Rail-to-Dulles: Off the Tracks?

The Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project is in big trouble — even more than it already was. A report by the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, posted online this afternoon, highlights major project risks and recommends a potentially fatal change to the cost-benefit calculus used to determine whether the project warrants federal support.

Plans for financing the controversial Metro extension call for a $900 million federal “New Starts” grant, a $375 million federal loan and a $200 million federal line of credit. But there is intense competition nationally for federal transit funds, and Rail-to-Dulles must leap a number of hurdles, including a cost-benefit analysis, assurance that local funds will be available, and credible plans for managing the project. Among the alarums raised by the Inspector General:

Cost growth and schedule slippage. In December 2004, Phase One of the project to Tysons Corner was estimated to cost $1.52 billion and to be completed by 2009. By March of this year, the cost had escalated to $2.4 – $2.7 billion, and the completion date had slipped to 2013.

“Earlier this year,” writes the Inspector General, “the project was already near an unacceptable cost-effectiveness rating of low, when the cost estimate was much lower, $2.065 billion. Now the cost estimate could be as much as $2.7 billion. The project must achieve a final cost-effectiveness rating of at least medium-low or it will not be eligible for New Starts funding.”

Dulles Toll Road revenues. Under its agreement to manage the Dulles Toll Road, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is responsible for funding improvements and repairs to the road. States the Inspector General: “The project could be endangered if these revenues are not sufficient to cover [rail] project costs and maintain the road. Users of the Dulles Toll Road could be subjected to large toll increases in the future if higher project costs require more and more local funding.”

Cost-Benefit Analysis. The Federal Transportation Authority has refined its methodology for calculating the cost-benefit ratio of transit projects. An old version of the software included as benefits certain travel-hours saved during off-peak hours. Now FTA officials are inclined to exclude those travel hours. With that change the economic viability of the project, marginal to begin with, becomes even more problematic.

Management oversight. The project’s complex organizational structure — management by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation transitioning to management by the MWAA, and then to ultimate ownership and operation by the Metropolitan Washington Area Transit Authority — increases the risk of cost overruns.

“In the past, we reported on projects that failed to implement an effective project management and oversight structure,” the Inspector General writes. “For example, the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project, which experienced massive cost overruns and schedule delays, presents many lessons learned regarding the project sponsor’s ineffective oversight. These lessons are relevant in light of the MWAA’s lack of experience in managing a mass transit project.”

Design-Build contract. Washington Metro was not a participant in negotiating the contract even though it will be forced to live with the consequences. The Metro needs guarantees of protection against defects in design and construction, and it needs assurances that the MWAA will not declare “substantial completion” of the contract on a product that does not meet Metro’s needs.

This report foreshadows the eventual federal rejection of the Dulles Rail project. And without federal funding, the project is a dead. The political reaction to this report undoubtedly will be furious. Virginia’s legislators will try to mau-mau federal administrators into revising their appraisal. But facts are facts, and Rail-to-Dulles faces stiff competition from transit projects around the country, each backed by its own lobbyists and Congressmen.

The Kaine administration had better start preparing a Plan B to improve mobility and access in the Dulles corridor.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

17 responses to “Rail-to-Dulles: Off the Tracks?”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh, Goody. More Toll Roads.

    RH

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Time to look again at the first three paragraphs of our “All Aboard” column of 16 April.

    Instead of getting on the same train, all the proponants of Rail-to-Dulles kept yammering about above ground vs tunnel and how to squeeze more money out of the Feds.

    The future is clear: Fundamental Change or no roads or rails.

    EMR

  3. Plan B

    1. Widen the Dulles Access Road and convert it to HOT lanes charging a premium toll. This will free up a fourth lane on the Toll Road. Tie the new HOT lanes in with the future HOT lanes on the Beltway and add direct access to Reston near Town Center and at Tysons near Freddie Mac.

    2. Build rail to the airport in the median the entire way. Not going through Tysons will save more than a billion dollars. Let Tysons landowners pay for their own circulator connecting to a station at Spring Hill that they (Tysons landowners) pay to build. Save another billion by building no stations not paid for by developers, and ending the rail line at the airport. Save even more by not tunneling at Dulles. The terminal building would provide a great view from an above ground line. A direct line in the median could be completed in two years.

    3. Let developers along the rail line compete for station locations. If a developer, or group of developers, want a station in a particular location, the developers pay for the station.

    If the developers are not willing to pay for a station, it means there is not enough value added from a station.

    4. De-regulate land use around the stations to promote TOD.

    5. Show the Feds that their money is just an invitation to waste!

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Plan C:

    FW’s Plan B #s 2, 3 and 4.

    Do not muck with Large Private Vehicles (LPVs) Autonomobiles are a dead end.

    EMR

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Plan D:

    Plan C except that “rail to the airport” in #2 should be a 21st Century technology, not METRO.

