* Earlier this year, 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. Achieving this rating may prove difficult with the current cost increases.

* WMATA was not a participant in the design-build contractual negotiations even though it will eventually be forced to deal with the consequences.

* Even at this early stage, Phase I of the Dulles Project has experienced substantial growth in estimated costs of approximately $1 billion since 2004. The project has also had schedule slippages of about 4 years.

Phase I History of Cost Increases and Schedule Delays

Date of Estimate	Estimated Project Cost	Estimated Project Completion Date
December 2004	$1.52 billion	2009
April 2006	$2.065 billion	2011
January 2007	$2.31 billion	2012
March 2007	$2.4 - 2.7 billion	2013

* Additional schedule slippages are probable, because at last report, [some of] the June 2007 [milestone] dates were annotated as "delayed," and later dates were annotated as "at risk."

* ...the current plan is to build Phase I using $900 million in Federal New Starts money, with the rest covered by Dulles Toll Road revenues, revenues from a Fairfax County special tax district, and a small amount from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

* Further increases in funding demands could once again put pressure on Fairfax County to commit funds beyond any proceeds from the business taxes.

* The comprehensive agreement appears to allow advertising the eventual design-build contract (final design and construction) work to others, on a competitive basis, only upon failure to reach a final agreement with Dulles Transit Partners. Negotiations with Dulles Transit Partners were concluded on March 30, 2007, and Dulles Transit Partners was actually awarded the design-build contract in June 2007. Therefore, there was no competition for this stage of the project.

* The design-build contract with Dulles Transit Partners calls for an increase to the contract price for each day that the notice-to-proceed for commencement of final design is delayed past August 1, 2007. If this deadline is not met?and it appears unlikely that it will be?the effects on project costs could be significant.

* FTA officials have pointed to the considerable expenditures on the Dulles Project thus far as a partial rationale for not revisiting the transportation user benefits at this time. Nonetheless, we believe that the significantly higher amount estimated to be spent if the Dulles Project goes forward is a more important consideration than the amount already spent. Accordingly, FTA should consider reevaluating the transportation user benefits for the Dulles Project in accordance with current FTA policy and use this updated figure to make any decisions regarding the project?s New Starts funding.

FTA requires project sponsors to submit, in advance of the assessment of formal New Starts justification criteria, a series of reports and maps produced by a software tool called Summit. FTA makes this tool available to project sponsors, and the sponsors use data from their travel forecasting models as input to Summit to produce the required reports and maps. One output of Summit is a transportation user benefit figure?a key figure used in the calculation of cost-effectiveness.

According to FTA officials, Summit was new when they approved the Dulles Project for entry into the preliminary engineering phase in 2004. However, FTA later gained a better understanding of Summit and realized that the transportation user benefit included travel hours saved during off-peak weekday hours by travelers who were not using any part of the Dulles Project extension, but only existing track between the East Falls Church and Stadium Armory stations. Such riders would save time with the addition of the new silver line trains, which would add to the number of trains during off-peak hours, thereby shortening wait times (train frequency during peak hours is expected to be the same with or without the Dulles Project).

FTA officials then deliberated on whether these hours were legitimate transportation user benefits resulting from the project. They subsequently concluded that inclusion of such hours could be controversial and changed their policy to exclude such benefits on subsequent New Starts projects. However, they did not believe it was fair to go back and reconsider other projects that had already moved forward in the New Starts process on the basis of including these hours. Therefore, FTA decided to perform future calculations of transportation user benefits excluding hours saved by travelers using only existing portions of the system, but not to reevaluate older projects, such as Dulles.

shedding more light and less heat on the so-called Rail to Dulles (a real misnomer, isn't it?) One reason our fearless leaders may be rushing, as you say, into the project is the rising cost due to inflation they face, combined with the fact that it is the local jurisdiction which will have to foot the extra bill--- along with any regional transportation tax mandated by the recent transportation bill passed by the General Assembly. The very thought of this is enough to give anyone pause. 

I cannot help but remember the Washington and Old Dominion rail line that ran from Arlington to Herndon and beyond. It was, at the urging of the automobile and Big Oil lobbies, torn up a few years ago (1970's?) and turned into the long string bean of a jogging path... just before the great development of Herndon-Reston-Franklin Farms and beyond.

