We have the tunnel boring machines, but we won't use them for new Metro tunnels. But we will use them for digging a massive hole in the ground to put water in, instead of expanding the water treatment plants which would be the responsible thing to do.

Our leaders are incredibly, incredibly stupid.

by Redline SOS on Oct 13, 2011 9:30 am • link • report

" Wolf's proposal is considered payback for the board's push for an underground Dulles station."

Hmm, or is it:

1) A result of MWAA badly mishandling construction costs on the Silver Line. $7 billion for a line with almost no land acquition costs?

2) MWAA's refusal to consider taxing airline passengegers for the Silver Line or the underground station?

3) MWAA's insistence on tolls as the only funding measure -- resulting in $12 tolls on the DTR?

MWAA is out of control. Please, somebody shoot it.

by charlie on Oct 13, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

@Charlie--

Good for Maryland and DC for working to block this. Expanding MWAA to give VA an outright majority is clearly against their interests.

Donna Edwards: “I cannot support this plan in its current form given that minority representation interests appear to have been sacrificed for these political interests,”

How many Republican districts are reliably 80% Republican? None! So Republicans have a higher ceiling on House seats and thus, more control over the House.

Her district would still be majority minority, just no longer safe for her. What she means is she would rather have a safe seat for herself (and help keep Democrats in the House minority). I wonder why more Democrats don't call out BS like this.

by WRD on Oct 13, 2011 9:47 am • link • report

Redline SOS,

Not all tunnel boring machines are created equal. I am no expert, but I assume you cannot just drop any ol TBM and drill holes willy nilly. They are highly specialize machines that are designed for the specific project requirments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine

by Rj on Oct 13, 2011 9:48 am • link • report

@Rj - I know they're not created equal. But digging a $2.6 billion hole in the ground to put water in, instead of expanding the water treatment plant to handle peak flow (which would create additional jobs in construction and operation) is a failure of leadership of massive proportions.

by Redline SOS on Oct 13, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

@Redline

The water treatment plant is already being expanded (and is already the largest on the planet), but the pipes are literally not big enough to carry the water there quickly enough. The overflows occur because local sewers overflow, not because the centralized plant lacks capacity.

Simply put, our sewer system was not designed to carry every single drop of sewage and runoff all the way down to Blue Plains. This project fixes that.

(And, yeah. I'm a bit curious as to where those TBMs are going to end up. Seems like this could have been a better opportunity to bury *all* of the CSX tracks west of the Anacostia, given that the project will already be putting a 25' water tunnel smack next to the tracks)

by andrew on Oct 13, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

Re: fairfax county treehouse

While I hope the guy gets his variance and doesn't have to pay the fee (because its a treehouse) I wonder what the point is about trying to tie the county's payroll and budget to it. Fairfax County is one of the largest counties in the country, you would necessarily expect it to have a large budget. This gentleman could be facing this situation in any suburban situation.

And while this is an interesting human interest piece there are countless issues in fairfax county zoning that deserve more scrutiny than one guy who gets bad information.

by Canaan on Oct 13, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

@GM

I want a copy of the GM anti-biking poster. Priceless especially for a company trying to use the Volt to shore up their public image as being environmentally responsible.

@Stormwater

Shame that more can't be done to control stormwater at the individual level. I know the federal government is making progress here, but if people made better use of rain barrels, etc. it could also help significantly control stormwater runoff issues.

by Nicoli on Oct 13, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

Tommy Wells has tried to make the case that by spending the money on a green alley's and green roof program we can get the same results for less money and other benefits. I don't know how true this is, but if so, we are literally pouring our money into a hole in the ground.

by David C on Oct 13, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

@David C

We can likely substantially improve the CSO problem via low impact development and stormwater capture, but I don't know that we can do so in a way that eliminates the need for these kinds of projects, or if the incremental decrease in storm water volume would substantially reduce the cost. If you have to build a smaller deep tunnel, it's still going to be really expensive.

For example, extensive use of green roofs might be able to knock off 15% of needed CSO storage capacity - but that still means you need a very large facility to handle that runoff: http://www.cnt.org/repository/WashingtonDC.pdf

The other issue is that DC Water has to do something - they're compelled to act by law.

Now, don't get me wrong - we should definitely add green roofs and stormwater capture infrastructure - these are good ideas in their own right - but that still won't fully cover the need for this kind of project.

by Alex B. on Oct 13, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

The city never should have allowed that first video screen to go up in Chinatown. This is a classic case of give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile.

by tom veil on Oct 13, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report

I think the extra video signs is a great idea bc I makes downtown more vibrant. I applaud this measure. This is what makes our downtown more popular than other cities that have the "boring" look of just buildings. Why do you think Times Square is what it is now; its not bc of the buildings. Even Rosslyn has a sreen on the WJLA building. It makes the building stand out more. I don't think that the locals will have a problem with the extra lights downtown.

by steve85 on Oct 13, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report

Why do you think Times Square is what it is now?

