Save the Trail Petition—News Articles

Building the Purple Line through Montgomery and Prince George's counties could require demolishing up to 31 private properties, including some Silver Spring apartments, and constructing sound walls to shield residents from a high-pitched "squeal" noise caused by turning train wheels, according to a six-year state study released yesterday.

Although Maryland officials have released parts of the Purple Line plans over the past year, the highly anticipated 250-page report provided the first overall detailed look at its potential impact, from the number of estimated riders to the sights and sounds for those who would live, work and attend school along the 16-mile route between Bethesda and New Carrollton.

Among the findings: Some of the 64 intersections with stoplights in that east-west corridor would need improvements, such as new turn lanes, to prevent traffic from worsening if vehicles shared travel lanes with light rail trains or express buses. Some street parking would vanish, and some property owners, including as many as four Montgomery County schools, could lose strips of land -- both necessary to widen roads to accommodate a transitway.

The Purple Line, which could cost as much as $1.6 billion, would be the region's first transitway designed specifically to connect suburbs, rather than running in and out of the District's core. It would run primarily above ground and along existing roads -- either as a light rail system or busway-- with as many as 20 stops, including Metrorail and MARC stations. Buses and trains would run in their own lanes or in traffic, depending on the type of system chosen.

The study also found that trains would have to be well maintained to prevent vibrations to some adjacent homes. Sound walls and panels covering train wheels would be necessary to protect residents in up to 18 "potential annoyance zones" from the screech of metal train wheels turning sharp corners, planners wrote. Without such protections, noise levels could be severe for residents near a planned maintenance facility in the Glenridge neighborhood of Prince George's, according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Threading the transit line through long-established and densely developed neighborhoods is considered one of the state's biggest hurdles. Planners have found that it could run close to three Montgomery elementary schools -- Rosemary Hills, Sligo Creek and North Chevy Chase -- and one middle school, Silver Spring International, requiring that small chunks of their campuses be seized. The schools' playgrounds and ball fields would be left intact, the report said.

It did not settle some of the more contentious issues, such as the transitway's exact route or how many trees would be lost if it ran along the Georgetown Branch Trail, a walking and biking path between Bethesda and Silver Spring. State planners have reached consensus with University of Maryland officials to bring the Purple Line through the heart of the College Park campus, planners said. The state is still studying ways to reduce noise, vibrations and potential electromagnetic interference with sensitive equipment in nearby laboratories.

Depending on the route and mode of transit chosen, as many as 19 business properties and as many as 12 residences would be condemned.

"It's these devil-in-the-detail issues that matter a great deal in these communities," said Rob Rosenberg of East Silver Spring, who founded a group raising objections. "We know there are transit needs. We're not anti-Purple Line, but we're the ones who have to live with the consequences."

Some in the community expressed worries that some versions of the plan would increase traffic in their neighborhoods. Others shuddered over the squealing noise described in the study.

"We're talking about a built-out urban neighborhood," said Karen Roper, chair of the East Silver Spring Civic Association.

"Any route coming through here is going to impact our community."

But Purple Line advocates say its benefits would far outweigh the drawbacks, including the faster and more reliable east-west transit service it would provide for people now stuck taking a series of slow buses in ever-worsening traffic.

The Purple Line is estimated to attract up to 68,100 trips daily, according to the study.

State officials said they know they will have trouble paying for a Purple Line. Building the light rail system deemed to be the most effective would cost an estimated $1.6 billion in 2007 dollars.

More significantly, its measure for cost-effectiveness -- a key consideration for securing critical federal money -- barely meets federal eligibility standards.

Henry Kay, Maryland's deputy administrator for transit planning, said five of the six Purple Line options would qualify to compete for federal money. But cost is not the only consideration, he said. "This is a legacy kind of investment," Kay said. "The question is, what is the best project we can do?"

He said the state will have to prove to federal officials as early as this spring that Maryland can pay its share, typically about half the construction costs. The state Transportation Department recently announced that the economic downturn required cutting $1.1 billion from its six-year capital budget, delaying a slew of projects statewide. The Purple Line has not been funded beyond the current planning and engineering phase.

"At this point, it's going to be a challenge to come up with additional money," Kay said.

The study is available athttp://www.purplelinemd.com.

Horizontal Rule

Gazette, Wednesday, March 7, 2007, Contd

Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said the problems with the studies ‘‘are the types of things one finds in a new administration.”

‘‘I suspect given the previous administration’s lack of commitment to mass transit, they probably did not mind the studies underestimated the amount of ridership,” he said. Public transit advocates hailed Porcari’s decision to conduct additional studies instead of risking the projects by going forward with inadequate numbers.

‘‘I’m pleasantly surprised. It’s worth a delay to get them right,” said Hans Riemer, president of the Action Committee for Transit, an advocacy group in Silver Spring. ‘‘Porcari wants to make this happen, and he knows you only get one bite of the apple and you’ve got to get it right.”

Webb Smedley, chairman of the Coalition to Build the Inner Purple Line, agreed. ‘‘It is frustrating, but the good thing now is there’s a general consensus the new administration is trying to get the study back on track and to be competitive for federal funding.”

Taylor said ridership studies are based on a complex formula to calculate usage. However, the numbers appeared to be too limited when considering actual use of public transit. For example, the current model calculates projected ridership by population within 15 miles of a station while it is known Metro riders often come from as far away as Hagerstown — more than 50 miles away, Taylor said.

Projected usage is key in bidding with other cities for federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration, he said. The Purple Line study is expected to cost $30 million; the Corridor Cities Transitway, $10 million; and the Red Line, $19 million.

‘‘I’m disappointed in the delay of all the lines,” said Montgomery County Councilman Marc Elrich (D-At large) of Takoma Park. ‘‘These are the most important transportation projects in all of Montgomery County.”

He said he is shocked by the project delays. ‘‘All of us thought we were at least on track.” Elrich speculated that the delay may take much-needed funding from transit, and the money will instead be put toward the controversial $2.4 billion Intercounty Connector highway between Gaithersburg and Laurel.

‘‘We shouldn’t be at this point,” Elrich said. ‘‘It really bothers me that we’ve gone this far in the process only to be told that we’re playing with the wrong numbers.”

‘‘I’m distraught,” said Nancy M. Floreen (D-At large) of Garrett Park, chairwoman of the County Council’s Transportation and Environment committee. ‘‘These are projects we really need. If there’s new information, I don’t understand why it’ll take a year to develop it.”

Staff Writers Douglas Tallman and Marcus Moore contributed to this report.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Washington Post, Thursday, March 1, 2007; B01

Purple Line, Two Other Transit Projects Delayed

Study That Underestimated Ridership Could Cost Md. Federal Funds, Officials Say

By Ovetta Wiggins

Maryland officials said yesterday that three major transit projects, two of them aimed at using light rail or express buses to ease traffic in the Washington suburbs, will likely be delayed about a year because of a flawed study that underestimated the number of riders.

State Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari said Metro's proposed Purple Line between Bethesda and New Carrollton, a transit link between Shady Grove and Clarksburg and the Red Line in Baltimore have been shelved while Maryland and its consultants work on new projections.

Porcari said that the state had planned to hold public hearings on draft environmental studies of the projects this spring but that they will likely be pushed to 2008. "Ridership numbers were wrong, and people were reluctant to face up to that," Porcari said. "I am not at all happy about this."

