The Shape of the Future

E M Risse



 

A Home for Homeland Security

 

The search for a Homeland Security HQ sheds new light on the ideal locations for airports, transit and public facilities within the Washington New Urban Region.


 

For those concerned with creating functional human settlement patterns and a nation of secure citizens, last week brought good news. The announcement of an interim headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security was a breath of fresh air. Other potential sites made public over the last month might have been profitable for influential groups at top of the economic food chain, but none would have contributed to creating secure citizens.

 

After weeks of speculation about which locality and which project owner would reap the benefit of a hasty search and an unseemly inter-municipal tug of war, the U.S. Navy Security Station in Washington, D.C., seems like a wise and secure choice for a temporary facility.

 

Few decisions are as important in the National Capital Subregion as the selection of the site for a new federal agency headquarters. The location of the Pentagon in Arlington before World War II, for instance, proved decisive in the evolution of the Northern Virginia economy. Likewise, the location of Homeland Security’s permanent home could shape the Region’s future for decades to come.

 

The Temporary Location

 

The Security Station in not a likely place to anchor an agency’s long-term headquarters, even if only a few of its 170,000 employees actually work there.

 

Contrary to the press coverage, shared-vehicle (aka, transit) access and service is poor. The nearest METRO station is three times the recommended maximum distance from platform to door for effective shared-vehicle operations. Nearly 3/4 mile is not good for college students; it certainly is not acceptable for an agency headquarters. The Tenleytown METRO station is six stops away from the nearest interline transfer station. Relying on a single station that is distant from the core and served by a single line provides neither quality of access nor security. A single breakdown could isolate the facility.

 

Already, buses, taxis and cars fight significant congestion going to or from the Ward Circle area at most hours of day and night. Boosting the number of jobs without augmenting the housing stock, business services and the mobility systems that serve the area is a recipe for gridlock. Helicopter access will cause significant noise and safety issues. 

 

Future public access and visibility are also important. Security in a democracy cannot be a black hole. As the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and now the National Security Agency have learned over the years, public relations and public information are important in a democracy. Over the long term, if governance agencies are to attract talented employees and maintain public support – and, therefore, congressional funding -- they cannot allow themselves to sink into a Darth Vader world of secrecy.  

 

Trains, Planes and Politics

 

As the National Capital Planning Commission’s Plan for the Year 2050 pointed out, many locations would meet the transport and image needs of a new agency. From a land-use and transportation perspective, the best place for the Department of Homeland Security as currently envisioned would be one that supports positive change in the core of the Subregion. For some, the ideal solution seems obvious. But first, some background:

 

Let’s go back to the subregional land-use/

transportation context of the mid-70s. At that time, construction of the METRO rail system was underway. METRO provided the potential for a shared-vehicle system to become the primary armature for transporting citizens of the National Capital Subregion. 

 

In the mid-70s, Washington Dulles International Airport (Dulles Airport) was open and had world-class runways but little air traffic. In fact, the Dulles runways were the longest and least encumbered by inappropriate surrounding development east of the Mississippi. They provided better air-side access than any airport that was within 100 miles of a major New Urban Region’s core. 

 

On the ground side, it was a different story. There was no easy way to get to the Dulles Airport from the core of the National Capital Subregion. Building I-66 inside the Beltway and adding the Dulles Spur helped, but did not solve the location problem. Dulles Airport remains a long drive away from the core.

 

The original plans for Dulles Airport and the Dulles Access Road provided for rail transit in the median. There was, however, no money to build it. A proposed METRO line to Tysons Corner would have gotten METRO cars three miles closer to Dulles Airport but was rejected in favor of the METRO Orange Line terminating at Vienna/Fairfax City. This location was chosen because the Vienna/Fairfax City site was surrounded by vacant land that could be

developed as “transit station-oriented development.” (How that site has developed is a sad story for another time.)

 

While ground access to Dulles Airport’s world-class runways was a problem, Reagan Washington National Airport (“National Airport”), the other airport serving civilian traffic to the Subregion, was plagued by opposite problems. National had short, dangerous runways and a crowded, outdated terminal. The runway problems had existed even for smaller prop-driven aircraft for which National Airport was designed before World War II. As air carriers started using larger planes and jet propulsion, a serious problem of safety and noise impact has become much worse. 

 

The quality of urban life for a million people at home and at work deteriorated every time National added a bigger plane or added a flight. In this context, it is not surprising that a coalition of interests emerged to shift air traffic from National Airport to Dulles Airport. The coalition was made up of public officials, private enterprises and institutions including homes and civic associations that were negatively impacted by overflights. These Friends of Dulles had a unifying theme: Sell all or part of National Airport and use the money to build world-class ground-side access to serve Dulles’ world-class, airside runways.

