Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Latest Threat to Rail-to-Dulles: Federal Red Tape

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

How’s this for a Catch-22?

Starting tomorrow, the cost of the proposed Metrorail extension to Dulles International Airport, now estimated at $2.7 billion, will increase by some $3 million to $6 million a month. The cost escalation is built into the contract between the state of Virginia, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and the Bechtel-lead construction team.

But work can’t begin until the U.S. Department of Transportation finishes reviewing the project to determine if it qualified for $900 million in federal support. As part of that review, the feds are conducting a cost-benefit analysis. The Office of Inspector General has already warned that escalating costs threaten to undermine the economic viability of the project, which could result in the feds dropping out of the project.

How much longer will the federal review take, adding $3-6 million for each month that goes by? Writes Bill Turque with the Washington Post:

The timetable for approval of final design is unclear. The Federal Transit Administration said it needs at least an additional two weeks to complete its “risk assessment,” meaning its estimate of the project’s overall cost and completion time. If those numbers exceed Dulles Transit Partner’s, then the consortium, the state and the airports authority will have to revisit the project plans to prune costs. How long that would take is not clear. The project would then go back to the Federal Transit Administration for additional review.

This is just one more argument in favor of getting the federal government out of the business of funding state and local transportation projects. Let all projects — highways, heavy rail, mass transit buses, what have you — live or die on their own merits as determined by the people who benefit from them and pay for them directly.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

18 responses to “The Latest Threat to Rail-to-Dulles: Federal Red Tape”

  1. Ambivalent Richmonder Avatar
    Ambivalent Richmonder

    Of course, it’s VA’s choice to pursue federal funding. No one’s forcing them to go through that process, right? So they could pursue this project “on its own merits” if they thought they could make it happen. But then the resulting higher bill for local taxpayers and users might make them angry that the state and contractors didn’t pursue all possible funding options.

    Perhaps that’s the Catch-22.

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Federal AND state!

    Why should NoVa expect other American taxpayers and other Virginia taxpayers to pay for transportation facilities to serve NoVa?

    You know what they say about how careful one is with spending their own money verses spending someone else’s money.

    Talk about your locational costs!

    What do we have – a million people in Fairfax?

    That’s what.. $2500 per capita for this project.

    Send a bill – to every man, woman and child in Fairfax and tell them that they owe $2500 for Metro – payable in 10 equal installments.

    That’s ONLY 250 bucks a year – a bargain.

    Tell the Feds and the State to take their shaggy butts down the road of out town…

    If Fairfax folks want that rail.. get out of their way and let them do it.

  3. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Fairfax folks want rail! The Tysons Corner landowners want rail because it triggers massive rezoning. People who don’t use Metrorail want rail because they think everyone else will ride it, making their commutes simple. The builders and their subcontractors want it because this will become another Big Dig, a great chance to fleece taxpayers.

    Tim Kaine should direct VDOT and DRPT to go back to square one and design a public transit route, which could be rail confined to the median of the Dulles Toll Road, that reduces traffic congestion and is affordable. But then, every special interest group in Virginia would hate him. The residents of Fairfax County, on the other hand, would likely appreciate him for years.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well Fairfax should charge developers that want access to Metro – out the wazooo… you know recover those costs.

    and really.. if folks think about this.. is you charge those Loudoun commuters out the wazoo with tolls on the roads into Fairfax…

    then.. this is a bit sneaky… you build the rail to Dulles.. then you charge those bound for the airport a little less than it would cost for them to get a cab or drive and pay tolls and park.

    heckfire… sounds like Fairfax might be able to build that rail for FREE!

    🙂

    I think FW had it right. Get the government out of the equation.

    Build the backbone.. and charge ..everyone you can … out the wazoo to pay for it…

    and forget about the Feds or the State… I think.. in the end.. the “interference” from the state and the Feds is more of a burden than it is a help. It really does .. screw up the process..

    too many cooks.. too many agendas and too many different agencies and people .. who care more about their own “turf” than the intended goal.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “That’s ONLY 250 bucks a year – a bargain.”

    Per Capita.

    But only about 2% of the population use it. Why should other taxpayers pay for transportation facilities that serve only the privileged portion of NOVA?