No money has yet been designated to build any of the projects. With $30 million allocated to study the Purple Line and $10 million for the Shady Grove project, known as the Corridor Cities Transitway, officials had hoped to start construction in 2010 or 2011.

Porcari, who became transportation secretary in January, said Maryland Transit Administration staff members have "known since last June that they were running behind schedule."

He said he only recently became aware of the projections in the study, which could affect the amount of federal money the projects received.

Simon Taylor, director of planning for the Maryland Transit Administration, said the state is trying to leverage as much as it can from the federal government.

"It's not about wrong information; it's ensuring that we have the best information," said Taylor, who also served under then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). "We know that we can make this a better model and a more competitive model."

Taylor said other metropolitan areas, including Charlotte and Las Vegas, are refining the data for their transit projects. Activists said they were not surprised to hear about the delay.

"The process was already slowing down; the Ehrlich administration was dragging its feet," said Hans Riemer, president of Montgomery County's Action Committee for Transit.

Del. William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery) said that it was disheartening to know the two local projects are being delayed but that he's hopeful the additional time will work to their advantage.

"If it means we will get more accurate figures on these two important projects, which may help us to leverage more federal transit dollars, than maybe it's something we can live with," Bronrott said.

The Purple Line, a light rail or express bus line, would run 14 miles between Bethesda and New Carrollton, with stops in Silver Spring and College Park. The Corridor Cities Transitway would add light rail or rapid bus services along Interstate 270 between the Shady Grove Metro station and just south of Clarksburg.

"While I'm disappointed, I want them to get it right," said Montgomery County Council President Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County). "We want to compete [for the federal dollars]. . . . We've got to make sure that when we go forward . . . there are no glitches."

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Baltimore Sun, February 23, 2007

Three Mass Transit Projects Delayed

By Michael Dresser

Maryland's acting transportation secretary, John D. Porcari, told lawmakers yesterday that three big mass transit projects - including an east-west Red Line through Baltimore - will not go forward to public hearings this year as previously planned.

Porcari said the projects, including two in suburban Washington, will be delayed about a year so that officials can develop more accurate and specific projections of ridership "We are going to get this right. You get only one shot with the Federal Transit Administration," he told the state House Appropriations subcommittee.

The schedule revision is a concession by the Maryland Transit Administration that its schedule for the projects during the Ehrlich administration was overly ambitious. Previously, the MTA had said that it expected to complete a draft environmental impact statement and hold hearings on the projects in the spring or summer of this year.

The three projects are:

. The Red Line from Woodlawn to the Fells Point-Canton area. The state has been studying rapid bus and light rail alternatives, but transit activists are urging the O'Malley administration to include heavy rail in the study.

. The 14-mile Purple Line connecting New Carrollton with Bethesda. Light rail and rapid bus alternatives are being studied.

. The Corridor Cities Transitway in Montgomery County's Interstate 270 corridor. It would extend transit service past the Shady Grove Metro station into northern Montgomery, near the Frederick County line. Light rail and rapid bus service are under study.

The need to develop more accurate information could also push back two proposals that are in earlier stages of consideration: connecting Baltimore's Metro to Morgan State University and extending the Washington Metro's Green Line from Greenbelt to BWI Marshall Airport.

Porcari said the expected one-year delays are an estimate and that the projects could be pushed back more. "I'm not taking the 12 months at face value," he said.

Porcari is awaiting confirmation as transportation secretary, a post he held under Gov. Parris N. Glendening. He said he learned about the flawed data from the MTA staff under what he described as a "30-day amnesty" for department employees to bring him bad news after he took office last month.

He said the agency had been relying on ridership projections extrapolated from general data developed by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council and Washington's Council of Governments. The MTA needs time, he said, to develop more accurate data particular to the three transit corridors.

As an example, MTA planning chief Simon Taylor pointed to Council of Governments projections of ridership at the Shady Grove Metro station that fall short of the current numbers. He said federal transit officials previously accepted state ridership projections at face value but are under pressure from Congress to verify such numbers.

Ed Cohen, president of the Transit Riders Action Council of Metropolitan Baltimore, said he was not surprised that Porcari revised the schedule. "This is a good thing because it would allow a review of what's gone on so far," Cohen said. "The new administration coming in has seen the degree of difficulty the previous administration faced."

Feedback:michael.dresser@baltsun.com

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Gazette, Feb. 9, 2007

A Conversation with John D. Porcari, State Transportation Secretary

John D. Porcari returned in January to lead the Maryland Department of Transportation. The Glendening administration veteran, who spent the past four years as chief administrative and financial officer for the University of Maryland, College Park, talked with The Gazette's Margie Hyslop recently at the State Highway Administration's Greenbelt office about some of the top issues he sees facing Maryland as it struggles to find ways to pay for a long list of transportation and transit projects.]

Below are edited highlights from Porcari's interview, the first in a series of conversations planned with Gov. Martin O'Malley's Cabinet members.

Q: On building the Metrorail Purple Line [between Bethesda and New Carrollton?

A: A more refined model of ridership would serve the project well. Before you get to the specific alignments, the transit modes, you need a better understanding of the ridership potential. A corollary of that is tying it to local land-use plans. We're working very closely with both Montgomery and Prince George's County to make sure we are maximizing the potential for transit-oriented development.

Q: On Corridor Cities Transitway [a proposed busline between the Shady Grove Metro station and Clarksburg and perhaps Frederick]?

A: Maryland Transit Authority has ''request for expression of interest" out to see if there's any private interest for public-private partnership that would include the Corridor Cities Transitway in the 270 corridor.

Q: On building a second crossing over the Potomac River?

A: The difficulty is, if it makes sense to have a crossing, finding an alignment that works for both Virginia and Maryland. Our land uses are almost opposite on two sides of the river.

Q: On building a Route 301 bypass at Waldorf?

A: Some of the worst traffic congestion in the state is in Waldorf. The bypass is sorely needed. We've been working with county commissioners on preserving right-of-way for an alignment that works [and is mindful of the environmental issues].

Q: On augmenting Route 301's Governor Nice Bridge from Southern Maryland to Virginia?

A: The bridge itself will need rehabilitation in the midterm. The question is ... whether a parallel span is needed. That's one of the things the transportation authority is looking at now.

Q: Is it time to increase the gas tax?

A: It's time to make the case that we are spending every dollar as efficiently as possible. That's a necessary prelude and a fair question that our citizens should ask us. ...

Assuming we make that case, it's very clear that we'll need some kind of additional revenue for the transportation program. This really isn't a highway or a transit discussion, or a port or airport - there are enormous needs in every single part of our system.

Q: Are there other ways the state could or should raise money to shore up the transportation fund?

A: There have been a number of different suggestions over the years. ... At this point I don't think anything should be ruled in or out.

Q: Is there anything that you or the governor are leaning toward?

A: If there is consideration for a revenue increase, I would urge that the General Assembly index it to inflation. The chronic structural problem that we have with our Transportation Trust Fund is that, typically, construction costs increase at or above the consumer price index, and the revenues are not at all inflation-sensitive.

Q: How do you see the state restoring and protecting the Transportation Trust Fund?

A: The commitment stands [to repay the trust fund] by 2010. Looking at some of the fees for services - registration, title and others - there's very limited potential to do something there. ... Those taxes were raised substantially. They helped fund some of the capital projects you see right now.

Q: Where are needs the greatest?

