Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Can You Say “Big Dig?”

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The latest estimate for the cost of phase one of the Rail to Dulles project — extending the Metro system to Tysons Corner — recently jumped up to $2.4 billion to $2.7 billion, up from the previous estimate of $2.1 billion. How much, then, will it cost to build phase two, which takes the heavy rail line all the way to Dulles airport?

Last year, the estimate was $2 billion. Todays, says Marcia McAllister, spokesperson for the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, there is no official estimate for the cost of the second leg of the project. So reports Ari Cetron with the Connection Newspapers today.

Let’s think this through. If the cost of phase one has jumped by 14 to 28 percent, there’s a pretty good chance that phase two will increase at least as much. All told, totaling phases one and two, a project expected to cost around $4 billion a year ago now is expected to cost $5 billion. And that’s before we get the negotiated contract prices, the inevitable change orders, and the equally inevitable cost overruns. Can you say, “Out of control?”

There isn’t much incentive to keep things under control because the major pressure groups have everything to gain from the Rail to Dulles and little to lose, while those who will pay for the bulk of the project, and very likely any overruns — the riders on the Dulles Toll Road — are politically powerless. The only way to keep Rail to Dulles from becoming a grotesque transfer of wealth from middle-class commuters to well-connected contractors, landowners and special interests is to create a financing scheme that taps the economic value created for property owners around the Metro stations. The modest amount of revenue anticipated from a special taxing district in Fairfax County doesn’t come close.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

22 responses to “Can You Say “Big Dig?””

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    More expensive or cost effective than what?

    how about the cost overruns on the 100 million per mile ICC?

    read on….

    “Roads have capacity limits .. chaotic breakdown in flow and a dramatic drop in speed if they exceed about 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. automobiles average only 1.2 passengers during rush hour, this limits roads to about 2,400 passengers per hour per lane.”

    Larry comment – HOV to the airport?

    “Light rail vehicles can travel in trains carrying much higher passenger volumes… well-designed system can handle more than 20,000 passengers per hour per track.”

    “European light rail systems ..can carry as many passengers as a 16-lane freeway in the space of a two lane roadway.”

    “The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects[13] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle’s new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, .. extensive tunneling …stations as deep as 180 feet below ground level.[14] These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail.
    At the other end of the scale, four systems (Baltimore MD, Camden NJ, Sacramento CA, and Salt Lake City UT) incurred costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Comparison_to_other_rail_transit_modes

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Cutline: “Feds again reject I-64 interchange”

    excerpts:

    “Federal highway officials aren’t backing off on their denial of an interchange”

    …

    “VDOT, which supports the $62 million interchange, has appealed ..”

    CBN needs the interchange to direct traffic to its development and ease already, existing congestion that will be made worse by the new development” (paraphrased).

    “Federal engineers fear that the interchange, as proposed, would create more traffic problems on I-64 and is “too close” to an existing interchange”

    http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=123300&ran=23380

    what does the above story have to do with the Tyson’s Metro/Dulles Toll Road issue?

    Well.. it has to do with why supporter believe that Metro, even a very expensive and cost-overun Metro is STILL a better answer than a new road.

    In a nutshell – it’s the question of whether a new road will actually retain it’s functionality for it’s original design purpose or .. will it spur new development that ultimately will ruin the desired functionality of the road – and in the end – access to Dulles will, in fact, be seriously compromised.

    I find VDOT’s position – interesting – because they typically have stated over and over that new roads don’t spur development – that the development would occur anyhow and here, clearly the Feds are not buying that idea.

    What the Feds counter-propose is that the developer build a parrallel road to an existing ramp which they think is in a better location to integrate the traffic onto I-64.

    The developer doesn’t like that idea because the parrallel road will cost more than the new interchange.

    So … if they don’t get their interchange – will their development go forward anyhow – as VDOT believes it will?

    In defense of VDOT – it’s easy to focus on a single large development – and it’s impacts and VDOT’s position is that smaller… incremental development will occur anyhow.. over time even if the big development is turned down and that, in the end, approval of the big development gets them an additional interchange that they would not have with incremental development.