If that line were still in existence it would have made a terrific commuter line, and, since it ran right through Vienna, a single spur could have been added to serve Tysons Corner and another to serve Dulles Airport, at a lot less cost than this present boondoggle. I don't suppose we could take back the right of way from the Parks Department???

for bicyclists and pedestrians (going to metro or to work). There are over 2 million users of this trail per year. It's a major wildlife habitat and corridor (somehow Condo Connolly & Smyth just can get their hands on this one) and is on the migratory path of the monarch butterfly. It is well maintained and a crown jewel of Fairfax, Arlington and Loudoun counties. Unfortunately, Fairfax and Loudoun are letting developers creep their houses up to the park's right of way, which is destroying the respite nature of the trail as an escape from the BOS's urbanization of Fairfax.

I can bicycle commute to work on the WO&D.  At least part of the way :-).

It is tempting for lots of folks to wish for mass transit along this corridor, but it isn't at all obvious to me that this corridor is ideal for the purpose.  Out beyond Rt 28, the population density is more concentrated along the greenway than it would be along the WO&D.

Even in Vienna and Falls Church, the right of way goes through the middle of a lot of low-density residential neighborhoods, and doesn't follow more recent patterns of higher densities along major highways.

I have a major concern allowing an agency, that is not subject to any public oversight or experience in managing a mass transit project, taking over this multi billion dollar public works project. It sounds like the Big Dig all over again (with Fairfax residents picking up the escalation tab). Bechtel has effectively figured it out. As stated in this report:

"The transition of project control to MWAA in particular poses a potential risk that warrants FTA's close oversight. The transition from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to MWAA is ongoing and has been delayed since at least March 2007. Until the final transfer occurs, the two agencies will be sharing responsibilities, which could create risks regarding which entity has ultimate stewardship and oversight responsibility. Even after the transfer, such questions will still exist because of the project's complex organizational structure. For example, MWAA will be in charge of final design and construction of the project, but it will ultimately be owned and operated by WMATA.

"In the past, we reported on projects that failed to implement an effective project management and oversight structure. 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. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), which similarly had little experience in managing an undertaking of the scope and magnitude of the CA/T Project, hired a joint venture of Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff to provide preliminary designs, manage design consultants and construction contractors, track the Project's cost and schedule, advise MTA on Project decisions, and, in some instances, act as the MTA's representative. Eventually, MTA even combined some of its employees with Bechtel/Parsons employees in an integrated project organization. This was intended to make management more efficient, but it hindered MTA's ability to independently oversee Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff because MTA and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff had effectively become partners in the project."

I don't have faith, either, that the FTA will have the staff or resources available, as they feel they will need, to closely monitor this project, IF it goes to construction.

I would like to present an opposing view to this posting:

First, the project is to take Metro to Dulles.  The fact that it is being done in two phases does not change the scope of the project.  It always has been intended to go to Dulles, and it will.

Second, there is no "rush into it" mentality.  This project has been discussed publicly (including many public hearings where input was received from the community) for many years.  It spans back at least into the late 1990s and probably before that time.

Third, I listed to Gov. Kaine on NPR on Tuesday morning.  He said that the project was open for competitive bids and that only two companies put in bids.  In other words, although many companies expressed some interest, they didn't follow through and make a bid.  Later, the two companies that had put in bids went together so that there was a joint bid.  In this context, Gov. Kaine said that it is not right to say there was no competitive bidding process.

Fourth, Gov. Kaine sounded optimistic about meeting the financial criteria during the interview.  Did anyone else hear that interview?

Fifth, I saw news reports today that Gov. Kaine was on Capital Hill today about the project.  But I have not seen any report on what transpired.  This meeting may have been important.

First, having this project built in two phases does change its complexion. There has been no second tax district formed by the western landowners, and by all appearances, there will be none formed, as originally envisioned. Therefore, Fairfax residents will pick up approx $425M that was to be covered by the western/Reston- Herndon landowners ($425M is to be covered by the eastern/Tysons landowners; the same was projected as a responsibility for the western group). Rumor has it that MWAA jumped into the action to assure that rail would go to Dulles and not stop at Wiehle.

Second, re the public hearings. They were a sham. If someone testified that they liked rail but not this project, the BOS put a check mark in the "support rail" box. The hearings took place in the late summer months of 2002 and most people had no idea what was going on. Thanks be to TysonsTunnel.org and all its money and year of advertising to finally get the word out about the rail.

Third, re competitive bidding - the other company that bid on the project was Raytheon (which was proposing a significantly less expensive BRT system). Soo, thereafter, Raytheon was bought out by Washington Group (a reorganized bankrupted Morrison and Knutson). Washington Group then formed a consortium with Bechtel and the rest is history. There was no competition, just big fish swallowed little fish and two big fishes joining to become mega fish. It could more accurately be termed, "cooperation".