There are all kinds of forces out there that hate taxes of any form, and hate public works projects like this.  I remember a couple of years back there was some group pushing "Bus rapid transit" as a "cheaper alternative" to Metro.  Well, it would have been cheaper, make no mistake about that, but it would have been a flop.

And I remembered the sales tax referendum of 2002 that was defeated.

The point of the above referendum is really an attempt to delay the project, in hopes of rallying the anti-tax crowd.

It also depends a lot on who gets to vote on the referendum.  If you open it up too wide, then folks far away will vote against it in hopes of freeing up resources for their own pet projects.

I'm just so disgusted by the way this project has been handled - secrecy, no-bid contract to Bechtel, limited public input, board hasn't even read the contract! - that I'm open to other alternatives. 

EricY: you claim that bus rapid transit (BRT) would have been a flop in the Dulles Corridor.  What do you base this assertion on?

The BRT systems that have opened in recent years, including one in Los Angeles I(the nation's car capital) have been very successful.  There are BRT systems in operation, right now, that carry many more passengers than the proposed Dulles line, yet cost a small fraction of the amount. 

The International Energy Agency concluded that BRT is the most environmentally friendly form of public transportation and has a number of advantages over rail systems.  BRT is the only mass transit technology with a certified methodology to sell green house gas credits under the Kyoto protocol.  Former DOT Secretary Norman Mineta, a Democrat and proponent of several major California rail projects, stated that BRT offers cities the most cost-effective transit option available, because it costs less and does more than rail.  Indeed, BRT (not rail) is part of the Department's new congestion mitigation initiative.

If you have some factual basis for claiming that BRT would have flopped, I'd love to see it.  Otherwise, it sounds like misinformed speculation to me.

It all depends upon how many passengers you hope to carry.  In a sparsely populated area, you could never make the case for heavy rail - there just wouldn't be the ridership to justify the cost.  In a more densely populated area, you would choose something that could carry a larger number of passengers.  The Los Angeles area is much more spread out, so something like BRT might make more sense there - it all depends on the specifics.

The carrying capacity of BRT would be far lower than heavy rail Metro, and my understanding is that the projected ridership in the Dulles corridor is sufficient to justify heavy rail.

As far as I can tell, some of the advocates for BRT in the Dulles corridor were basically tax-haters who were just throwing BRT out there to try and derail Metro.  Do something on the cheap to give the appearance of doing something, and thereby avoid higher taxes...

Secondly, there are lots of folks who would never get on a bus but would gladly ride Metro.  A perception problem undoubtedly - I gather that lots of people perceive buses as something that only poor people ride because they cannot afford a car.  But this perception problem apparently did lead to a number of businesses in the Tysons area saying that if it isn't Metro, that they don't want the thing going through Tysons.

Some BRT supporters may be tax haters, but many are not (including me).  The fact that some BRT supporters are tax haters does not mean that BRT is a bad idea. I support BRT because it provides many more benefits at a lower cost. 

You are absolutely right about the relationship between density and transit usage.  The Dulles Corridor does not have the density to support heavy rail.  That's part of the reason why the ridership numbers are so low.

You are incorrect about the carrying capacity of BRT being lower than heavy rail.  The carrying capacity of BRT is actually much higher than the proposed Dulles line.  I am not talking about theoretical capacity.  There are BRT systems operating right now that exceed significantly the carrying capacity of Dulles Rail. Before committing our region to a $5.15 billion rail project, I think it would have been wise for some of our leaders to visit these systems.  To my knowledge, they never bothered to check them out.

The projected ridership in the Dulles Corridor does not justify heavy rail.  That's why the FTA gave the project a "medium-low" cost-effectiveness rating.  This would have disqualified the project from federal funding, except for the fact that the project promoters got Senator Warner to sneak a provision into federal law exempting Dulles rail from this requirement. 

BRT's success in Los Angeles is not because LA lacks density.  LA is actually the densest urban area in the country.  It seems counter-intuitive, given how spread out it is, but look it up.

The notion that people will not ride BRT but will ride rail is myth.  The research and real-world experience shows otherwise.  People want a safe, reliable, and comfortable system that provides value compared with driving their car.  They don't really care whether the vehicle itself has steel wheels or rubber tires.  The Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles attracted so many people out of their cars that, according to the University of California, there was a noticable decrease in congestion on the 101 freeway.  The Fairfax Connector bus service is extensively used by people who have a choice to drive instead. 

Finally, the perception about buses is an issue.  However, in my opinion, it was not the main reason why some businesses supported rail.  Rather, they supported rail because the county master plan grants density bonuses if "rail" is built, not if high quality transit is built.  In other words, it is a quid-pro-quo -- support our rail project and you get economic rewards. 

Let's not forget that the Reston park and ride already carries  something like 14,000 riders daily to West Falls Church Metro and express to the Pentagon. Just think that if there were protected areas for people to stand in, modern, natural gas fueled buses and they ran more often, this ridership number could increase dramatically. However, it seems to be the philosophy of this Board to not the make the experience too "comfortable" or people might see the wisdom in continuing with and expanding express bus service downtown.

Vincent is correct.

If the Commonwealth Transpsortation Board, the Fx Cty Board of Supervisor and the BIG LAND USE DEVELOPERS had welcomed the proposal for rapid bus in the corridor in 1998 that Wolf offered, we would have a lot less traffic in the corridor and on major roads.

But no, these smart folks, rejected the Federal Gov paying 80% of the cost.  Instead almost 10 years later we sit at jammed intersections and gridlock roads, burning $3.25 per gallon gas.