A: In the short term, I would say highway and transit. ... There are statewide needs, obviously.

If you just focused on the Washington metropolitan area, there are literally dozens of highway and transit projects, all of which, on the merits, should be funded and built as quickly as possible. We simply don't have the ability to do that.

Q: How much of that inability stems from a lack of state funds and how much from a lack of federal funds?

A: We fully leverage every bit of federal funding that we get, matching it with state funds. ... I think there are really three categories when you think about these projects: federal funds, state revenues, there's private sector participation as well. I wouldn't leave that out.

Through the subdivision process, in the counties, you can have substantial private sector participation in road projects and transit projects. People talk about these very large-scale public-private partnerships ... but the bread and butter of public-private partnerships is making sure that private sector development is working hand-in-hand with our capital program. ...

I want to make the linkage as tight and collaborative as possible with all of our local jurisdictions throughout the state so that as they are approving development plans, they are securing private sector participation wherever appropriate for projects.

Q: How can you make sure that building roads and transit better keep pace with development?

A: One of the things we are reinstituting is what used to be known as the 'pre-tour' - consultation meetings between the planning staff in local jurisdictions and MDOT - to make sure we understand what's going on in development terms in the local jurisdiction and make sure we're working as cooperatively as possible. ... We're only as successful as our partnership with our local communities is.

Q: Will there be more withholding of state funds if development projects are not deemed to be Smart Growth-compliant?

A: We will certainly take a hard look at every capital project and make sure that it's consistent not just with the letter, but the spirit, of Smart Growth.

Q: Are there plans to expand MTA bus service in the suburbs and exurbs?

A: The commuter bus program has been enormously successful. ... In Southern Maryland ... virtually every one of those buses is full, the park-and-ride lots are full. Adding both park-and-ride capacity and additional buses is one way that, in the short-term, we can add capacity.

On MARC trains, especially on the Penn Line, we have real capacity issues. I wish we had 100 [bi-level] cars instead of 50. We would look at renegotiating the operating agreements, both with Amtrak and CSX, in order to run more frequent trains, longer trains, perhaps change the hours of service.

Q: How will MDOT work with the departments of Environment and Natural Resources to protect the environment?

A: [The departments] will work together through the governor's Bay Cabinet for Bay Restoration goals.

Stay tuned, you will see a lot in the way of StateStat [the governor's statistics-based performance measurement tracking system] from us and others.

The next generation [of using material dredged to keep ship channels clear for the Port of Baltimore] is likely to be a mid-Bay restoration project. James Island was populated until almost mid-century and is slowly washing away. Restoring it as a wildlife refuge is a great potential opportunity for Bay restoration. You can see it today at Poplar Island.

Q: Is Live Where You Work (a program that used state and local subsidies and private funds to help people buy homes near their workplace) coming back?

A: There's a real groundswell to reinstitute Live Where You Work. I think we will have a limited financial ability to do that, but it's a program that makes a lot of sense.

We hope to work with local jurisdictions and, at some point, bring back some version [of it].

Q: How concerned are you about missing federal Transportation Security Administration cars and uniforms at BWI Thurgood Marshall airport?

A: I'm very concerned about it.

This was a federal issue with TSA, but our citizens shouldn't have to worry about whether it's a federal or state issue.

Q: What about expanding the Red Line in Baltimore?

A: We want ... consensus. ... We don't need warring advisory committees [or] counterproductive discussions about what's appropriate and what's not. We've had some discussions ... [about] trying to combine the two committees.

Q: On building the Metrorail Purple Line [between Bethesda and New Carrollton]?

Q: On Corridor Cities Transitway [a proposed busline between the Shady Grove Metro station and Clarksburg and perhaps Frederick]?

Q: On building a second crossing over the Potomac River?

A: The difficulty is, if it makes sense to have a crossing, finding an alignment that works for both Virginia and Maryland. Our land uses are almost opposite on two sides of the river.

Q: On building a Route 301 bypass at Waldorf?

Q: On augmenting Route 301's Governor Nice Bridge from Southern Maryland to Virginia?

A: The bridge itself will need rehabilitation in the midterm. The question is ... whether a parallel span is needed. That's one of the things the transportation authority is looking at now.

Q: On creating ferry service from Southern Maryland to the Eastern Shore?

A: It [would] require a substantial operating subsidy. Connecting Southern Maryland to the lower Shore does make a lot of sense ... [but] it's not clear that ferry service, seasonal or year-round, would be cost-effective.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Washington Post, Thursday, February 8, 2007

Backers Revive Push for Light Rail
Chief Obstacle To Purple Line May Be Its Cost

By Katherine Shaver
Washington Post Staff Writer

Supporters of a transit link between Montgomery and Prince George's counties are renewing efforts to persuade state lawmakers to fund a light-rail system that they say would bring environmentally friendly traffic relief.

The proposed Purple Line would connect the Maryland ends of Metro's Red, Green and Orange lines, with major stops at Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park and New Carrollton. The line would allow Metro riders to travel from one Maryland suburb to another without having to ride through the heart of Washington.

The Maryland Transit Administration has studied the idea over the past 10 years, but the state has not taken steps toward funding its design and construction. An updated environmental review was scheduled to be completed this summer. However, acting state Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari said that timing is "optimistic."

The project's biggest hurdle appears to be a financial one.

About 60 Purple Line supporters, including 19 state and local lawmakers from Montgomery and Prince George's, held a rally last week in Annapolis to urge the General Assembly to find money for the line.

"We want to remind [state lawmakers] that in the elections a lot of legislators pledged to build the Purple Line," said Harry Sanders, co-founder of Action Committee for Transit. "Now we need the money."

But the project, like all state programs, will have to compete for dollars at a time when the state faces a financial crunch.

Other priorities, Porcari said, are more transit for Baltimore and the Corridor Cities Transitway project, which would add light rail or rapid bus service along Interstate 270 between the Shady Grove Metro station and the area just south of Clarksburg.

However, he said, finding money to design and build them will be difficult.

"We have a very limited ability to fund larger projects," Porcari said. "We have a very ambitious transportation program, and we know, given the current revenues, that we can't fund it."

Porcari said that the state is continuing to study rapid bus transit as a Purple Line alternative "for the time being." Rapid bus service, which became part of the Purple Line study under former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), has been used in some cities where buses run on a dedicated road, similar to a train on rubber tires.

Ehrlich's transportation officials promoted rapid bus transit as a far cheaper option with the flexibility to change routes according to growth patterns. However, Porcari said he believes it would be difficult to persuade companies to invest in development around transit if the stops and routes were subject to change.

Such assessments, suggesting that the administration of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) might be leaning toward light rail, have encouraged Purple Line advocates. They've also celebrated his administration's decision to return the commonly known "Purple Line" name to the project.

The Ehrlich administration had dubbed it the "Bi-County Transitway" when it expanded the transit study to include areas east of Silver Spring, including the University of Maryland and New Carrollton. Some Purple Line advocates said they believe the name change was intended to confuse the public.

"I'm much more optimistic than I was a year ago," said Del. Anne Healey (D-Prince George's). "We're now talking about the Purple Line as the Purple Line again. I know it's going to be tough because the fiscal situation is tough, but I think we're in a better position than we've been in for a long, long time."

Del. William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery), a member of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said the public's appetite for a Purple Line illustrates the need for a new source of revenue, such as a half-cent sales tax increase dedicated to transit projects. Bronrott said he believes people are willing to pay it.