    Anon Zeus

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I agree with the major thrust of FW’s suggestion which is basically for the government to build the main lines/backbone and let developers and development consortiums compete for stations and TOD and connectivity.

    We have a schitzo of a plan… the premise is supposedly extending Metro to areas that would benefit but then the government gets involved in the actual development to the point where they are proposing infrastructure – to serve development rather than the other way around.

    Also.. I find the HOT lane idea – as a means of financing the backbone in general – provocative…as well as innovative.

    One could question the policy itself (of diverting tolls to transit rather than toll road improvements) just on the merits but when the money will be essentially turned over to a bunch of folks who appear to be unable to understand the meaning of cost effectiveness… that’s a scary thought.

    What happens.. if this project (as currently proposed) goes belly up (as it should in my view)?

    do things go back to square one?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    emr
    get over it
    lpvs will always be with us
    and who cares if they pay their way

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    There’s some other interesting aspects to this and perhaps those with better bacground can correct my misimpressions.

    For instance, what would happen to this project if there were no Federal Cost effectiveness requirements?

    Then I wonder what would happen to other kinds of projects… oh..let’s say road projects .. if there were some “cost effectiveness” Guru for roads who could veto a road if it got “too expensive”.

    You know… some guy comes in and says… “we’re gonna pull the plug on the Springfield Interchange or Maryland’s ICC, because it has got too expensive and now exceeds Federal Guidelines for cost effectiveness.

    Then of course, I do wonder how it is not only possible – but a requirement for transit to meet specified cost criteria and to be judged as cost effective or not

    .. but when it comes to roads – how often have we heard the “cost effectiveness” police shut down a proposed road?

    .. for instance, the Springfield Interchange – recently lauded by some officials for being on-time and on-budget had an original estimate of around $250 million and finished up at $675 million and yet not a peep from anyone about “cost effectiveness”.

    thoughts?

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Your question is exactly why the Autonomobile Crowd do not want to tie transport to settlement pattern (aka, transprotation to land use).

    A Mobility and Access system in Balance with settlement pattern generated demand would be far different than any existing plan in the US of A much less any VDOT 6 or 20 year plan.

    LPVs and LPV Systems are, as someone said recently a dead end that is DEAD END.

    EMR

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “….without federal funding, the project is dead”

    interesting phrase…

    so… NoVa .. Wash Metro… can’t do transportation planning without federal subsidies…

    .. and we’re chewing on rural Va for NoVa subsidies?

    oh how awful… pot kettle black

  11. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    EMR – Tysons will never be developed into a balanced community. Even if one were to assume that people working in and around Tysons Corner also wanted to live there, it is simply too expensive for builders to construct and sell/rent work force housing that is affordable. A number of real estate professionals have told me, off the record, that most Tysons Corner workers will continue to live away from, and commute to, Tysons Corner.

    Also, take a look at the Tysons Corner Task Force’s test scenarios. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/tysonscorner/outreach/jul07newsletter.pdf Test scenario C would add the most housing to Tysons. It would result in 38,000 new housing units, but would still produce only 30,400 residents who also worked at Tysons Corner. There would be, according to the Task Force’s estimates, 164,204 jobs at Tysons Corner. Thus, under the rosiest of scenarios for housing, a full 133,804 workers commuting to and from Tysons Corner each working day.

    Even the absurd test scenario A, which would stuff 336,000 people (workers and residents) into Tysons Corner only estimates 26,993 resident workers. With 246,695 jobs under that scenario, 219,762 workers would commute daily to and from Tysons Corner.

    Chairman Gerry Connolly, the other supervisors and the Task Force, aided by what seem to be competant consultants, are all trying to create a balanced community at Tysons Corner. But they simply cannot do so. No one could.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think there are a couple of things that could affect Tysons.

    The first is HOT lanes and the second is a “what if” question.

    “What if” – a Cordon Toll was set up around Tysons that charged – say 8$ a day to bring a car into the boundaried Area?

    This would be in addition to whatever HOT lane tolls would be part of the equation (would depend a lot on whether you were commuting across town or from exurban jurisdictions).

    The Cordon Tolls would:

    * – be used to further expand/enhance ped and transit facilities

    * – include parking at selected garages that featured multi-modal connections to ped/transit.

    My suggestion is NOT to penalize/prevent folks from using autos but – instead – to admit and acknowledge that autos will be used – but to strive to use the demand for auto useage to build facilitities that would more mimic places like Alexandria.

    I truly don’t know if these measures would result in more market workforce housing – but at least – the automobility part of the equation would be scaled back enough to allow the area to possibly grow like Alexandria or other urban areas where autos are kept from overunning non-auto mobility options.

  13. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 10:26 AM toomanytaxes said”

    “EMR – Tysons will never be developed into a Balanced Community.”