A: The people.

by David C on Oct 13, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

TBM are relatively cheap. The District, MD, VA, and the Feds can each have one for around a total of $54 million. Forget putting worrying about site lines to the Capitol, put street cars underground... We could have the blue line extension done in a couple years...

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/cityhall/article/853713--metrolinx-signs-big-contract-to-purchase-four-tunnel-boring-machines

by Randall M. on Oct 13, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report

Well, the signs in Times Square are part of the buildings, are at an architectural scale, and required by zoning.

They may not be buildings proper, but they are architectural features. The other architectural feature is the six-block-long open space that the signs border. That is an important feature, too.

by Neil Flanagan on Oct 13, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report

Well hopefully we can use the TBM's after they are done with this project. I think it is in Barcelona where they have a pair digging out new lines all over the place.

by NikolasM on Oct 13, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

Or we could borrow New York's TBMs since they dug out the 2nd Ave subway so quickly and easily. Oh wait, it's not done yet?

by Tunnel boring on Oct 13, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report

Why does everyone keep saying that tunnels are boring? I think they're very interesting.

by David C on Oct 13, 2011 5:32 pm • link • report

Redline - more details please! Feel free to elaborate on what you mean!

Nicoli, the thing is, in the District, the majority of people do not live as individuals. So if you live in an apartment how can you put up a rain barrel? It's challenging even for those living in attached houses. Part of their solution in fact, though, is targeted at individuals in the form of fees for having impervious surfaces (this is my limited understanding so far). How this works out is of course something no one understands or probably has seen much detail about. But the fact is, at least half the people in the city live in multi-unit apartment buildings. Enviro solutions like those proposed by such orgs as Sierra Club are, let's face it, geared for people living in houses in the suburbs. Not much is targeted to the way most of us live.

To get back to the financing. I do see that there are those fees, but I get back to my original questions: will this thing ($2.5 billion) be put out for public bid? Does anyone know?

by Jazzy on Oct 13, 2011 6:56 pm • link • report

@Alex B, George Hawkins is trying to reduce the number of tunnels needed by making the city "spongier."

by David C on Oct 13, 2011 11:36 pm • link • report

@David C

And that's great - I fully support it. There are a lot of reasons to support LID independent of the CSO issue. But LID won't be able to completely remove the need to address CSO with some serious infrastructure investments, either through a deep tunnel or via sewer separation.

Likewise, my point was that building a smaller tunnel will certainly be less expensive, but it's not like a project this big scales perfectly. Reducing the tunnel size by 25% might not reduce the costs by 25%.

Either way, we're going to need major water-related infrastructure investments. Making things 'spongier' isn't without cost, either. And, as Hawkins noted in that article, we're still bound by the EPA consent decrees to do this.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2011 12:12 am • link • report

@Alex B

The only thing I'm convinced about is that the EPA is currently requiring the tunnels. I'm not convinced that we "won't be able to completely remove the need to address CSO with some serious infrastructure investments." Or that this is the most cost effective method for handling it. Water that goes to Blue Plains has to be processed which carries an ongoing cost. LID has other benefits beyond stormwater management. While LID carries a cost to install, you haven't convinced me that it approaches the cost of building metro-sized tunnels underneath a river. Etc...

I can't find anywhere that a cost-benefit analysis was done considering other options or that other options were considered at all. The horse is already out of the barn, but I feel like we've moved forward on a possibly non-optimal solution because the EPA is overly risk-averse.

by David C on Oct 14, 2011 10:12 am • link • report

Look, I'm not convinced that the deep tunnel projects are cost-effective, either - but they may very well be the only way to achieve the bar of cleanliness that the EPA requires.

I think LID practices should be mandatory across the District, but I'm also not sold that LID alone can solve the problem.

The other issue is organizational. The EPA works with DC Water. DC Water has only some things under their control - and forcing people to add green roofs is not one of them. Likewise, they can't force DC to rebuild all of their curbs and gutters and treeboxes with LID, either.

The CNT report I linked to earlier noted that essentially mandating green roofs on new construction and adapting some old ones could maybe reduce the required deep tunnel capacity by 15%. Obviously, there's a lot of uncertainty in that estimate, but it also seems clear that getting that extra 85% of needed capacity (required by law) will require extensive investment in some fashion - whether deep tunnels, a complete rebuild of every CSO street in DC to add LID, separating combined sewers, or some combination thereof.

Point is, it won't be cheap any way you slice it. I don't want LID to overpromise on the benefits. Your original post on the subject paraphrased Tommy Wells noting that "we can get the same results for less money and other benefits." I'm not sure that's true. LID may indeed be more cost-effective for 50% of the problem, but that still leaves 50% that needs the hardcore, deep tunnel kind of infrastructure.

Like I said, I'm not sold that the deep tunnels are the most cost effective, but a big part of the problem is that the 'effectiveness' side of the LID equation is a big unknown.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2011 10:38 am • link • report