"The public desperately wants to get out of the second or third worst gridlock in the country," Bronrott said. "I think people realize the Purple Line is part of that solution."

Supporters say the line would not only take cars off badly clogged roads but would be cleaner for the environment, promoting "smart growth" by linking densely populated communities. In particular, supporters say, it would help low-income workers who spend hours on multiple buses to get from Langley Park and Silver Spring to jobs in Bethesda.

Opponents say a light rail along the most studied route between Bethesda and Silver Spring would destroy the Georgetown Branch of the Capital Crescent Trail, a popular wooded walking and bike path in an otherwise urban area. It also would run near back yards of long-established neighborhoods, including East Bethesda and Chevy Chase, opponents said.

John Warnock of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition, said his group would support an underground transit system between Bethesda and Silver Spring. Running the line along the trail, he said, would require cutting down an estimated 6,000 trees.

"We have nothing against transit," Warnock said. "But we don't want them to chop down all the trees and destroy the neighborhoods."

The project's biggest opposition, however, might arise from its price tag. The transit line is estimated to cost between $360 million and $1.6 billion, depending on whether it would entail a bus system or light rail and how much tunneling would be required.

Hans Riemer, president of Action Committee for Transit, said his group is already looking ahead to next year's legislative session.

"The sense is they're not going to be pushing through a major funding package this session," Riemer said. "We're focusing on next year."

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Examiner, Aug 22, 2006

Green Before Purple: Maryland Official Says BWI Extension Should Be Priority

By Mike Rupert, Baltimore

While Gov. Robert Ehrlich and Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley are making the proposed Purple Line a key issue in their quest to secure votes from Washington suburbanites, the state’s top economic development official said on Monday the proposed 20-mile extension of Metro’s Green Line to Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport should be the top priority.

“That would be my No. 1 choice,” Aris Melissaratos, Maryland’s secretary of business and economic development, said on Monday. “Not only is it crucial for the airport and business along the [U.S.] Route 1 corridor, but it would be a driver for full integration of both systems.” With Virginia making progress on its proposed $4 billion Metro extension to Dulles International Airport, Melissaratos said state officials — who approved a $1 million study in March — are feeling the pressure to move forward.

Yet in the past three months, the Green Line project has garnered little attention in the gubernatorial, state and local races. Candidates have instead focused on the so-called Purple Line, a 14-mile link between Bethesda and New Carrollton, which has emerged as the area’s most hotly contested election issue. More than 115 candidates and incumbents for state, local and federal offices have signed a pledge supporting the transitway as a light-rail system. Transportation Secretary Robert Flannagan has said the state is exploring whether it should be built as a light-rail system or as a rapid-transit bus system. Depending on the mode, the projects’ costs have been estimated between $200 million and $2.5 billion.

Several top candidates in state and local races have said privately they believe the Green Line extension likely is to be completed before the Purple Line simply because the pot of state and federal dollars is relatively limited and the Green Line extension is more of a “state project.” The Purple Line likely would battle for state and federal funding with other key projects, including the proposed extension of the Red Line in Baltimore and the Green Line extension.

Melissaratos said all three projects should be top priorities, but said the Green Line extension holds the most economic potential.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Jan. 22, 2003

RESIDENTS REACT TO PURPLE LINE ROUTE

Catherine Dolinski

Gazette Staff Writer

Opponents of the Inner Purple Line project are welcoming its proposed re-design by County Executive Douglas M. Duncan this week. But the proposal is also fueling frustration among proponents of the original plan, revealing it has far from settled the Purple Line feud.

Duncan (D) has long opposed the light-rail Inner Purple Line endorsed by former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, preferring instead to build heavy-rail running outside the Beltway. But the County Council voted to support the Inner Purple Line in December, and activists on both sides of the issue continue to spar over it.

Hoping to "break the logjam," he said, Duncan brought forth a compromise Purple Line plan last week. The plan would connect the Silver Spring Metro station with the Medical Center station in Bethesda, instead of the downtown Bethesda station as originally conceived. It also replaces the Purple Line's light-rail trolley system with heavy rail and Metro-style trains.

The redesigned Purple Line would bypass Chevy Chase, Columbia Country Club and the Georgetown branch of the Capital Crescent Trail, all of which would be directly impacted by the original Purple Line. Duncan's version would extend northwest from Silver Spring to the north side of the Beltway, and run along suspended rail about as far west as Cedar Lane. It would then run underground to the Medical Center station.

Mier Wolf, mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase, called Duncan's alternative "an excellent proposal" that would save thousands of trees and preserve the Capital Crescent Trail. It would also, he said, avert the noise and increased traffic that residents of his town have feared the Purple Line would create along Connecticut Avenue.

Wolf predicted Duncan's plan would better facilitate future expansions of transit as well. "This plan would not only serve people in Silver Spring and Bethesda-Chevy Chase, but the end point, the Medical Center Metro station, is one from which you could go easily across to Virginia in the future," he said. "So you will have a better regional Metro transit system."

But supporters of the former Purple Line plan fear approval of a new design will take too long, jeopardizing necessary federal funding for the project. Congress reauthorizes federal transportation funding only once about every six years, and the next deadline to qualify comes this spring.

"Mr. Duncan has for years fought against the Purple Line, arguing it's not needed," said Sol Gnatt, chairman of the Northern Chevy Chase Citizens Association. "Since he's against it, it's a question of strategy on his part to come up with a new location, and ask for a study. That way he delays the decision longer. As a result he achieves his purpose: that it won't happen ... and he can still say he supported the Inner Purple Line."

Locust Hills resident Eleanor Rice, a member of the Action Committee for Transit, was more blunt. "I think it's a cynical attempt to destroy our opportunity to get funding for this much-needed transit line," she said. "And all because it runs through the Columbia Country Club. Speaking for myself, I am livid. ... He would go to any lengths, even if it deprives of us money, just to protect the country club."

For months, Purple Line advocates have accused opponents of fronting a fight against the project on behalf of the Columbia Country Club, which the original Purple Line would cross.

But Pam Browning, who has led a petition drive to save the Capital Crescent Trail from the intrusion of the proposed light rail, said the accusation is unfair.

"I am very tired of hearing that this is all about the Country Club," Browning said. "Over 10,000 trail users signed petitions to save the trail. These folks don't play golf at the country club. This is not about the country club. This is about the voters in lower Montgomery County who want to preserve trails and trees in an increasingly urbanized environment."

Browning complimented Duncan's new design, saying it solves problems with the old one and promises more relief from traffic congestion.

"Duncan's proposal ... saves the Capital Crescent Trail from the devastation of the Inner Purple Line. It takes more cars off the road than the old inner line route. In addition, it puts Metrorail in a position to cross the river alongside the Beltway and to travel to Tyson's Corner -- a very important transit goal."

The plan likewise drew applause from Eric Peek, president of Coquelin Run Citizens Association in Chevy Chase. Situated around the Capital Crescent Trail, Coquelin Run would be directly impacted by Glendening's light-rail plan.

"Doug Duncan has proven he wants to get this resolved," Peek said. "I do not know the exact specifics of the new plan, but it sounds like a nice compromise ... and it seems that both sides are so entrenched on this, nothing is going to happen unless there can be a compromise."