 

Many questioned the need for four major airports -- Dulles Airport, BWI, Andrews Air Force Base and National Airport -- to serve the cores of Washington-Baltimore New Urban Region. There was consensus that the federal government had to be taken out of the day-to-day operation of the civilian airports.  

 

The Redskins do not often get to the Super Bowl, but political football is played every day at the highest levels in the region. Despite the intelligent alternatives on the table, a deal was cut to keep National Airport open. This was so congresspersons, Supreme Court judges and others could jump on a plane to a fundraiser or their home district without the long drive to Dulles or BWI. As a consequence, three airports were expanded when two could have logically served the New Urban Region.

 

The subregional airport authority that emerged from the negotiations was committed to improving access to and facilities at Dulles Airport but also had an obligation to built a large new terminal and make other improvements at National Airport. Among airports that have spent more than $1 billion in the past decade, National has the most unsafe runways in the world.

 

9/11

 

Then came 11 September 2001. Immediately, it became apparent that it was not smart to have airplanes – each one a potential bomb – flying in and out of National Airport in the core of the Subregion, passing over the Pentagon and flying near the Capitol and White House.

 

The long-term context of air travel has changed as well. Airplanes still make sense for long-distance travel. But for reasons of security, energy consumption and land-use efficiency, high-speed ground travel makes more sense for mid-range trips. 

 

For reasons of security, energy consumption, air quality and quality human environments, it also is apparent that airports need to be located safe distances from concentrations of potential targets of terrorism. This means airports are a long way from large concentrations of potential riders.

 

National Airport was closed for months after 9/11 because planes flying in and out were deemed to be too dangerous to important national assets on the ground. The airport will close again the first time someone tries to light their shoes or necktie on a flight in or out. Just as 11 September 2001 forever made the decision to expand National Airport inappropriate, it also brought into question the location of the Air and Space Museum Annex and the National Reconnaissance Office near the flight paths in and out of Dulles. Both are potential terrorist targets that are very close to the runways.

 

The search for a new home for the Homeland Security Agency gives the Region an opportunity to review past decisions in new light. If the Department of Homeland Security had located near the National Reconnaissance Offices in Chantilly, as was proposed, ponder the impact that a threat to Tom Ridge’s office would have on the operation of Dulles Airport. Consider how much more secure the White House and the rest of the core of the Subregion would be if there were no private or commercial flights in or out of National Airport. Imagine sipping coffee on a terrace in Georgetown, or anywhere along the Potomac, without the roar of planes landing and taking off from National Airport.  

 

The Department of Homeland Security solved its short-term needs for a secure home. It needed a place to get organized. Now we need an open, intelligent review of the long-term alternatives for a permanent home. 

 

The Bigger Picture

 

There is also a larger issue. Is the Department of Homeland Security the right agency to provide security for the citizens of the United States? Again, the land-use location issue provides a context to consider this question.

 

As Aristotle would have put it: Happy and safe citizens are the best assurance of long-term security. 

 

Since the nation-state has turned out not to be a fundamental building block of a secure global society, perhaps we should rethink the idea of assigning the function of homeland security to the national government as opposed to making it a distributed responsibility. Addressing this question is essential for two reasons:

  • Governments will not end terrorism until they end the causes of terrorism;

  • Citizens must have safe dooryards, clusters, neighborhoods, villages and communities if they are to have safe and secure regions from which to build a safe and secure world.

An open discussion of the location of homeland security may provide a forum for consideration of these issues. 

 

In the end, if we do not treat the homeland security issue as another political football game, we may recycle a useful region-shaping strategy.

  • Close National Airport as a commercial airport, sell part of the airport land, and use the funds to build rail access to Dulles as proposed 25 years ago.

  • Swap the Air and Space Museum, still under construction, for the National Airport Terminal.

  • Refashion the Smithsonian facility at Dulles Airport into the long-planned South Dulles Terminal.

  • House the permanent Homeland Security headquarters at National Airport.

  • Allow room at National for other uses, such as a museum/information center on security and safety, or a riverside community could serve as a model for safe, secure human settlement patterns.

These steps would start an evolution toward functional and sustainable human settlement patterns and could contribute to a better balance between transportation-system capacity and land-use trip generation in the Subregion.

 

-- February 3, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed Risse, AICP, is the principal of

SYNERGY/Planning, Inc. He can be contacted at spirisse@aol.com.

 

See profile.