What I don't understand is, years ago when the $900 million in federal funding was at risk, it was because projected ridership was just barely above the threshold to meet federal value guidelines. If projected ridership shows no overwhelming desire for this line, why do it at all? There is clearly no need for a rush decision.

The tunnel proposition is solely for the further enrishment of The West Group and othe developers with a stake in Tysons who want to tout METRO-accessible office space, apartments, and condos. The ridership numbers are not and will not be there to make the Tysons rail line a winning proposition. If Fairfax County and the Commonwealth want a realistic, economically-sound proposition for improving Tysons traffic, create a toll area here similar to the London congestion charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge in order to get people out of their cars and urban assault vehicles and to pay for road and air quaility improvements. Anything else is lunacy!

The London congestion charge only worked because there was lots of transit into the area where tolls were charged - in fact, 90% of commuters arrived by transit. It was further accompanied by a massive expansion of bus service.

A congestion charge to enter Tysons, before Metro is built, amounts to a head tax since driving is now the only convenient way to get there. This might possibly make sense if it was used to pay for the Metro expansion, but a head tax is really a less equitable source of funding than the developer contributions that are being used.

Ridership numbers are a very silly way to plan mass transit systems. History teaches us quite clearly that development occurs around transit, rail transit specifically. Assuming that virigina properly zones the areas around the new metro stops as dense urban overlay zones, as montgomery county does in maryland, ridership will be no problem. Ridership problems will only occur if zoning continues in the sprawling shopping mall suburban style of the tysons of the past 10-20 years. From everything I've read, that is not the plan for the future - walkable, dense urban development is the new tysons to come. As long as urban planning and transit planning go properly hand in hand, then basing transit decisions on current ridership estimates, a decade before the project is to be complete is completely insane. That being said, I think transit is far more important than underground transit. Underground transit is a luxery. We don't bury our roads underground - unless we're boston, and they seemingly dont do it very well - I dont see why we expect our transit, which operates at a much more efficient density than roadways, to be necessarily buried underground. Elevated railways coexist beautifully in numerous neighborhoods in brookly, queens and the bronx in our neighbor to the north. assuming VA's transit planners and urban planners work hand in hand, there should be no problem whatsoever with elevated lines. Tunneling is simply a multimillion dollar way of being lazy with our urban planning.

TransitRider: there are plenty of transit options for getting into and out of Tysons, other than the automobile. My vehicle was recently in the shop at Koons Chevy for over three months (incompetence), and I got to work by rail and bus just fine. Admittedly, rail and bus frequency could be improved, but rail to Tysons, much less Dulles, is not urgent.

Shame on that bigolpoofter guy...

Factually, Tysons accounts for 33% of the expected ridership for Phase I of the rail extension to Dulles, and the project meets the FTA cost effectiveness criteria based partially on this projected ridership.

WEST*GROUP is one of the few developers in Tysons pushing for the tunnel even though the bulk of their land is protected from the proposed elevated rail lines and would likely be relatively more valuable than other land in Tysons if rail is built above ground.

The tunnel proposition includes a demand for competitive bidding which would serve all taxpayers.

If you simply want to take an easy shot at a developer, investigate where the other big guys are on this issue. WEST*GROUP seems to be trying to do the right thing without the support of the other big developers in Tysons.

Even the studies commisioned by the Silver Line's most ardent supporters don't show sufficient projected ridership to justify this boondoggle.

This is a waste. It won't reduce congestion and it won't provide any transit service that doesn't already exist.

Let's call the Silver Line what it is: a developer's dream, a politician's ego trip, and a transit advocate's opportunity to prevent road-building by gobbling up funds.

While we're at it, 2 questions:

1. Why the rush build a rail line of dubious benefit when necessary roads are studied and litigated ad nasuem? The new Wilson Bridge and the ICC come to mind.

2. This one is directed to pjb:

Why is it OK to ignore ridership projections and build a $4 billion rail line, THEN encourage development to "make it work" but development caused by a road is derided as "sprawl"? I would really like that one explained.

CEEAF:

To answer your second question first: because development caused by a road is usually essentially different in such ways that it would qualify as sprawl. Sprawl is a matter of organization (or more precisely a lack thereof) in transportation, not a matter of cars or not. Reston Town Center is not particularly sprawling, nor is Kentlands.

Furthermore, to answer your first question, the ICC and the Wilson Bridge either have been or will be built at the expense of transit. Specifically, the Silver Line was halved - it was originally planned to follow Route 7 to King Street - in order to pay for the Wilson Bridge reconstruction, and the Purple Line has been all but shelved in order to fund ICC construction. I'm not sure what the issue is here, other than the shoe fitting the other foot.