    But the germane point is – you won’t have any of these problems if you build Metro and clearly Metro will continue to function decades into the future for it’s original purpose of linking NoVa to Dulles.

    In other words – even if roads are much cheaper initially – there is no confidence that they will “work”.

    thoughts?

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    The problems Jim Bacon mentions are likely to occur wherever Metro or light rail is built. Not surprisingly the same arguments are leveled against roads: they benefit mainly landowners.

    Yet, the landowners are just sitting there, the people who use the roads or rail are the ones that take the blame for all this long distance travel and expense.

    Rail is not a better answer: it is a different partial solution. From what we can see, rail has not answered any congestion problems, but only allowed additional people to travel to a few select locations. If we consider the issue on that marginal basis, then trains look even worse than Bacon admits.

    Last week I used the Metro from Vienna to downtown. From the time I exited Route 66 waited in line to park, walked to the train and arrived downtown, it took an hour and cost $10.75 to travel 15 miles.

    How can that be a “better” solution?

    Now consider this. What if only phase one is built? Metro would then attract thousands of cars to Tysons, while their owners travel to the District. That would be a better solution than what, exactly?

    Finally trains can carry that many passengers per hour, but they seldom do. A cars never go anywhere empty, and even averaging 1.25 persons per vehicle their load facto is 37%, which is far better than Metro, even though Metro packs them in standing up during rush hour.

    This week I saw a group of scouts on an outing to the city, some of them were standing and not holding on. When the train lurched, one went flying and nearly knocked a lady down. I’m pretty much convinced that people should not be allowed to stand on speeding trains. No other conveyance allows it.

    Coming home this week I had to let two trains go by, because they were packed to the doors.

    Trains are fine for what they do, but let’s not think they are anykind of a subsitute for cars.

  4. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The Big Dig may be an apt comparison. My observation from visits to Boston before and after the Big Dig is that the construction really, really helped congestion in that city. However, it came at a huge cost. By coincidence, I was in Boston when a piece of the tunnel fell on a car killing a woman in the car. The whole sordid episode of the Big Dig was replayed after the fatal accident. One thing that came up again and again was the too cozy relationship between the government and the contracting companies which built the Big Dig. Now I hear that the design work for Phase I of the Tyson’s Tunnel has been sole-sourced instead of competitively bid. The http://www.tysonstunnel.org web site details that situation – at least from their perspective. Del. Ken Plum sent a public letter criticizing the tysonstunnel organization president. The letter can be read at http://www.dullescorridorrail.com/pdf/l032907Monett.pdf

    This is starting to look and sound a lot like the Big Dig. Sole sourced contracts. Politicians publicly fighting with people claiming to represent the taxpayers. Hmmmm…

    I think Larry Gross is right about the need for the project. But the road to “you know where (JB doesn’t like profanity on his site)” is paved with good intentions.

    Maybe this project needs to be stopped and re-organized. My experience with large projects is that those which start badly end badly.

    Maybe appoint a well respected but independent person to oversee the project.

    What’s Doug Wilder doing these days?

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I continue to be amazed by the
    endless stream of repetition by
    the same writers who make postings
    on this blog site. So many words,
    so little said ….

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    All things being equal – you’re looking at equivalent right-of-way costs for rail or road – right?

    Those costs can be as little as 20 million per mile to as much as 100 million per mile and more – for EITHER rail or road.

    The cost … is not due to the choice of rail or road but rather the value of the right-of-way land necessary for the same-width double tracks or 4-lane roadway.

    Tunneling .. ditto.. go underground for any reason – rail or road and costs go way, way up.
    Hampton Roads knows all about this.

    One big difference is the cost of stations and parking.

    Why is it rails job to provide parking for cars whereas taxpayers often provide parking for car-only trips?

    What if parking cost you the same no matter whether you parked near your job or at a METRO station?

    Then would it be more of a level playing field and more folks would choose a rail commute?

    Rail can move more people per hour than the equivalent roadway.

    Ray says this is “theoretical”.

    This level of useage however, is not a theory in Europe and Japan where useage levels are much higher.

    In other words – it’s not about the inability of transit to move this many people and it is not about not enough people that COULD use transit. It’s about our culture and infrastructure policies which are biased in favor of road solutions.