Allen Meyers of Bethesda, president of Maplewood Citizen Association, said since the newly proposed Purple Line will run underground to the Medical Center Metro station, it might offer transit benefits to surrounding communities like Maplewood without adversely impacting them.

But Meyers questioned Duncan's plan for another reason: money. As redesigned, the Bethesda-Silver Spring portion of the Purple Line would cost about $600 million, $200 million more than the original plan. "It seems to me a very costly proposition," Meyers said. "I think it'll be dead on arrival, based on cost factors alone."

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Tysons Corner Background on Tunneling- TysonsCorner.org

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors always preferred a tunnel through Tysons, but they understood in the 1990s through 2005 that the cost was prohibitive. During that debate, the only proven and viable option was to use a tunnel boring method that was only big enough to carry one train through the tunnel, hence the need for TWO parallel tunnels. Imagine the costs!But in 2002 and 2003, there were successes with large-bore (>30ft diameter) tunneling in Europe and Asia by using a new method called Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) machines. This new method allowed for tunneling, shoring-up, and concrete membrane fittings simultaneously. >This success bloomed in 2005 through 2006 when more large-bore tunneling in Europe was completed. Canada will see this type of tunneling in 2008-2009, and Miami (believe it or not) is considering the method.

Flavor of the EPB accomplishments:

2002: 32ft Diameter tunnel in Netherlands
2005: 39ft Diameter tunnel in Malasia
2005: 47ft Diameter tunnel in Russia
2007: 50ft Diameter tunnel in Spain

This large-bore EPB tunneling will allow ONE digging pass and provide TWO parallel tunnels. The specification for an economically viable tunnel through Tysons Corner is 42ft. in diameter. Hey, if a European company can assemble and dig a tunnel in Kuala Lumpur, Malasia, it can certainly be done in Virginia, USA!

I encourage you to refer to the tysonstunnel.org slideshow presentation for more information and perspective--you'll see the EPB accomplishments in Walter Mergelsberg's presentation. I also encourage you to contact the presenters for detailed information and to answer any questions you may have.

Tunnel Specs

Most of the people at today's tysonstunnel event, and perhaps as many as 2,000 more, saw the presentation first-hand at the tysonstunnel town halls in October and December of 2006. All of the current Fairfax Board of Supervisors either saw that presentation first-hand or were briefed individually by most of those presenters. Needless to say, the board voted unanimously for the tunnel method in January of this year and encouraged Governor Kaine and the Congressional Delegation to reconsider this option.

This tunnel option was not viable in 1994, 1998, or in 2002 when appropriated funding was considered by the Federal government and the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, because all of the principal owners and operators of this large-bore EPB method are European companies, Bechtel and FTA officials never considered the new method and if they knew of the EPB success, they never chose to include that information to the Commonwealth so our Governor could determine whether contract bidding was necessary.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Washington Post, March 23, 2007

Rail Project For Dulles Raises Concerns

Secrecy of Negotiations Worries Officials, Critics

By Bill Turque

If Virginia transportation officials and a private contractor resolve their differences over costs and strike a deal to build the Metrorail extension to Dulles International Airport, Northern Virginia commuters and landowners paying most of the $4 billion bill are likely to know very little about the terms of the agreement.

A state law intended to bring big-ticket road and rail projects to fruition quickly and cheaply also grants the parties involved an unusual level of secrecy in their negotiations. The lack of transparency could make it difficult to evaluate the financial risks that accompany such complex public works, such as cost overruns and scheduling delays, some local officials and critics say.

Secrecy is not the only issue surrounding the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995. The law was designed to jump-start expensive road and transit projects by attracting private-sector investment and corporate efficiency to the process. It allows the state to dispense with traditional competitive bidding and select a single private partner to design and build a project for a fixed price and profit.

It hasn't quite worked that way. The private contractor, Dulles Transit Partners -- a construction consortium of Bechtel Inc. and Washington Group International -- has put no money into construction of the extension's first phase, which would run from just east of the West Falls Church Metro station to Wiehle Avenue in Reston by 2012. The consortium will be reimbursed for the $15 million it has spent on preliminary engineering work if it reaches an agreement with the state.

Other public-private projects completed or underway, including Route 28 interchanges in Fairfax County and a portion of Route 288 in Powhatan and Goochland counties, also involve little or no private money. The Dulles extension, the first rail project proposed under the public-private law, would be funded entirely with federal, state and local dollars, including more than $1 billion from Fairfax landowners, businesses along the Dulles Toll Road and motorists who use the road.

"There are some real significant issues of secrecy, accountability, conflict of interest and failure to protect the public trust," said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which advocates clustered development around transit stations.

Howard Menaker, a Dulles Transit Partners spokesman, said that he could not speak specifically about the lack of investment in the rail project but said that all public-private ventures evolve differently. He also said that although he wasn't familiar with the specifics of the public-private partnership, such arrangements help companies protect fee structures and business strategies that would be valuable to competitors.

"This is the level of confidentiality that the legislature felt was appropriate at the time they passed the public-private partnership act," Menaker said. "I'm not going to second-guess the legislature."

The concerns about secrecy are compounded by a conflict over how the rail line will run through Tysons Corner. Current plans call for an elevated track down the middle of Route 7. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and TysonsTunnel.org, a coalition organized by the McLean Chamber of Commerce, are urging that the process be opened for consideration of a tunnel, which they say would enhance Tysons' evolution into a mature urban center.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has resisted the tunnel option, and an engineering report commissioned by the state concluded that it would be too expensive, time-consuming and technically risky. State officials also say that the delays necessary to consider a tunnel place $900 million in federal funds at risk.

Tunnel advocates say that with the construction consortium's price for the aerial option under wraps, the state's claim of a higher cost for the tunnel is not credible.

"We have all the documents [supporting] the tunnel in the public domain," said Schwartz, referring to a $3.5 million engineering study funded by TysonsTunnel.org.

Fairfax County board members also expressed concern about having key design elements peeled away in negotiations to meet federal cost guidelines. Supervisor T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee) said one early cost-saving measure that surfaced was a shrinking of pedestrian walkways "into glorified cattle chutes."

All of the debate over the project assumes that the extension gets built in any form. State officials and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which would manage the project, are threatening to end talks with the consortium if terms can't be reached by April 5. Officials say the consortium's cost estimates are too high and must come down to meet strict federal cost-effectiveness criteria.

If the sides do sign a construction contract, many terms and details normally in public view will be treated as though they were national security directives. Under a 2004 agreement between the consortium and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, documents dealing with cost estimates, scheduling, overruns, markups, overhead and profit will be regarded as trade secrets and "sealed jointly" by the consortium and the state transportation agency for delivery to an escrow agent. If there are disputes, the materials can be reviewed -- jointly only -- with 10 days' written notice.

The documents "are and shall always remain" the construction consortium's property, according to the agreement. Six months after final payment to the consortium and the resolution of any outstanding disputes, the materials will be destroyed. Moreover, the airports authority is exempt from the state's freedom of information act, making public access to the documents even more difficult.

A handful of Fairfax County officials, including Richard F. Stevens, the Dulles project coordinator with the Fairfax County Department of Transportation, have been required to sign confidentiality agreements in exchange for access to the pricing documents. Stevens declined to discuss the agreement, and it is not clear to what extent he and other staff members will be able to brief elected officials on details of the construction contract if and when it is signed.

Elected officials in Northern Virginia are anxious that they will, in effect, be signing a check without having a chance to look at the bill.