These people should get a life.

I can see the logic in extending Metro to Tyson's, but to Dulles NO WAY.

Also, the argument that a tunneled will support the "urbanization" model and an elevated line won't is pretty weak. Elevated rail works in an urban setting quite well. Chicago's Loop is a case in point.

If it's a matter of aesthetics, then the tunnel advocates should simply get real and say so. But the "urbanization" angle simply doesn't fly.

On another note, one thing that confuses me is why the transit advocates are clamoring for rail to Dulles instead of an Orange Line extension to Centerville or Manassas. That's where the the projected ridership and potential traffic congestion relief REALLY are.

I can't believe you guys are actually trying to debate the merit of building a metro to Dulles Airport! I live only a ten minute drive from Dulles. But I live anywhere from forty minutes to who knows when from D.C. or even from the West Falls Church Metro. Over a million people live within close proximity to the new planned line to Dulles. Plus the new line allows the rest of the D.C. metroplitan area to easily come to us. If this is not a no brainer than nothing is.

I notice that CEAFF chose not to respond to Daniel's explaining the difference between sprawl and new urban development. This isn't the first time he's posed the question, received the same response and chosen to ignore the logic.

I don't think that Silver line advocates are necessarily against extending the Orange line, but that very worthwhile project isn't in the funding or planning pipeline, whereas the Silver line is.

Personally, I think that the concept of extending the Orange line is a great idea, but with current ridership on the Orange line and the increased numbers once the Silver line goes in, I don't see how it would be feasible to simply extend the current Metro line. Rather, I think that there would need to be express lines going from far out to close in with stops at several key transfer stations and job centers. Of course, this would require a third rail and new Potomac crossing. I think that the Silver line and an expanded Orange line could combine to significantly ease traffic in Northern Va, but that would be some serious money. And with all the problems Virginia is currently raising funds, I don't know if all that would ever happen.

"the ICC and the Wilson Bridge either have been or will be built at the expense of transit. "

It can reasonably be argued that the DC freeway system was shelved in favor of transit. Not to mention 30 years of canceling scheduled roads and building out Metro as planned.

" Purple Line has been all but shelved in order to fund ICC construction."

This simply isn't true. The ICC has been on the planning boards for over 50 years; opposition from a loud handful has delayed the project and pushed up the cost, which BTW, is more than 50% funded by the Feds. It's disingenuous to say that the ICC has taken funding away from the Purple Line, which BTW, is of dubious benefit.

" I'm not sure what the issue is here, other than the shoe fitting the other foot"

That's exactly what it is. In this region, there is a group of people - far from the majority - who favor transit over roads. Historically, they've gotten their way. Now that things have changed a bit, they don't like it.

"To answer your second question first: because development caused by a road is usually essentially different in such ways that it would qualify as sprawl. Sprawl is a matter of organization (or more precisely a lack thereof) in transportation, not a matter of cars or not."

I beg to differ. To transit advocates, if a place is accessible to a heavily-subsidized, money-losing, non-scalable train operated by union labor, it's a good thing - "transit accessible, smart growth", they like to call it. If you can get there by yourself in - heaven forbid - it's "sprawl".

" Reston Town Center is not particularly sprawling, nor is Kentlands."

Agreed. I lived in Reston for 13 years, so I know the difference. However, Reston and Kentlands must connect to the rest of the world, and everyone can't get there by rail, nor should they be expected to.

" Over a million people live within close proximity to the new planned line to Dulles. Plus the new line allows the rest of the D.C. metroplitan area to easily come to us."

Then why the low ridership projections?

Daniel M. Laenker,

You say:

"Furthermore, to answer your first question, the ICC and the Wilson Bridge either have been or will be built at the expense of transit. Specifically, the Silver Line was halved - it was originally planned to follow Route 7 to King Street - in order to pay for the Wilson Bridge reconstruction, and the Purple Line has been all but shelved in order to fund ICC construction."

My reponse:

As I mentioned before, your claim that the ICC comes "at the expense of transit", namely the Purple is not at all true, no matter how transit advocates and ICC opponents try to spin it.

The ICC has been on the planning boards for over 50 years; much of the right-of-way and funding were long-ago acquired. What's held it up, and driven up the cost, have been the efforts of intractible opponents who are determined to stop it, despite their being a small minority.

As for the Purple Line, the right-of-way hasn't even been decided upon, nor have the necessary studies been completed. And it's hardly been "all but shelved"; the O'Malley administration is moving forward with the studies. If (and that's a big if), the funding for the Purple Line is in jeaprody, Look no further than Dulles rail. It's the most expensive public transporation project currently afloat in the US. You can't blame the ICC since the ICC is being funded by long-ago allocated Federal dollars and tolls.