    Be careful with use of the word “never.” In today’s WaPo, Jonathan Yardley’s review of “The Unnatural History of the Sea” he quotes two respected academics as saying 50 years ago that the bounty of the sea is “inexhaustible.” Few now disagree that major fisheries are in deep trouble and many of sub-ecosystems are in distress – like the dead zone off the Louisiana / Texas coast.

    “Even if one were to assume that people working in and around Tysons Corner also wanted to live there, it is simply too expensive for builders to construct and sell/rent work force housing that is affordable.”

    tmt, you do not yet grasp the scope and nature of Fundamental Change or the options to solve the Mobility and Access Crisis or the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis.

    “A number of real estate professionals have told me, off the record, that most Tysons Corner workers will continue to live away from, and commute to, Tysons Corner.”

    I was a “real estate professional” for 30 years and I tell you on the record that what they say is what you would expect them to say because Business As Usual is currently thriving on an unsustainable trajectory. The real estate industry and the governance practitioners are all riding on the back of a tiger.

    Call a stock broker and ask if the market will rebound and hit 15,000 by October.

    “Also, take a look at the Tysons Corner Task Force’s test scenarios.

    “http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/tysonscorner/outreach/jul07newsletter.pdf

    “Test scenario C would add the most housing to Tysons. It would result in 38,000 new housing units, but would still produce only 30,400 residents who also worked at Tysons Corner. There would be, according to the Task Force’s estimates, 164,204 jobs at Tysons Corner. Thus, under the rosiest of scenarios for housing, a full 133,804 workers commuting to and from Tysons Corner each working day.”

    “Even the absurd test scenario A, which would stuff 336,000 people (workers and residents) into Tysons Corner only estimates 26,993 resident workers. With 246,695 jobs under that scenario, 219,762 workers would commute daily to and from Tysons Corner.”

    With all do respect – “all do respect” in the context of our view of “The Role of Municipal Planning in Creating Dysfunctional Human Settlement Patterns” (a Backgrounder at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com) – I have absolutely no confidence that any of those numbers are worth the paper they are written on.

    They are based on assumptions that what has happened will continue to happen. Change the parameters to the most likely future scenarios and the options collapse like a house of cards.

    “Chairman Gerry Connolly, the other supervisors and the Task Force, aided by what seem to be competent consultants, are all trying to create a balanced community at Tysons Corner. But they simply cannot do so.”

    As Larry Gross likes to point out not one of those folks has yet to even utter the words “Balanced Community” in public. To the extent they know what it would mean to evolve towards a Balanced Community, they would not admit it.

    The consultants are doing just what those who are paying them want them to say. Consultants cannot stay in business if the do not do that. See “Down Memory Lane with Katrina” at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com .

    “No one could.”

    Do not count on that. The market will do it or the market will do something else.

    Either Greater Tysons Corner will become a Balanced Community or it will become a deserted ghost town.

    You can take that to the bank.

    EMR

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I doubt seriously that we will uninvent private transportation or Large Private Vehicles, like the ones EMR drives.

    I doubt seriously that Tysons will become a ghost town. If it does, it will be because of structural deficiencies that all heavily developed areas have, and those that manage to survive the holocaust that would precede such a manifestation of Fundamental Change will probably look more like Nomads than New Urban Dwellers.

    RH

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    RH:

    You “doubt” and millions pray that we are wrong.

    Show us the data and analysis that suggests that:

    More and more humans

    Can burn more and more natural capital

    Making it possible for fewer and fewer to enjoy the luxury of Mass OverConsumption

    And that this can contiue for more than a few years.

    The present trajectory is not economically, socially or physically sustainable.

    The longer you and others whistle past the graveyard, the less the chance there is that the surviors will not be nomads and scavangers.

    RH and Albert E are on the same wave length in this reguard in regard to what happens after the crash.

    For now we do drive LPVs.

    We have driven larger LPVs in the past.

    The real issue is how often do we drive them and for how far.

    Another question is what did we drive after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo until, because no one else changed when we did, it became too dangerous? More on that in “The Problem With Cars.”

    EMR

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree, Ed, but the car won’t be disinvented. Only the rich will have them. When we collectively burn enough natural capital we will weed ourselves out like bugs at the edge of a petri dish. It won’t be pretty.

    But some people will still be driving cars. The problem isn’t the cars. As you said, its the more and more people.

    No doubt they will have congestion tolls on the sidewalks, to support the roadways the same as we now have tolls on the roadways to support the subways.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The people in Southern Virginia have no interest in metro going to Dulles so that a group of government politicians can get to Dulles airport faster. It might do the politicians good to drive for a change and to get out and meet the people they represent. There are a lot more pressing transportation needs than this. For starters how about fixing the roads we already have. For efficiency sake fire VDOT and hire contractors

Leave a Reply