"We're very fearful that they've been able to use the cloak of secrecy [that the public-private act] provides to prevent public penetration of the contractual aspects of this project," said Gerald E. Connolly (D), chairman of the Fairfax County board. Members are especially apprehensive about "change orders," or alterations in the project's design for budgetary or engineering reasons. "We're going to be handed a bill and told to ante up," he said.

Matthew O. Tucker, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, downplayed secrecy concerns. He said there have been more than two dozen technical and advisory group meetings involving the local stakeholders, including Fairfax and Loudoun counties, the airports authority and Metro. "All of these major civil projects come together in different ways," he said. "From that perspective, I don't see this as anything outside of the ordinary."

Tucker said that none of this should surprise local officials. It was all part of the preliminary accord reached by the consortium and the state in 2004. "Everyone had a full understanding as to what this process was and is."

Fairfax officials said the meetings that Tucker described were updates on progress, not deep drillings into details.

But Tucker's response raises the question: Why did local officials buy into a project under the public-private partnership act?

Kauffman, a member of the Metro board and an advocate for the tunnel, said it was seen as the only way to finance such an expensive undertaking. "So it was presented basically as, 'Begin this dance, or there is no project.' "

Fairfax representatives say their concerns are not without precedent.

"Just look north," said Kauffman, referring to Bechtel's management of Boston's $14.6 billion "Big Dig" highway project, originally budgeted at $7.7 billion. In 2004, Massachusetts officials filed a $146 million lawsuit against Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff, alleging that the contractors concealed actual cost estimates from the state to keep the project on track.

Bechtel officials say that the suit, still pending, is without merit.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Washington Post, Shaping the City, February 17, 2007; F05

Why Going Underground Makes Sense in Tysons Corner

By Roger K. Lewis

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has an opportunity that's rare for political leaders: He can change his mind and become a hero.

In September, he chose not to pursue the tunneling option for Metrorail's Orange Line extension through Tysons Corner because he feared losing federal transit funding and delaying the project, now envisioned as an elevated line.

Now he can justify revisiting his decision and doing the right thing, thanks to new information and circumstances that emerged in the past few weeks.

Knowledge in hand today reveals that the tunneling option compares favorably with the elevated rail-line option. A tunnel could be built more quickly and at a lower cost than an elevated line, would be less expensive to maintain, and would be environmentally and aesthetically superior.

Consider new factors that the governor can act on.

The Federal Transit Administration has said that Virginia still has time to analyze and choose between building an elevated or underground line through Tysons. In a letter to Reps. James P. Moran (D-Va.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), FTA Administrator James S. Simpson wrote: "FTA is willing to hold the aerial design in Preliminary Engineering while the Commonwealth decides whether to proceed with the aerial or tunnel option."

The final design can proceed only after the FTA determines that the preliminary design is highly likely to comply with federal regulations regarding transportation and land-use effectiveness, financial feasibility, timing and environmental impact.

Mindful of these policies, TysonsTunnel.org, a non-partisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization representing citizens, businesses and property owners, is confident that the tunnel would allow the Commonwealth to comply with federal requirements. It makes this assertion after raising $3.5 million for a consortium of highly qualified consulting engineers, architects and tunnel construction experts to thoroughly but quickly design the Tysons segment of the Metro extension.

In January, after working for three months, the team completed its A-to-Z engineering study for a 43-foot-diameter, single-bore tunnel through Tysons, including environmental analyses and architecturally ingenious designs for the four Tysons Metro stations. Station sites and tunnel alignment are similar to those for the overhead rail.

The key is large-diameter tunnel boring machines, a technology developed in Europe and used extensively and successfully around the world. More than 100 feet long, these gigantic machines can rapidly chew perfectly round self-supporting holes through dirt and rock, conveying excavated material backward to dump trucks while lining the bored tunnel with either sprayed-on concrete or prefabricated concrete panels.

I have seen the full set of design documents -- a whopping 786 sheets of drawings, a dozen technical reports, cost estimates. They are comprehensive and compelling.

The tunnel team has leveled the playing field for the competing options. The 3.4-mile tunnel (the total length of the extension to Dulles Airport is about 23 miles) through Tysons Corner has been designed to the same level of engineering development as the design of the elevated line, thus enabling the Commonwealth to make a fair comparison.

Of course, TysonsTunnel.org and its team have already made comparisons. They say it's all good news for the tunnel.

The total cost of the tunnel, at slightly more than $800 million, appears to be below the probable total cost of the elevated line. Moreover, the team predicts that the tunnel cost could be even less once the design is finalized and value engineering is completed. In addition, the tunnel option's life-cycle costs will be lower, a savings of about $5 million per year. And a tunnel's lifespan is potentially twice that of an aerial structure.

The team says the tunnel could be constructed about six months more quickly than the aerial structure, noting that tunneling avoids the need to move utilities or reconstruct roads.

Entailing almost totally underground construction, the tunnel option would be cleaner and much less disruptive of life above ground. Building an elevated line would require major road reconfiguration and bring years of severe traffic congestion exacerbated by construction trucks continually rolling through the heart of Tysons, along with construction noise and increased air pollution.

By contrast, with tunneling, dump trucks carrying excavated material will exit only at the ends of the tunnel on highway medians outside Tysons Corner.

But immediate and long-term aesthetic benefits still constitute one of the best arguments in favor of the tunnel and against an elevated line. Visualize a parade of tall, structural supports soaring over and slicing through the heart of Tysons. Leesburg Pike would never become a walkable boulevard.

Ponder the history of elevated, urban rail lines, most now demolished, that produced unwanted dirt, noise and vibration, became visual and physical barriers and compromised the value of abutting land.

Why build something that we will want to tear down a few decades from now?

Gov. Kaine can find political comfort in one other piece of knowledge. For all the reasons cited by tunnel advocates, Northern Virginia voters overwhelmingly favor the tunnel option, as does an independent panel of professional engineers.

And let's not forget Metro, which, strange as it seems, has little say in choosing between options, yet must ultimately operate and maintain the line. Metro officials prefer the tunnel.

For the governor, putting the tunnel back into play is not only a wise decision, it's an easy call.

Roger K. Lewis is a practicing architect and a professor emeritus of architecture at the University of Maryland.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Washington Post, February 12, 2007; A01

On Road To Dulles, Confusion And Angst
Kaine Firm as Cry For Rail Tunnel Grows Louder

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer

Every few weeks, it seems, bring another argument in favor of building a 23-mile Metrorail extension from the East Falls Church station to Dulles International Airport underground through Tysons Corner instead of on an elevated track.

And yet the $4 billion project marches toward the construction of a raised structure that would slice across Tysons on a track as high as 70 feet, complicating Fairfax County's efforts to create a walkable downtown.

After coming close to choosing the underground route last summer only to be warned against it by federal transit officials and Northern Virginia congressmen, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) is standing by his decision against the tunnel, even as the protests grow louder.

This has left people in Northern Virginia puzzling over a single question: How is it that an option that almost everyone agrees is preferable probably won't get built?

"It just seems to me and every person I've ever talked to that putting it aboveground makes no sense, aesthetically and logically and every way you can think of," said Irv Auerbach, a longtime McLean resident and member of a task force drawing up a master plan for Tysons. "It just makes more sense to go underground."