Regarding the Alexandria leg of the Silver Line, I've done some research and I can't come up with anything that mentions a "Silver Line" along Route 7 from King Street to Tysons or beyond. Do you have a link?

I've lived in the region since 1988. Because of the effect of the traffic on my business, I've followed transportation issues in this region very closely. I really don't recall discussion of a Silver Line as you described in the 18+ years I've been here.

In any case, such a rail line would have been unnecessary in the Falls Church-Seven Corners areas with the Orange Line so close by. The density of the area between Seven Corners and Old Town Alexandria would require a tunnel, which would have been cost-prohibitive and I doubt if an elevated line would have been acceptable to residents. Also, at the time Metro was being planned, Alexandria was not the job center it is now. Neither was Tysons. Therefor, logic tells me a Silver Line wouldn't have made much sense or gotten much support at that time.

It's quite amusing and quite disingenuous that you would allege and complain that the original Silver Line was killed by transferring the funding to the Wilson Bridge. Especially when the very opposite was done to get Metro built in DC. The District's portion of money to build the freeway system inside the Beltway was transferred to fund Metro in DC, effectively killing the most comprehensive and sensitively-designed urban highway system ever designed in the US. By killing the inner-core freeway system, DC unilaterally decided that ALL of this region's highway traffic belonged in the suburbs, thereby making the eventual expanded Wilson Bridge (plus the Springfield Interchange, and possibly the ICC) necesssary.

Therefor, an argument can be made that had transit advocates and the road opponents been more reasonable and more accomodating, an expanded Wilson Bridge would not have been needed. If (and that's a big if), the Wilson Bridge did in fact kill the Alexandria leg of the Silver Line, transit advocates and road opponents have themselves to blame.

"I'm not sure what the issue is here, other than the shoe fitting the other foot."

This region has spent over 30 years - more than a generation - canceling roads and building transit. A $14 billion, 68-station, 112-mile subway came at the expense of highways and left the region with one of the nation's smallest urban highway systems and the nation's 3rd-worst traffic congestion - and the attendant air pollution - IN SPITE of the significant investment in transit. Now that many see the folly of canceling more roads than were built, guys like you are crying foul because "the shoe is on the other foot".

Don't get me wrong. I think a link to Tysons makes a lot of sense. So does a link to Centerville and an extension of the Green Line to Laurel, and some form of Purple Line. But I'm SICK AND TIRED of people who try to block EVERY planned new highway or highway improvement and LIE that it's "coming at the expense of transit". A rail system at the cost of $14 billion, plus subsidies and 1500 lane-miles of canceled highway says otherwise.

It's not an "either-or" game, as transit advocates like to spin it, and our traffic congestion proves that transit alone isn't the solution. We need BOTH roads and transit. And it's time to make the ratio a bit more sensible since the current one isn't working.

Baltimore:

"I notice that CEAFF chose not to respond to Daniel's explaining the difference between sprawl and new urban development. "

CEEAF (spell it right):
There is no difference between road-based and rail-based development in a suburban area.

You're right. We've been over this before.

What's is up with the Post not even sending a reporter to this rally? The rally had several NOVA politicians? Where's the coverage?

"...canceling more roads than were built..."

OK, somebody draw up plans to extend Metro to BWI -- heck, to Baltimore --, build three Metrorail circles around the outer station, etc. Then, cancel those plans.

Then, this silly talking point will apply to both sides, and can go away, leaving room for rational discussion.

There was an interesting article in the New York Times regarding the new trend of "congestion pricing" for roads. Worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/business/yourmoney/11view.html?ex=1328850000&en=3190629eb83a26de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

One interesting point that was made:
"The greater willingness of drivers and policy makers to consider congestion pricing is a recognition that building more roads will never be a solution to traffic problems.

"'In many areas, it's extremely hard to find places to expand capacity,' said Clifford Winston, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington."

And that fits nicely with what CEAFF said above:
It's not an "either-or" game, as transit advocates like to spin it, and our traffic congestion proves that transit alone isn't the solution. We need BOTH roads and transit. And it's time to make the ratio a bit more sensible since the current one isn't working.

I'm a HUGE proponent of public transit, and if given the choice between public transit and a new road, I'm probably going to come down on the side of the transit solution, mainly because I feel that, in general, the U.S. has not committed to making public transit work like it should. Public transit could be much better than it is today. But our road system could be better, too. The ICC, new express lanes on the beltway, better access to Southern Maryland (both transit and road) could all be built to ease traffic. However, roads do have a limited capacity and there is limited area to build new ones. And for at least as long as humans are controlling their cars, this region's land use decisions will continue to have severe repercussions.