    Are there “congestion” and safety issues with rail as Ray points out?

    Of course – compared to roads .. where we compromise safety when we convert shoulders to extra lanes or allow ramps to back up onto the mainlines, or let 3 lanes narrow to 2 lanes?

    Are trains inefficient during low use hours? You bet they are. As bad or worse as empty 100 million per mile roadways at 2 am are.

    Why do we bring up rails shortcomings as reasons to not choose rail solutions while ignoring just as serious shortcomings with roads?

    Why do we say.. that folks will never bring a canoe on a train or deliver fertilizer on a train as a reason why roads are superior?

    METRO Rail is for … rush hour for folks going to or coming home from work. It’s a people mover only.

    The argument for or against rail in my view – is about how to best provide the extra mobility capacity needed for rush hour.

    It’s not for visiting GrandMa who lives 50 miles away or getting your kayak down to the Potomac.

    It’s for getting yourself and your briefcase/laptop home to/from work – everyday – the vast, vast majority of “trips” and the “trips” that result in massive daily congestion on the roadways.

    Ray sez – … “$10.75 to travel 15 miles…How can that be a “better” solution?”

    well… it’s better when you have to pay one dollar a mile to use road infrastructure at rush hour – which is what it will cost to provide a better level of service during rush hour.

    ..and it’s “better” when the road trip can take anywhere from one to two hours – and you never know from one day to the next which day is the 2 hour day.

    By the way- ever notice what happens to METRO when there is bad weather or a massive road incident?

    We’re not comparing Nirvana to Hell on earth here. The choice is much less sexy and more prosaic.

    The question is not whether we want to stand in a line with 100 people waiting to get into the movie theatre OR we have a choice to not stand in line and directly enter the theatre with no muss and no fuss 🙂

    Read the Wiki article. It filled in some blanks for me…. and as always with Wiki – “trust but verify”.

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Anon 11:35 –

    The cost of rail in different communities.

    The problems with the I-64 interchange as an example of why roadway building is expensive and challenging as well.

    The two views of the engineering bid for the Tyson’s tunnel project.

    The cost of commuting on Metro vs. by car.

    What’s wrong with the contents of this set of blog posts.

    I learned quite a bit from Larry and Ray. I was surprised to read that the forst stage had been sole sourced. Jim Bacon asks a good question about runaway construction budgets.

    In two months I start voting in primaries. This discussion will help me assess the canidates and their positions on the issue of transportation.

    What’s wrong with that?

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ….and the rambling, non-productive chatter continues on this blog on Earth Day and a week
    of deep sorrow in Virginia …

  9. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Anon.:

    the only rambling, non-productive chatter is being posted by you.

    From Baconsrebellion Home Page:

    About Bacon’s Rebellion

    Bacon’s Rebellion is an electronic op-ed page for Virginia’s new economy. We write about govern-

    ment, public policy, economic development and community.

    It’s unfortunate that you find this simple description so difficult to understand.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I agree.

    If you don’t like or agree with the dialogue – change the channel.

    why would you spend the time reading the dialogue in the first place much less take more time to beret others for not talking about the things you think proper?

    Talk about Nannyism….

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “As bad or worse as empty 100 million per mile roadways at 2 am are.”

    Hardly. At 2 AM you can still use the road, and it is used, but Metro is closed.

    The true economic facts are that, yes, peak hour capacity is expensive for roads and rail. You can’t fault either roads or rail for the fact that we mostly sleep at night and work reguylar hours.

    But peak hour capacity is far more expensive for rail than roads, primarily because of the labor involved. See Winston and Shirley.

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Rail can move more people per hour than the equivalent roadway.

    Ray says this is “theoretical”. “

    There is not a single rail project in the U.S. that has lived up to the passenger predictions used to justify it, including Metro.

    Rail can move more passengers per hour than the equivalent roadway, but they don’t.

    Besides, the roadways are available 24/7 and rails are not, and the roadways serve many other purposes that rail cannot effectively serve.

    If someone wants to propose a truly balanced system of roads and rail, then I’m all for it. Just don’t try to tell me rail is better: it serves a different purpose, and the idea of one being somehow better than the other is meaningless.