At stake is the future look and feel of Tysons, the former rural crossroads that has become the commercial hub of Northern Virginia and a leading jobs center for the region that rivals the District. Fairfax leaders say Tysons needs to become a more vibrant and pedestrian-friendly place or risk growing obsolete. All agree that the arrival of Metro will help accomplish this. But the expanding legions of tunnel supporters say the transformation would be much more likely without a hulking elevated track dominating the area for decades to come.

Even those involved in the project for years struggle to explain how it has arrived at a point that is so marked by confusion, misgivings and ironies. It appears possible that one of the region's most costly and anticipated transportation upgrades will be widely spurned from the moment it opens.

But attempts at explanation center on two main themes: the last-minute nature of the push for a tunnel, coming just one year before the project was to receive federal funding and begin construction, and the federal rules that make changing designs at this point so risky.

Those involved in the project say many key decisions were made years ago by the state, local and Metro officials who began planning the extension in 1994. Then, the focus was on reconciling the competing goals of the extension: to get travelers to the airport quickly and to serve Tysons, which meant veering off the most direct route to the airport along the Dulles Toll Road.

By 2002, the officials had ruled out tunneling through Tysons as too expensive without considering an alternative building method: a wide-bore digging machine that had been used successfully in Europe and Asia. It can be more efficient than regular tunneling because it digs out a single tunnel big enough for both rail tracks and doesn't require cutting open the streets above.

Back then, few residents were paying much attention. It was only last year, after Metro and Fairfax officials urged the state to take a look at the wide-bore technology, that many people awoke to the implications of an elevated track and began to rally against it. The elevated track, they said, would not only hinder the transformation of Tysons into a town center, but snarl traffic during construction. Tysons is right off the Capital Beltway, along several major commuter roads, including Routes 123 and 7.

But several key players, including U.S. Reps. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), cautioned against changing plans so late in the game, when the project was less than a year from probably winning federal funding. If the state delayed the project to do the needed tunnel planning, they warned, the escalation of costs over time could make it unaffordable, or the project could miss the current federal budget cycle, reducing its odds of getting funded. Kaine heeded this in deciding against the tunnel in September.

Skeptics of the underground approach express exasperation at the recent outcry over the tunnel, saying that critics of an elevated route had their chance years ago when key decisions were being made.

Fairfax County Supervisor T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee), a tunnel supporter, rejects this reasoning. Yes, he said, he was on the county board in 2002 when it signed off on the decision for a line with an elevated track. But that doesn't mean that officials shouldn't do everything possible to revisit the decision now that they realize they might have missed something, he said.

"Politics is about having the temerity to change your position when the facts have changed," Kauffman said. "I've always thought of politics as being the art of the possible, but unfortunately I see people arrayed at all levels of government who seem incapable of doing what the community wants. If you want something good, sometimes you have to be willing to take a risk."

Also standing in the way of the tunnel are strict federal criteria that require mass transit projects to be "cost-effective" under a formula that calculates the travel time saved for each dollar spent. (The formula gives little weight to the land-use impact of projects, to the dismay of tunnel supporters.) The rules, implemented by Congress over the past few decades, are meant to determine on a fair basis which projects deserve the limited public transit funds.

The rating system considers the total cost of a project, not just the amount the federal government is asked to contribute, under the theory that the government should support only projects that are economical instead of boondoggles that could undermine taxpayer support for transit. Even if Virginia, Fairfax or Tysons landowners came up with extra money to pay for the possible added costs of a tunnel, the project's total cost could fail the federal standards, leading the government to withhold the $900 million that the state is counting on receiving. The rest of the project is being covered by Dulles Toll Road revenues and a tax on landowners along the route.

Worries about the cost-effectiveness standards were a big reason Kaine ruled against the tunnel. But the issue hasn't faded. The Greater McLean Chamber of Commerce has organized a vigorous campaign for a tunnel, led by Tysons landowner WestGroup, which, before Kaine's decision, was one of his biggest campaign contributors.

The group, TysonsTunnel.org, has drawn deep support, fueled partly by widespread but unproven theories that the tunnel proposal has been blocked behind the scenes by the project's contractor, a consortium led by Bechtel Corp., which probably would lose part of the job if it goes underground.

The group has collected 12,000 signatures and paid $3.5 million for engineering plans that it says prove a tunnel would cost no more than an elevated track. A Spanish company, Dragados, wrote to Kaine last month saying that it could build the tunnel for even less than the group's estimate.

Federal transit officials said last week that the state has until May 2008 to submit its final plans and still qualify for funding -- enough time, tunnel supporters say, to submit new plans. Supporters are also cheered by signs that the price being sought by the Bechtel team for the elevated track is nearing the federal cost threshold.

The groundswell of support for a tunnel is exerting pressure on officials. Davis, who helped persuade Kaine against a tunnel last year, is now suggesting that it might be worth another look.

But Kaine is showing no sign of changing his mind. There is still too great a chance that altering plans would delay the project by two years or more, driving up the cost and imperiling the needed federal funding, Kaine and his staff say. It's better, they say, to proceed with the project, imperfect as it may be, and get it done on schedule -- with construction starting next year and reaching Tysons by 2012 and Dulles by 2015.

This has left tunnel supporters directing their ire at Kaine, even though it was his willingness to reconsider a tunnel last summer that helped spark the opposition to the elevated track and raise expectations for a change in design.

His insistence on forging ahead as been particularly hard to accept for the many Northern Virginians who consider themselves Kaine supporters but who dread an elevated track in Tysons.

They say they believe Kaine when he says he really would prefer to have a tunnel but are flummoxed by his and others' inability to follow through.

"I am a very loyal Tim Kaine supporter, and I understand the issues that he faces . . . but I can't explain it," said Bill Felmlee, a Vienna resident and member of the Fairfax Democratic Committee. "I can't explain what's going on."

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

(unpublished letter to the Washington Post)

Tysons Corner Lesson for Purple Line

The Tysons Corner Tunnel debacle ("...Cry for Rail Tunnel Grows Louder", Feb. 12) will repeat itself in Maryland if officials continue to ignore overwhelming opposition to building the Purple Line on the Capital Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring.

More than 10,000 Trail users signed petitions asking that transit either be tunneled underground as Metro, or be placed elsewhere -- for example, along the Beltway to Bethesda Medical Center, where thousands of new employees, visitors, and outpatients will be coming daily when Walter Reed makes its move to Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Unlike light rail, a true Metro rail connection between the two legs of the Metro Red Line would be seamless, faster, and attract more riders than light rail. It would take more cars off the road. And it would enhance Metro -- allowing for a circuit connection and several configurations between Shady Grove and Glenmont -- and improve Metro's ability to evacuate in emergencies. It would also improve Metro's long-term potential for expansion.

With new, cost-effective tunneling techniques, now is the time to consider tunneling a real Metro connection -- not a light rail -- between Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Pam Browning, Organizer
SaveTheTrailPetition.org (gathered over 10,000 Petition Signatures)
4317 Elm Street
Chevy Chase, MD
301-654-0183 (day and eve)

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Wednesday, February 7, 2007; B01

Tunnel Backers Given New Hope

May 2008 Deadline Offers Enough Time To Switch Tysons Plans, Advocates Say

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer

Federal transit officials said yesterday that Virginia has until spring 2008 to submit its plans for a Metrorail extension to Dulles International Airport, cheering supporters of an underground route through Tysons Corner who said the additional time would allow the state to change its decision from an elevated track to a tunnel.