    The rest get some benefit from reduced traffic, etc. but it is hardly a bargain. (they THINK everyone else will ride it…)

    Besides, how are you going to get that money out of the kids? There has to be some connection to ability to pay. If the parents have to pay then it is more like $10,000 per family for lines that are nowhere near them. How is that a bargain?

    And, now you gotta borrow the money for nine years.

    Give it up.

    RH

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    This is easy RH.

    If a majority of folks want METRO – even if it is because they think others will ride it…

    .. then give them what they want for christsakes…

    🙂

    could you do this for say.. a 1% sales tax?

    you bet your sweet bippy….

    no muss. no fuss. Vote for rail and pay it off by buying Slurpees at 7-11.

    RH – This is the American Way.

    get with the program.

    🙂

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No matter how you pay for it, its still 10K per family (If our numbers are anywhere close, I’m betting its more like 40K per family), most of whom won’t use it. If it is unreasonable to ask other Americans to pay for transit in NOVA why is it not unreasonable to ask Other NOVANS to pay for transit in only a few NOVAN spots?

    That’s just to build it. We still have to pay to operate it.

    The point is that this has been oversold, because they ALL THINK OTHER PEOPLE WILL RIDE. What kind of lousy thinking is that? Why do they think that?

    Because the promoters have told them so over and over and over again, until it becomes a truism.

    And they beleive it.

    In spite of the fact that the original Metro system, even with its current record breaking ridership, has never met the ridership used to oriinally justify it.

    I happen to think Metro is a great asset. But it’s real value is NOT AS ADVERTISED.

    If we can figure out what the real value is, and who it accrues to, then we can send them the bill. But, that will never happen as long as the mindless metro boosters keep spinning out promises that Metro can’t keep.

    If a majority want it, fine. Show me the referendum where they agreed to raise the money. Show me the referendum where they voted on where to put the stations. I’d wager a lot of people think it would be smarter to extend to Centreville and then turn north up the 28 corridor to the airport, rather than pay to increase the value of Tyson’s. Then eventually loop back along Route 7. Then loop the Springfield line back through Annandale and Bailey’s Crossroad/Seven Corners. The former is a high growth area, and the latter is in need of a lot of redevelopment.

    I like Metro, actually, for all its faults, but what we are about to do is stupid beyond astronomical belief.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Writing a contract with cost escalators for Federal dithering was a stroke of genius.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I suspect most folks in NoVa support Metro – otherwise – the hearings would be full of angry people.. and we’d see letters to the ed and leaders who support it -voted out of office.

    Even you seem to support it Ray while you say at the same time.. that it cannot be justified.

    Perhaps others are like you.

    2005 Poll Question:

    As you may know, there have been proposals to expand the Metrorail system through Tysons Corner to Dulles Airport. The expansion is projected to cost 4 billion dollars. Would you favor or oppose extending Metro service to Dulles?

    Favor 70%
    Oppose 24%
    DK/No opinion 5%

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polls/2005027/q24/index.html

    that sounds pretty overwhelming.

    Now that you’ve seen this – what do you think?

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think it can be justified, just not with the usual nonsense we hear about how wonderful it is and how it will solve every problem from air pollution to traffic congestion to obesity.

    After we decide what the mission really is, then we figure out how to best deploy the assets, that might not be Tysons. Then we can figure out how much that deployment will cost. Then we can figure out who should pay for it.

    I think the poll is meaningless because it references $4billion in the abstract. Rephrase the question with a direct example of what it will cost each person. Then put it in a binding referendum.

    If you can get 70% of the voters to agree that they are willing to fork over $10,000 per family for something most of them won’t use, then I’ll be duly impressed.

    The reality people see is insufficient parking at the stations, long waits in the weather, for the privilege of standing on a crowded train with people you might prefer not to be around.

    I thnk that’s a hard sell. the fact that 800,000 people endure it is a testament to lack of other options.

    So. Real estate taxes are a dollar a hundred. This thing is headed for 6 billion. That means that 600 billion in development will pay enough taxes to pay for it.

    OK, we don’t have and arent going to get that any time soon. It has to be spread out over decades. that 600 billion in development is really only 20 billion.

    But now, you are going to pay for it over 30 years and that means the cost with interest is $9 billion, if you are lucky.

    So, all this thing need to do is generate 30 billion in new development to pay for itself in 30 years.

    No sweat.