    As for Europe and Japan, if we want to throw big money in a pot so that people can avail themselves of rail usage with little association between the usage and the cost of usage, fine.

    But then you can throw that same argument AGAINST auto usage out the window.

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “One big difference is the cost of stations and parking.

    Why is it rails job to provide parking for cars whereas taxpayers often provide parking for car-only trips?

    What if parking cost you the same no matter whether you parked near your job or at a METRO station?”

    HUH? Howzat?

    Most government provided parking is metered or paid for, as far as I know, otherwise it is provided by private enterprise.

    If parking cost you the same at the Metro station as it did at your job, then you would definitely drive becasuse the cost of using Metro would be more than driving, and slower as well.

    Face facts. No one wants to travel in a cattle car, and pay more for the privilege. You need to incentivize or subsidize people to get them to do it. Then of course there are the homeless people sleeping in the stations, panhandlers, and tons and tons of throw away newspapers.

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “METRO Rail is for … rush hour for folks going to or coming home from work. It’s a people mover only.”

    There you have it. If you subscribe to that view then ALL the costs associated with Metro are peak hour costs. Is it really worth it? Why do we allow businesses to locate in places that will require such enormous expenditures, not to mention inconvenience, to provide them with workers?

    Where were the planners when we needed them?

    If it is really just a people mover for rush hour then all those other errands will be run by car, and TOD is a really bad joke.

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “well… it’s better when you have to pay one dollar a mile to use road infrastructure at rush hour – which is what it will cost to provide a better level of service during rush hour.”

    So it is better only if Metro is subsidized and auto drivers pay full cost, plus the cost of Metro?

    Incidently, what happens to Metro when there is a Metro incident? My half hour ride took over an hour on Friday. Talk to someone who rides the Red Line.

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “We’re not comparing Nirvana to Hell on earth here. The choice is much less sexy and more prosaic.”

    Which is my whole point. Let’s get off the rail is better theory and look at the real choices and the real costs.

    Rail does what it does very well, which is make a few landowners rich at the expense of many. Rail, even freight rail, is more about real estate than it is transportation. If you don;t believe it, try to rent a warehouse with rail sidings.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    good exchange of ideas….

    re: “Face facts. No one wants to travel in a cattle car, and pay more for the privilege.”

    but they’re fine in their own individual gridlocked cattle car for free? 🙂

    what if the individual gridlocked cattle car also cost you money – i.e. higher gas taxes and still gridlock?

    “You need to incentivize or subsidize people to get them to do it.”

    No.. you need to charge them for the services they required – quid pro quo. If they want more roads then charge them what those roads cost. If those roads are for rush hour . .and they cost 100 million per mile… fine.. just pass those costs onto the folks that want the service.

    “METRO Rail is for … rush hour for folks going to or coming home from work. It’s a people mover only.”

    “There you have it. If you subscribe to that view then ALL the costs associated with Metro are peak hour costs. Is it really worth it?”

    Compared to what?

    How will you relieve congestion in the NoVa …. REGION and at what cost?

    If you don’t build METRO for rush hour – do you believe that NoVa Regional roads will just continue to be congested and not approach true gridlock?

    If you do believe that – then I might have to agree with you.

    Of course, if you deploy congestion pricing on existing roads, do you believe that – THAT would result in less rush hour congestion in NoVa?

    Isn’t this a way to “incentivize” people to NOT drive at rush hour?

    “Why do we allow businesses to locate in places that will require such enormous expenditures, not to mention inconvenience, to provide them with workers?”

    because… we do the same with residential and in both cases, we don’t tie land-use planning with the transportation consequences of that planning.

    Until this year’s GA – we said that it was VDOT/Richmond’s responsibility no matter what land-use decisions were made by localities and regions.

    NOW – you have responsibility.

    You have a Regional Transportation Authority and you have methods and means to collect money from the folks that need and use the roads at rush hour.

    Question: – do you think the folks in NoVa will support additional tax money from NOVA taxpayers for Metro?

    Bonus Question: Elected officials that approve TOD – will voters and taxpayers now hold them accountable for the transportation consequences of TOD?