The officials' statements, at a Federal Transit Administration news conference on the federal budget, appeared to undermine one of the main arguments against switching from a mostly elevated route to a below-ground one for the extension's four-mile stretch through Tysons.

Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) warned last summer that the delays involved in switching to a tunnel could throw the $4 billion project out of the current federal funding cycle, greatly jeopardizing the $900 million that Virginia hopes to receive. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) cited such warnings last fall in his decision not to support a tunnel.

But top federal transit officials, who have made few public comments on the project and its deadline, offered a different picture yesterday. They said the state would have until May 2008 -- 15 months from now -- to submit its final plans and pricing for the project and still qualify for the current funding cycle, assuming the submission is acceptable.

The officials also said that adding a tunnel into the project would result in delays of six to 18 months. That means if the state changed its plans now, it could conceivably meet the deadline.

"This is a local decision. We're neutral," said Federal Transit Administrator James S. Simpson. "If the governor wishes to reexamine it, he's free to do that."

Davis, who last summer was one of the strongest voices warning about the risks of a tunnel, said last night that the federal officials' statements raised the possibility that Kaine could still switch plans, if he acted quickly. Davis added that there is still the question of whether a tunnel would cost too much, but he noted that recent estimates by companies proposing a tunnel have placed its cost below the latest estimates for an elevated line.

"It looks like the timing issue could be overcome. It looks like the governor's got six more weeks, doesn't it, to [change plans] and still be eligible for funding," he said. "He's been handed another hot potato. If you move quickly and things go right, you could in theory meet the timeline."

A spokesman for Wolf said that the decision remains with Kaine.

Kaine last week reiterated his decision against a tunnel, citing concerns about losing federal funding. Yesterday, his office referred questions to the state Department of Rail and Public Transportation. Its director, Matthew O. Tucker, said that even if there is time to change plans and qualify for federal funding, other downsides remain, including potentially higher costs of a tunnel and the delay of waiting another year to begin construction. As it stands, the 23-mile extension from West Falls Church is to begin construction in a year and reach Tysons Corner in 2012 and Dulles in 2015.

"We've made a decision about how to build the project," Tucker said. "When folks talk about the tunnel, what they're talking about is additional planning and delay."

The federal officials' clarification of the remaining room in the calendar encouraged those who have continued to press for a tunnel by arguing that it would cause less congestion during construction and contribute more to transforming Tysons into a walkable downtown.

Scott Monett, head of a group of businesses and residents backing a tunnel, said the state could definitely meet the federal deadline defined yesterday because his group has already produced $3.5 million worth of preliminary engineering plans for a tunnel. "It's spectacular news," he said. "We will do everything in our power to ensure that the FTA gets everything they need -- assuming Virginia takes this enormous development and runs with it."

Tunnel skeptics noted that even with the wiggle room allowed by the federal deadline, there is still the risk that changing plans would throw the project outside the current funding cycle, after which it would be difficult to get the money. Tunnel supporters counter that that risk would be lower had Kaine decided for a tunnel several months ago.

In addition, skeptics said, the cost escalations caused by delay could raise the project's price to where it is deemed too expensive under the federal government's cost thresholds. The government only funds projects that it rates as "cost-effective," even if state or local governments or private companies are willing to pay for extra features that add to the price tag.

Tunnel supporters argue that's not an issue because building the line below-ground would cost no more, if not less. The engineering plans commissioned by Monett's group, which is backed by Tysons landowner WestGroup, gave an $2.4 billion upper estimate for the first half of the line, to Reston. That is the same as the estimate used by contractors several months ago for that stretch with an elevated track. And the elevated route estimate has risen in recent months, to the point where there is now worry about whether it would even qualify for federal funding.

Return to Table of Contents

Horizontal Rule

Tuesday, August 1, 2006; B01

Virginia to Review Rival Bid For Tysons Rail Extension

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; B01

Virginia officials are considering a proposal from contractors allied with a major Tysons Corner landowner to take over construction of at least half of the Metrorail extension to Dulles International Airport, a prospect that threatens to further delay the project.

The state has a no-bid "public-private partnership" with a Bechtel Corp. and Washington Group International Inc. consortium, which has done extensive work over the past two years in preparing to build the 23-mile line from West Falls Church. But the state revealed yesterday that as part of its consideration of switching to a tunnel instead of an elevated track for the Tysons part of the line, it is now weighing a proposal by a group linked with WestGroup, a major Tysons landowner and tunnel supporter.

The revelation of the competing proposal injected additional uncertainty into the $4 billion project, which is hung up on the question of whether the four-mile Tysons portion of the line should be built above or below ground. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) is planning to announce that decision by the end of this month. At stake, say tunnel supporters, is Fairfax County's vision of transforming Tysons into a vibrant, walkable downtown, which they say would be hard to achieve with an elevated track.

Tunnel backers, including Tysons landowners and Fairfax officials, have been urging the state to rethink its deal with the Bechtel group, which has criticized a tunnel as too costly. By re-bidding the whole project, tunnel supporters say, the state could get an affordable price for a line with a tunnel.

But going with the rival proposal probably would mean a time-consuming process to end the existing partnership and to re-bid the project. The state is facing warnings from the project's top federal backer, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), that the tunnel option threatens to imperil $900 million in federal funding and delay the extension, which was to be done by 2015.

Yesterday, the Federal Transit Administration offered its own words of caution. In a public statement, the agency said it is "important to note that should [Virginia] choose to make significant changes to its original plan, including building a tunnel, [the agency] will need to make new, additional examinations" of the project.

The revelation of the rival proposal came in a briefing yesterday by the head of a panel of engineers that studied the tunnel question at the state's request. The panel has concluded that a tunnel would be preferable and would cost about $250 million more than an elevated route -- less than the Bechtel group estimated.

The panel's chairman, Potomac engineer Robert S. O'Neil, said the panel's tunnel estimate was based on a proposal submitted to the state three weeks ago by a group consisting of WestGroup, Bethesda-based Clark Construction Group LLC, Lane Construction Corp. of Meriden, Conn., and Dragados, a Spanish company that specializes in the large-bore tunneling being considered for Tysons.

Dragados has previously proposed to build the tunnel, but this was its first offer -- together with other contractors -- to take over the whole first phase of the line instead of acting as a subcontractor to Bechtel.

The group said it could build the first phase for $2 billion, a price the engineering panel revised upward to $2.5 billion.

Based on that price, the panel concluded that a tunnel was worth it, because it would cause less disruption during construction and offer countless "intangible benefits" over the long term, O'Neil said. The reviews necessary for switching to a tunnel could be done within a year, he said.

It is possible that the state could decide on a tunnel but retain the Bechtel group, with it subcontracting to a tunnel builder like Dragados. Deputy Transportation Secretary Scott Kasprowicz yesterday declined to say how seriously the state is considering re-bidding the project or how long that would take.

There is some historic irony in WestGroup's involvement with the rival contractor group. The landowner initially was part of the partnership with Bechtel, before dropping out two years ago amid concerns about the propriety of having a major Tysons landowner directly involved in the project.

WestGroup spokesman Mark Lowham played down the company's role in the rival team's new offer, saying WestGroup had been in talks with the contractors but was not an official part of the team.

"We understand that other contractors have taken a look at [the project] and are pleased, because it's in everyone's best interest to take a second look," he said.

Return to Table of Contents