    Now go have a poll and ask the voters if they want to pay $10k per family in order to promote $30 billion in new development in NOVA.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    BTW

    The standard is ten trips per residence, which we might call a half million.

    What do you suppose the standard is for number of trips per each million dollars worth of commercial development?

    Say it’s ten. That $30 billion in development is going to generate 200k trips per day. Say you are wildy successful and ten percent of them use the Metro.

    AARRGH.

    RH

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Ray – this is super easy.

    You charge every driver $5 in tolls each way – every day and you get the $2500 in the first year.

    Heckfire.. you’d have… thousands of dollars in the out years for even more METRO expansions.

    You worry too much… people can’t wait to pay those tolls…

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And we are going to charge drivers who have no access to and no use for Metro, the same as we are going to charge people in other states, because……….

    How about you charge every metro rider $5 extra each way?

    Oh, that’s right, there wouldn’t be enough riders. It only works if you charge the 98% that don’t use it.

    Or how about we call it what it is: a huge bonanza to developers, and we hold them to the same proffer standards as anyone else.

    RH

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    no.. you charge everyone $5 to drive and then it essentially goes into a pentence fund for transit.

    Folks know that solo driving is evil.

    They just can’t help themselves and they should be riding transit – so they’re fine with paying their share for others to ride it.

    That’s why 70% support it.

    Check out that referenced POLL. There’s a question about whether or not carpooling would help congestion. People DO KNOW.

    They don’t want to carpool and they’re willing to pay to not carpool – and they are fine with the money they pay to build facilities for folks who don’t want to drive SOLO because it will relieve congestion for THEM.

    You’re the guy that’s always talking about paying folks for their good works… right?

    🙂

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: developers and proffers

    first – developers don’t pay for proffers. developers pass all the costs to the buyer and hopefully keep enough to pay their folks and maybe make some profit.

    When a developer through hook or crook or whatever means is allowed to build a development without proffers – what is happening is that people are being sold houses without having to pay for the infrastructure needed to serve them.

    If a developer could build as dense and/or as much housing wherever they wanted – whenever they wanted – the result would be overwhelmed schools and roads and other services.

    This means the existing residents would have to pay for the infrastructure.

    Under lower growth scenarios – say 1 or 2% – this burden can be accommodated with minimal increases in property taxes and there are areas in Virginia right now with modest growth rates that don’t need proffers – because the growth can be reasonably accommodated.

    Under high-growth scenarios – this all falls about.

    Like I said – if growth was completely unrestrained and no proffers collected – and the rate of growth went to 5 or 6% – the locality would have a tremendous debt-load and the only way to pay it off would be to dramatically increase property taxes on existing people.

    And this scenario is very much self-limiting – because the BOS that does this will quickly become an EX-BOS and the newly elected ones will agree to not unreasonably tax the existing tax-payers who – by the way- ARE, in fact property owners also who should not be unfairly taxed either.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “They don’t want to carpool and they’re willing to pay to not carpool – and they are fine with the money they pay to build facilities for folks who don’t want to drive SOLO because it will relieve congestion for THEM.”

    If that is true, or to the extent that it is true, then I have no problem.

    But if they have been told it will relieve congestion when it won’t, then they have been sold a lie and then I have a big problem. If they have been talked into buying this at full cost when other hidden entities share the profit, then they have been victimized and I have an even bigger problem.

    For some people, solo driving is the best option available. How can that be evil? That is really a stretch.

    Forget the polls. Show me a referendum with actual dollars attached. If the voters go for it, then I’ll admit I was wrong and shut up.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Developers don’t pay proffers. Neither did most previous residents. Proffers are a new targeted tax. It is us, raising taxes against those that don;t live here yet, and it amounts to taxation without representation.

    People are not being sold houses without having to pay for the infrastructure needed to serve them. They will pay taxes on the same basis as those that came before them, who also didn’t pay for the infrastructure needed to serve them.

    If a developer could build as dense and/or as much housing wherever they wanted the result would be much lower housing costs.
    Whether we allow developers to build or not, we will still need to educate just as many kids, and just as many people will travel to their jobs.

    The choice is to pay high housing costs and still pay for all that other stuff out of what little is left, or pay low housing costs and have more left over.

