This whole situation is absurd.  Everyone knows that the above-ground option for Metro through Tysons is far inferior to the tunnel option.  Everyone knows that this is a long-term capital investment that will determine whether or not Tysons Corner becomes a thriving, liveable city or not.  Everyone knows that we shouldn't be "penny wise and pound foolish" on this project.  And everyone knows that advanced tunnel-boring technology means that a tunnel is not much more expensive than a far-inferior above-ground option.  Since everyone knows all that, why on earth are we even considering the above-ground option?  Oh yeah, I forgot, we've got "leaders" like Tom Davis and Frank Wolf who apparently do NOT know all that.  Or, maybe they DO know all that, but are simply unwilling to fight for their districts' interests.  Either way, can someone please remind me why voters re-elected these guys this past November?

Unless I'm missing something, law makers like Wolf and Davis could have introduced some sort of law that would've saved the tunnel, rather than just throw their hands in the air and say "There's nothing we can do!"

But, before I make that accusation, I wanted to open this up to the crowd - is there any reason Wolf and Davis could not have introduced such a bill/amendment?

(p.s. Another long term benefit of the tunnel is the maintenance cost.  It's a lot cheaper to maintain tracks that are protected by the elements as opposed to tracks that are getting pummeled by rain, snow, etc. over the years).

the fact that Bechtel, with which Virginia has a "no-bid" public-private partnership to build Metro to Dulles, has given $5,000 to Tom Davis in the past two years?  How about the fact that Frank Wolf has received $9,000 from Bechtel the past few years?

Oh yeah, then there's Washington Group International, the other member of the Bechtel consortium, which has given $3,000 to Tom Davis and $8,000 to Frank Wolf.

Hmmmmm......

Chuck Robb funded the completion of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge with a $600M appropriation from the General Fund instead of from the Transportation Trust Fund (which has lots of strings attached).

What was different?

  - We weren't spending (borrowing) $1.5B/week in a war in Iraq
  - We had a Democratic President who believed on investing infrastructure dollars in our own country
  - We had budget surpluses so we could afford it
  - We didn't had Chuck Robb (not George Allen)

This is doable.  We just have Northern Virginia Republican leadership (Davis & Wolf) who had no interest in cashing in their chits with the President for it.

We "had" Chuck Robb and not George Allen