RK ARCHIVE - With All Due Respect...

1. As a general rule, doing something in a panic leads to bad decision making. In this case, Tucker and others are panic-stricken that we might "lose" the entire rail to Dulles project if any changes are made. Well, with all due respect, that's pitiful. Do it right, or don't do it at all, that's the way I was raised. So what if we have to wait a few years; this is a 100+-year project, and if we do it wrong, our great grandchildren will be smacking their heads saying "what the HECK were they THINKING?!?"

2. Tucker says that the price of rail to Dulles is fixed, but then writes that just "69 percent of the $1.6 billion contract is fixed." As Scott Monett, president of Tysonstunnel.org, says: "if 31 percent of it is not fixed, [the contract] is not fixed." Hmmmm.

3. One major "alternative" - the tunnel option - has been demonstrated to be better in almost everyway. It also has overwhelming public support. For more on the cost (and other) benefits of a tunnel over the "aerial option," see the Washington Post column by Roger K. Lewis, professor emeritus of architecture at the University of Maryland, "Why Going Underground Makes Sense in Tysons Corner."

4. This is a "bass-ackwards" process, which start with the premise that we can't "lose" the money so we'd better do SOMETHING, then goes backwards and says "we already decided to do the bad option, now there's nothing we can do about it if we don't want to 'lose" the money." Then it ignores studies that say the tunnel option will actually cost far less over the long haul, not even counting the benefits in terms of Tyson's "smart" development and fewer economic losses during the years of construction. This is, frankly, nuts.

Again, with all due respect, this one's a no-brainer. Build the thing right, or delay it until it CAN be built right. If not, citizens of Northern Virginia will be cursing the people who made this decision for generations to come.

By the way, there's a big meeting on June 4 about this project, and TysonsTunnel.org is urging everyone to be there "to demand Transparency and Competitive Bidding for the entire Dulles Metrorail project."

Comments

Ponder this NoVA as you sit in traffic! (Shenandoah Democrat - 5/22/2007 8:02:47 AM)

This Tysons rail project is a great example of what happens when there is absolutely no real environmental review of major development projects. Such a cursory review of thsi review would show this project will cause more congestion, a less friendly pedestrian environment, and incredible delays during construction itself. Such a review would also have to consider alternatives. Under procedures in some states, e.g. The California Environmental Quality Act signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1972, these project impacts would have to be mitigated or the project would not be able to proceed. In this case mitigation is simple; bury the rail line. Unfortunately, Virginia has no required environemntal review of such projects and the low key efforts of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to establish an "environemntal checklist" (review) has been thwarted for years by politics, flat earth idiots, (mainly Republicans) and general inertia. It is incredible to me that a state like Virginia is going through such rapid growth and social changes and yet the State government has a tin ear to the problems. Look at any other state with such rapid development and you'll likely find a much more serious environmental review program. Wake up Virginia, we're in the 21st century with a 18th century governmental attitude towards environmental impacts, (you can do whatever you want on your land).

This is exactly (Eric - 5/22/2007 12:35:57 PM)

why we need elect new representatives this year. It's mostly about getting rid of the true flat earth Republicans, but there also some Democrats with blinders on (or worse, in the pockets of those who imped progressive).

We all need to get out to the primaries next month and work our butts off for representation.

RE Costs / Benefits of Tunnel option ... (A Siegel - 5/22/2007 3:31:00 PM)

The Lewis article was very good but, imo, too limited in scope in terms of calculating cost/benefit. It focused simply on the cost/benefit in terms of digging the tunnel and maintaining it versus the above ground option.

If we think more holistically, about the systems-of-systems for the area:

* How much more land will be available for use if tunnel rather than above ground? For houses, offices, parks? What is the footprint difference?
* What will be the quality-of-life difference for homeowners/others for tunnel vs above ground?
* Related to both of those, what will be the difference in terms of real-estate values and real-estate taxes in the effected area? For example, if the tunnel option enables 500 acres to be built up at $1 million/acre of land value with, let us say, $2 million / acre of building value, and there are 20,000 homes who will have a $25,000 additional value due to not having sound of above-ground tunnel, that is $2 billion of assessed value, or roughly $20 million/year in tax revenue. (Note -- the actual tax is likely to be higher than that.) Where does the impact on property taxes get applied in this scenario?
* And, related, there is the economic activity. The homes would buy/sell for higher value. That additional land would have workers/buildings/etc generating economic activity.

By the way, I wonder if they calculate in the tunnel option that the trains, themselves, would use less energy for heating/cooling due to the underground moderating effect?

Hear! Hear! (brimur - 5/22/2007 3:41:14 PM)

Is there a resource where I can get a better understanding of how this all started? Specifically, how did the federal money get so tethered to a particular way of developing the project?
What funds are these?

My wife, who does transportation appropriations issues, among other things, in the House informs me (assuming my understanding is correct)that it is unusual that the authorization was ever written such that it forecloses any adjustments in approach to achieve the same project.