    One thing for sure – Will Richmond no longer be the whipping boy for NoVa transportation issues?

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “No.. you need to charge them for the services they required – quid pro quo.”

    Fine, same goes for Metro riders: charge them for the services they required. Or, if you are going to charge only the road users for the cost of services they require, then provide the services. We know that isn’t going to happen, because of high right of way costs, NIMBY’s, and EPA.

    Therefore, any thought of easing congestion is a dead issue. At least the way we are going about it. Metro has not reduced congestion, but it has allowed more peak hour travel to the job locations.

    As such we find ourselves with a little problem. If the rails can carry more passengers per hour than the roads, then how are we going to get enough people to the rail to fill them up? Most of them are going to travel by road.

    So what we see is that the terminal Metro stations become loci for congestion on their own. Metro has not reduced congestion so much as relocated it away from the core. Metro has become just another way to spread out the traffic over a larger area.

    So, if Metro is just a means of providing peak hour transit, and most of those riders still use cars anyway, what have we bought with Metro? Mostly what we bought is more usable space.

    We could have done the same thing by simply putting the jobs where the Metro stations are – and saved the cost of building and operating Metro.

  19. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Now, your argument that rail can carry more passengers per hour is only of vlue during the peak times: the rest of the day, and particularly at night, it is a wasted investment.

    However, there is a way to capitalize on this weakness, and it is exactly the opposite of the accepted wisdom.

    Rather than, or in addition to taking a T off the existing line in order togo to Tysons, a better idea is to extend Metro along Rte 66 to Centrevile and Manassas.

    Granted, going to Manassas puts Metro in competition with VRE, but it is really no contest.

    What extending Metro along 66 does is use the existing highway capacity to fill Metro sooner, thereby eliminating highway miles travelled.

    As it stands, the Rte 66 capacity and the capacity of the on ramps and parking at Vienna cannot mathc the capacity of Metro. But by extending Metro westward along 66 you multiply the ability to supply passengers to the Metro system.

    On reaching Centreville, you could T off and branch up route 28 towards Dulles, serving the many major businesses along the way.

    Since Tyson’s is already a major congestion center there is little reason to add to the problem by bringing Metro there. However, eventually closing the loop on the Golden triangle might eventually make sense, provided you create an additional river crossing to take the strain off the combined orange and blue line tunnel.

    The idea we should be searching for is to combine the strengths of Metro and roadways instead of creating a false dichotomy supported by unequal funding.

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: …”Fine, same goes for Metro riders: charge them for the services they required.”

    let me ask..

    If someone takes METRO and in the process they free up an auto spot on the roads AND if they ride METRO regular – they help save money by not having to expand roads to serve rush hour capacity.

    Shouldn’t we be paying them?

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Metro has not reduced congestion, but it has allowed more peak hour travel to the job locations.”

    I have to ask… what would the situation be at peak hour if there was no METRO?

    See.. I think we’re playing on both sides of the fence here at the same time –

    Either METRO provides a benefit – or it does not.

    Which is it?

    Then the second question – perfectly legitimate is:

    Is the benefit (assuming you agree) that METRO provides more cost effective that providing the equivalent rush hour capacity on the road network/corridors.

    Note the term “network/corridors”.

    We’re not talking about improving one road but providing network-wide capacity equivalent to what METRO provides.

    In other words – if users of roads pay more money – would you restrict the use of that money to anything that is not road concrete as a legitimate way to relieve road network congestion no matter the cost?

    we keep debating the cost of METRO as if it is so expensive as to not be justifiable.

    How many more Springfield Interchanges would have to be built to provide the equivalent congestion relief that METRO provides?

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “The idea we should be searching for is to combine the strengths of Metro and roadways instead of creating a false dichotomy supported by unequal funding.”

    excellent idea in the first part of your sentence.

    But don’t you essentially destroy the concept with the unequal funding thought?

    Are you advocating that we treat METRO and roadways as an INTEGRAL network where funding is spent where it does the most good and gets the best bang for the buck or would you restrict it to the modes that generate the funding?

    If it is the latter, then I’d challenge your assertion that you support an integrated network.

    wrong?

Leave a Reply

Read More