the core. The Orange and Blue line tunnel under the Potomac (which will also serve Silver Line passengers) is a notorious bottleneck, and the limited core capacity in the District is rapidly generating intolerable conditions on downtown platforms. Too many people want to be on Metro, and too many core places are underserved by Metro.
I also agree with Matthew Yglesias on this same subject:
...any well-functioning metropolitan area benefits from having strong transportation links into and through its core. Sound regional planning needs to take into account the fact that a peripheral node is useful to the residents of the immediate area, but core investments benefit a wider circle of people.
Look, I'm all for providing appropriate cost-effective, mass transit options for the non-core regions (e.g., Centreville, Manassas). But "strengthening the core" is the...well, "core" of smart growth as opposed to the "sprawl model" that is so clearly unsustainable.
