It certainly looks like the Sierra Club strongly opposes rail to Dulles without a tunnel.  To their credit, they have been skeptical for some time.  In 2003, the Sierra Club suggested that the Commonwealth ought to look at alternatives to heavy rail in the corridor. 

Of course, the Commonwealth has ignored calls to study alternatives, just like they are ignoring calls to look at the tunnel.  Indeed, the Warner Administration insisted upon moving forward with an elevated rail alignment without serious consideration of options.  Heck, it's only a few billion dollars and the future of Tysons Corner --  who has time for comparison shopping!

Now, it is painfully obvious that the strategy has backfired and that the project is collapsing.  The real victims here are the people of Fairfax, who could have had a high quality rapid transit system years ago. 

Charlie Hall is right that every time we are stuck in traffic, it is the result of poor planning or bad decisions somewhere.  The botched management of Dulles rail is unfortunately part of that pattern. 

Tim Kaine said he hasn't heard people saying there shouldn't be rail to Dulles if there's no tunnel.

Here is the text of a 2003 letter that appeared in the Connection papers, co-signed by the Sierra Club.  It seems quite prophetic now, doesn't it?  Indeed, the message applies even more today than it did four years ago.

Why Not Other Options?
December 16, 2003

To the Editor:
The recent failure of the financing plan for Dulles Rail made clear that it will be a long time before rail to Dulles will be built, if it gets built at all. Yet, congestion and air quality problems continue to grow.
Fairfax County elected officials need to come up with a plan to provide quality rapid transit in the Dulles Corridor now, regardless of the ultimate outcome of Dulles Rail. There are alternatives, like light rail, express bus, or BRT, that could be implemented sooner and at far less cost than MetroRail - most likely with money already in hand for rapid transit improvements in the Corridor. These solutions would not preclude building MetroRail in the future, if the financing problems can be worked out.

Over the past decade, we have been offered a false choice -Metrorail or nothing in the Dulles Corridor. No Plan B was developed or even seriously considered, even though alternatives have been available since the mid-1990s and repeatedly brought to the attention of local leaders by us and others.

The time has come to give serious, objective consideration to alternatives that can be built quickly within available resources. To continue pretending that only Metrorail can meet our rapid transit needs is not an option.

 
Smyth, Connolly, and the rest of the Board continue to sit on their hands and have eyes that don't see and hears that don't hear.  Thank heavens for the Tysons Tunnel group.

Now what is confusing to me is how can the Sierra Club endorse Linda Smyth and also come out in opposition to the aerial.  Smyth has always supported the aerial.  Sure she now says that she "prefers" the tunnel, but will she say, "Tunnel or not build."  Does she have to check with Connolly to see what he wants.  As posted earlier, Connolly wants the rail period.  He certainly has not said, tunnel or nothing. Too many campaign dollars taken from special interest goups, I guess.

 

I work for a Nuclear division of Bechtel, and believe me, I'm not too keen on many things my company does.  But they have more often than not had very successful engineering ventures.  Despite the fiasco of the Big Dig in Boston, they are one of the best civil engineering construction companies around.

I don't know about the local situation for the Metro Rail, but it does seem strange to want to move the rail below ground there, as it is already above ground at most Virginia stops.

Could somebody enlighten me as to why this is such a huge issue?

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

1. Looking at a map of Metro, it appears almost all the city and inner suburb stations are below ground, while the further you head out, they become mostly above ground.

2. Why it's a big deal to have below ground stations in urban areas?  See TysonsTunnel.org for an excellent list of reasons.

3. I would add that the entire vision of Tysons Corner as a walkable, liveable urban area depends on mixed use development and density done in a smart way.  For a great example of this, see Ballston.  If there's an aerial route, many people believe that this vision will be ruined.

4. It actually appears that with new single-bore technology, a tunnel will be both quicker AND cheaper than the aerial route.  According to TysonsTunnel.org, "The single-bore tunnel (not considered in 2002) is now expected to be $200-$600 million less expensive and 6-12 months faster to build than the aerial based on independent engineers estimates and fixed-pricing from a qualified contractor."

Hope your eyes haven't glazed over by now.  Ha.

Having aerial tracks is going to maintain a landscape that remains unfriendly to pedestrians.  Tysons cannot get much less pedestrian friendly, but we're supposed to be planning for a BETTER future here, one where people can bike and walk and use public transportation and be freed from their cars if they want to be freed from their cars.  Aerial tracks are a short-sighted, band-aid of a solution.  I just see ugliness and gridlock coming out of this. 

Thank you, Lowell!  I can see why this is such an important issue now.  I spent a good bit of my life running away from NoVa, so I confess I don't know what goes on up there as well as I ought.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Here is an artist's rendering of what the Tyson's El would look like. 

Can you imagine that down the center of BOTH Rte 7 AND Rte 123? 

And a lot of the pedestrian briges and elevators were cut out during the last round of "project shaving" to try to trim costs (and that was a year ago when costs were estimated at a mere $2billion). 

The Board says they will get the money for those amenities from developers, but guess what developers ALWAYS get in exchange for such goodies?  EXTRA density! 

Just think, you could live in a highrise overlooking the noisy EL which would actually be pretty inaccessible once you got down to street level.

It has so much nice pretty green with so few cars on a pedestrian friendly route 7.  Ah, the "el" will be soooo nice.

Yeah, right.  Anyone who's ever been on route 7 knows it looks nothing like that now and the "el" advocates are seriously delusional if they think the end result will look anything like that pic.