    Oh, that’s right your house and mine are paid for, or sunk costs some other way. We don’t have to care about any one else’s housing costs. We don’t worry about society, just our own pocket.

    So it’s high housing costs and more scools and roads or low housing costs and more schools and roads. Just a question of where.

    You are right about slow growth and high growth. But that is not in our control. Unless you call shifting the burden to some other community control.

    If the locality would have a tremendous debt-load and the only way to pay it off would be to dramatically increase property taxes on existing people. That is a problem with the property tax, not growth. Anyway, the new homes are already more expensive, typically, so they are already paying more.

    I think the real estate tax should be pegged partially to income, a tax that does not consider ability to pay is faulty. The real estate tax rate should be allowed to become what it needs to be, but the annual increase in cash payment should be capped. This also insulates existing residents from sudden increases.

    The board of supervisors job is to provide needed services and find a way to pay for them fairly. Social engineering to obviate the need, pass the costs over to the next county, or eliminate growthth (read manage the economy) is not or should not be in their job description.

    They have an ethical obligation to balance the needs of current residents, current landowners, and prospective residents. But when it comes to votes, current residents hold the power. If we as residents require them to ignore their ethical requirements, then it will come back to bite us, eventually. Meantime we “win” in smug satisfaction.

    Surely the civil rights era taught us that power and right are not the same.

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    until and unless you change the tax system – in high growth areas there are two choices to provide infrastructure.

    Either you charge the new folks or you raise the property taxes of existing folks.

    It costs 8-10K per kid for a new school.

    You cannot wave your hands and say that a new school is not needed.

    If 1000 people move in with kids – then you’re going to need a school that costs 50-100 million dollars.

    If the people who bring those kids don’t pay these costs – who will?

    Now look at a place where the growth rate requires building one new school a week (Loudoun) and tell me that they don’t need those schools and that even if they do – that the existing residents should pay those costs.

    If you let builders/developers build whereever they want, whatever they want (in terms of density).. whenever they want to meet the market – without collecting proffers for schools and other infrastructure –

    who do you think will pay?

    It’s the RATE of growth which drives this.

    If you have a slow rate of growth – like many Virginia localities do have – then growth can be acommodated over time without proffers.

    But if you have a high rate of growth – 5% or more – then there is no way you can build the required infrastructure without money.

    What you are advocating..is the equivalent of existing residents paying for the water/sewer infrastructure for new growth – no matter what the growth rate.

    so.. if you had a high rate of growth that required doubling or tripling the taxes on existing property owners – you’d support that – right?

    Again – anyone who owns property and pays taxes is a property owner.

    Anyone who owns property should not be taxed to provide the infrastructure for others.

    We don’t make existing residents build garages or driveways for new residents.

    We don’t make existing residents (in most places) provide water/sewer connections or build well/septic for new homes.

    but apparently.. when it comes to other infrastructure – roads, schools, libraries, etc – then we should charge existing residents – right?

    and the rationale is .. that houses will be more affordable?

    DOH… yes… indeed.. let’s let taxpayers provide the 8-10K for each water/sewer hookup.. and that will indeed lower the price of the home.

    While we’re at it.. let’s let taxpayers also pay to build driveways and garages and extra bedrooms… that will make houses more affordable also.

    oh.. and if these folks who buy new homes can’t afford a car – no problem.. we’ll add that to the other taxes so that these new home buyers can have more affordable homes.

    You know. .what this country needs .. is more affordable Cadillacs and Mercedes and BMWs.

    The current prices for these vehicles is “unaffordable” to many people and it’s only fair that we raises taxes on others so that we make these cars more affordable to everyone.

    Like I said before… when I hear the phrase “affordable housing” – we’re not talking about providing minimal housing for folks who otherwise would be living in tents.

    We’re talking about high-dollar houses with granite counters and backyard pools.

    These are the homes that are the subject of the “affordability” crisis.

    Workforce housng?

    Yes… I would grant expemptions for TRUE affordable housing – but then the same folks who want property owners to pay for the infrastructure for high-dollar homes would scream about the “wealth transfer” for workforce housing.

    So ..in other words – “affordable housing” is wealth transfers for high-dollar homes.. and certainly not workforce homes.

    There is no profit in workforce homes as compared to high dollar homes.

    Does that give one a hint as to where the “affordable housing” movement comes from?

Leave a Reply

Read More