The need for a tunnel is obvious, yet we appear to be headed toward an elevated monstrosity.  I would like to suggest a new approach to saving the tunnel. 

The problem is with the Federal Transit Administration's cost-effectiveness requirement.  The concern is that the cost of the tunnel will cause the project to fail the test, and thus federal support would be lost. 

However, the cost-effectiveness test generally looks at the overall costs and benefits of the project.  Thus, if the overall costs could be reduced, the tunnel may be accomodated within the parameters of the cost-effectiveness standard. 

TysonsTunnel has been trying to reduce overall costs through competition.  Although competitive bidding may result in lower costs, it may not, thus making competitive bidding somewhat of a risky strategy, particularly if the bidding process introduces even more delays (e.g., inflation). 

There is one sure way of reducing costs that TysonsTunnel ought to consider.  I also think this is an approach that the Federal Transit Administration might welcome. 

The answer is to switch modes.  Heavy rail is the most expensive transit technology available.  It is best suited to extremely dense urban environments (think New York or Chicago), not to suburban environments like the Dulles Corridor.

In fact, the new cost estimate (over $5 billion) makes Dulles Rail the single most expensive transit project in the country.  It's even more expensive than New York's Second Avenue Subway, yet Dulles Rail is projected to carry less than half of the daily passengers projected for the Second Avenue Subway. 

Dulles Rail, as a heavy rail project, is clearly not sustainable.  Switching modes may be the best option to preserve the project and to reduce the cost sufficiently to enable a tunnel through Tysons Corner. 

I believe that the best mode option would be BRT.  The most expensive surface BRT projects have cost around $25 million per mile.  Dulles Rail currently is projected to cost around $224 million per mile.  The potential cost savings are enormous, creating substantial opportunities to fit a tunnel within the project scope. 

Moreover, the service possible with a BRT system would be superior to the service currently planned for Dulles Rail.  For example, Dulles rail will have just one train every 7 minutes during peak hours.  A BRT system could have vehicles departing every minute, or even more frequently.

Dulles rail is an "all-stop" service, meaning that regardless of your destination, you must stop at every station along the way.  For some passengers, this means 20 or more stops, creating significant delays. 

By contrast, most BRT systems offer express services, skipping all of the unwanted stations and making the total travel time much shorter.

Finally, switching to BRT does not preclude the possibility of converting to rail at a future date.  Indeed, several BRT systems have been designed and built with future conversions in mind.  The idea is to get the infrastructure in place and build the ridership in the corridor, thus making rail a more viable option in the future.

I applaud Scott for his diligent efforts to get a tunnel for Tysons Corner.  It seems to me that all reasonable efforts have been exhausted to get a tunnel for rail.  The only remaining option is to switch to another mode.

If we do not switch to another mode, it seems to me that the two most likely outcomes are an elevated train, or no new transit service at all.  Both of these outcomes are unacceptable.

we should go to another mode like BRT.  An investment of this order of magnitude to build an economically marginal AT BEST, 100-year white elephant to Dulles is a huge mistake.  Why are we all continuing to speed towards the cliff instead of hitting the brakes?!?

have suddenly, ah, surfaced, as an objection to a tunnel. I am suspicious of this bugaboo, and wonder why pro-elevated faction suddenly brought this up. If we could build a tunnel under the English Channel, how can underground problems stymie the Tysons' tunnel? Where is the evidence that hidden defects in the ground would make a Tysons tunnel too expensive?  Any comments on this red herring?

What I can't understand is the "rail, right or wrong" attitude of Gerry Connolly. He gives lip service to how a tunnel would be better, but always ends up with "But we must have rail to Dulles, I've worked for it for years, blah blah blah." 

So does he want the monstrous failure of elevated rail to be his legacy? That's puzzling enough in its own right. But to want that when it is so clearly contrary to what the citizens of Fairfax County want? Why do we have to suffer through the construction, operation and failure of elevated rail so that Connolly can have his dream of a legacy fulfilled?

The Wash Post had an article about the Providence District primary being a referendum on Connolly, because Charlie Hall is challenging Connolly's hand-picked crony, Linda Smyth. And it seems like the Post has is right because Connolly has ramped up the personal attacks on Charlie Hall (calling him the worst thing he can think of -- A Republican! Cover the children's ears!)

This kind of behavior alone would be enough to make me vote for Charlie Hall. But I also like it that Hall has challenged the Connolly and his Board to have a public hearing on whether Fairfax citizens should write a blank check for the misguided rail-to-Dulles-at-any-cost policy of the Board (and its Chairman).

So hang in there, Charlie. They may call you worse than "Republican" before this is over (what would that be, "Naderite"?), but in the end I'm betting they will be calling you "Supervisor Hall."

Charlie Hall was the first one -- on April 30th, to call not only for a single public hearing where citizens get a brief 3-minutes at the podium, but a series of Town Halls to fully flesh out public sentiment. 

If Connolly, Smyth and the Board REALLY wanted to push for the tunnel, they would maximize public input in order to gain leverage with Richmond.

My comment on another recent diary:

Let's See How Much Effort Is Demonstrated (0.00 / 0) 
Strategically, if the Board really wanted to pressure Kaine to reconsider a tunnel, they would do this:
-postpone the 6/18 vote
-hold a couple Town Halls for unrestricted public input
-advertise a full public hearing before they vote

Then the Board could rely on the voice of the people to back them when they tell Richmond they just can't vote to fund a $5.15 billion project for an elevated train.

Remeber, Kaine himself said the Board has NEVER told him they would not support an EL through Tysons. He needs to hear that from them NOW, and the best cover the Board has for taking that stand is the strong vibrant will of the citizens.

So, if the Board proceeds with the 6/4 staff briefing and an up/down vote on 6/18 with no public input, what will that tell us? 

Just in case anyone needs an answer, it will tell us that the Board has already decided to fund the project no matter what, saddling Fairfax taxpayers and toll road commuters with an unending obligation to fund what will surely be ever-escalating costs. 

I think this letter means that the Board has already decided.  So that means that they will "Hear No Citizens".

If the Board today postpones the 6/18 vote, it will be thanks to Charlie and TysonTunnel.org for putting the pressure on!  If they don't, it means they have already decided to stick us with the EL.

The "El" it will be, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead (with a secretive, no-bid contract to "Big Dig" Bechtel!).  This meeting, which I plan to attend, appears to be a charade, nothing more.  Ah, Democracy Fairfax County style. 

The BoS will hide behind losing the 900 million in federal dollars.

My question is between, the tunnel savings in cost and time and opening the contract to competitive bidding you could propably save 900 million dollars right there.

Not to mention how much better the property values, nieghborhood areas, and future will be with a tunnel instead of the aerial option.  You could propably gain another 900 million there also.

So, in order to save 900 million go with an ugly obstructive solution when a tunnel could arguably save almost double that. 

Heck of a job BoS heck of a job 

n/t