The federal government will not provide critical funding for the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project, U.S. Department of Transportation officials announced yesterday, effectively killing the $5 billion extension of Metro rail along the Dulles corridor. The decision set off a round of caterwauling that could be heard all the way to Richmond by people who said they were surprised, nay, shocked, by the decision.
Sen. John Warner is “livid,” according to one source quoted by Amy Gardner in the Washington Post. And Secretary of Transportation Pierce R. Homer is none too happy either. Said he: “Many of the issues that were raised today were heard for the first time by the congressional delegation, the governor and the project team, and that is disappointing.”
Then there’s the Washington Post editorial page:
To say that the FTA’s decision is a bolt from the blue is an understatement. Until a few weeks ago, officials representing the state, Metro and the regional airport authority believed, and say they had been told, that the plan was on track and likely to gain FTA approval by the end of January.
But the only people who should be surprised are those who convinced themselves that federal officials would abandon all common sense and ignore the multitude of problems that have cropped up around the project. James S. Simpson, administrator of the Federal Transit Association enumerated sound reasons for denying the requested federal funds — many of which were noted in a report last summer by the DOT’s Office of Inspector General (See “Rail to Dulles: Off the Tracks?”), fueling a firestorm of public debate at that time.
In a letter to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Simpson wrote that the project would receive a rating of medium-low under federal funding criteria. Oh, yeah, big surprise — to Washington Post editorial writers, maybe, but not to anyone else. The feds have made no secret that the project was marginal. That’s why state transportation officials have been desperately looking for ways to trim costs!
But there’s more, a lot more. Wrote Simpson: “FTA is concerned that the cumulative risks and uncertainties that characterize the Dulles project in its current form are extremely likely to result in further cost escalation and schedule delays.” Gee, another big surprise — to anyone who doesn’t read Bacon’s Rebellion, or the Washington Examiner. We’ve been harping on precisely those concerns for a couple of years now.
Now for the details:
- Cost reductions. On Oct. 4, 2007, the FTA told the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), entasked with managing the rail project, that it required “commitments” for $250 million in cost reductions. By Jan. 17, 2008, however, the FTA had received notification of only $16.5 million in change orders and promises that Dulles Transit Partners, the contractor, was working on another $67.1 million. The FTA could not make its cost-benefit calculations on the basis of promises. It had to work with the facts in hand. The project didn’t make the cut.
- Finances. FTA was concerned by the project’s “aggressive financial structure,” including extensive backloading of debt, optimistic revenue assumptions, and significant growth in costs for the Washington Metro transit system, of which the Rail-to-Dulles project would be a part.
- Project risks. “The Project,” Simpson wrote, “is dependent on many and complicated inter-oprganizational management arrangements for Project design and implementation. MWAA … lacks experience with heavy rail construction and has limited experience with design-build contracts, raising serious questions about its ability to control project costs and schedule. … Early indications of potential inter-agency conflicts are already apparent in the Dulles project.”
- Washington Metro. The Washington Metro, which would run the rail line once built, has its own massive problems. “Because WMATA faces significant, unresolved capital funding needs for maintaining the current system, the proposed extension to Metrorail may pose serious financial and operating challenges, and further strain the system as a whole.”
Summarized Simpson: “The sheer number and magnitude of the current Project’s technical, financial and institutional risks and uncertainties are unprecedented for a candidate New Starts project — particularly one seeking nearly $1.5 billion in Federal participation (i.e. $900 million in New Starts funds and $580.4 million in a loan….)”
The only surprise is that the Rail to Dulles project could have lurched along, a dead man walking, as long as it has. The people who should be ashamed are not those who put this nightmare out of its misery, but those who perpetuated its existence, squandering millions of dollars in the process, in the face of all evidence — stalling any meaningful conversation about alternatives for addressing the very real transportation needs of the Dulles corridor.
(Hat tip to “Too Many Taxes” for forwarding a copy of the Simpson letter.)