Don't tell me the express buses don't work.  Just look at the packed buses leaving from Reston and Herndon going to West Falls Church and the Pentagon.  Oh by the way, when (??) the rail gets built, these buses will be shut down and passengers will be forced to endure a longer train ride because of the 4 stops in Tysons.

It is cheaper to launch and cheaper to maintain. If we want to guarantee speed, it can have a dedicated road where we would put rail. I find trains more beautiful, but BRT does the same function for less money.

Most projects, especially big public projects, lean towards entropy, ending up being a lot harder than originally thought and more expensive. And it bothers me how the metro to Dulles project keeps getting more and more expensive, on paper. I am afraid that taxpayers will end up having to pick up all of the overrun costs, and money that could have gone for pro-social programs will have to be dedicated towards paying for this project.

And having a referendum looming over the project may encourage the people making the deal to open the process. So far, it seems that it is going to be a nice profit-making present to the company that is getting this no-bid contract.

...friends of Bush and Cheney and responsible for the "Big Dig" disaster in Boston.

Lowell, I understand your frustration, but the bottom line is that we need more Metro service in the DC area, the sooner the better.  Delaying the project and risking its death by opening it up to a referendum is a step in the wrong direction.

And why is a toll increase to $2.50 "huge"?  Why should the toll to drive from my home Ballston to my office in Reston ($1.25 each way) be much cheaper than the Metro fare ($2 each way)?  If the toll was raised, maybe more people would be inclined to carpool.  Right now the cars around me on the road are 95% single-occupant vehicles.

We need more high quality transit service in the DC area.  That does not necessarily mean more Metro.  Ironically, supporting a project like Dulles rail actually hurts our chances of getting more high quality transit service. 

For example, Dulles rail puts all of our resources into a single, under-performing rail line.  According to the FTA, the Wiehle extension will only attract 18,400 daily new transit riders in the year 2030.  Northern Virginia is expecting 920,000 new residents and 650,000 new jobs by that time.  Do the math.

The fact is, we would need a half dozen or so more new transit lines by 2030 to even begin meeting the potential demand.  The Dulles line alone is at least $5.15 billion, so we are easily talking about at least $30 billion just for construction.  The operating subsidies for Metro are a huge additional cost that come out of the general fund, and thus compete with schools and other priorities. Moreover, even if we started today, it would be impossible to muster the resources and get the lines built by 2030, as the decades-long Dulles process has made painfully clear.

I appreciate that people have been dreaming about Metro in the Dulles Corridor for years.  But, the fact is that we are facing a huge regional problem that requires a regional solution.  Putting all of our resources into the Dulles line effectively kills any opportunity to develop such a regional solution, with the result that we will become increasingly car dependent, not less so. 

No offense, but I did a google search and found that you are the director of the "Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center" - a think tank, I suppose, that advocates for BRT:

http://www.gobrt.org...

It probably would have been better if you had issued a disclaimer about that right from the start.

In any event, I would prefer to get my information from the original sources, and not from sources that have a clear vested interest in one type of solution.

I provided a link to the FTA's report in a posting below.  As to my identity, I have been in this debate publicly for over 5 years, quoted extensively in the media, published op/ed's, testified at hearings, etc.  There's no secret that we are promoting BRT.

He did supply the link. I followed it and found the 18,400 number on the first page of the FTA document he referenced.

I didn't know the exact numbers but I did know this was one of the deceptions of Tysons/Dulles rail. Proponents use the TOTAL number of new daily riders. That is a misleading number. The important number is the number of NEW daily riders (i.e., those not already using some form of mass transit).

The huge cost of building and subsidizing Metro, then trying to recoup the costs through the fare boxes, also shows that rail is for the middle to upper classes of residents in Fairfax. It is not transportation for the many service workers of our office buildings who cannot afford cars/insurance/gasoline and who can only financially afford to take time consuming, poorly maintained buses that do not run at intervals to qualify for the name of "mass transit".

BVincent cogent argument that BRT is cheaper to build, which can have express service, can continuing running in times of terrorists acts and is affordable and pleasant to ride for all people, makes much more sense. Plus, for the 70% of the time when there may be no bus vehicle on the right of way (ROW), dedicated bus lanes could be used for HOV traffic - icreasing the carrying capacity of this roadway. You can't do this with rail ROW - the tracks are for trains only - an inefficient use of ROW dedication...IF you are looking at carrying the maximum number of riders through the region.

For the cost of Tysons rail, we could have a true regional mass transit system with BRT in a fraction of the time it would take to build Tysons rail. In fact, it would be operating now if the BOS had been more futuristically oriented in 1998.

but metro along the Reston corridor is

You ever wonder why they call it the silver line

Between 7 and the Toll Road that corridor has extra capacity

The Route 66 and Route 1 corridors have a greater need for additional transit options WAY before the Dulles/Route 7 corridor

and talked to the folks who are riding it. I have and it was a  revelation. To make a long story short, many were riding it because they couldn't afford MetroRail.

I was getting real close to helping out Charlie Hall but with comments like that from his supporters..

This thread isn't about Charlie Hall, so I don't know why you brought that up. It's about whether a referendum should be held regarding the Tysons/Dulles rail project. Part of that discussion is understanding what the MetroRail extension to Tysons will and will not do.

A significant portion of our population can't afford to use MetroRail. I think that is an important part of the discussion. And these are the lower-income people who need good mass transit the most.

We desperately need a comprehensive mass transit system in Northern VA to service all our residents and service workers, not just the more affluent ones. Tysons-Dulles rail is not that system yet it's going to cost well over 5 billion dollars.

Imagine if we spent $5 billion buliding a superb system of bus, trolley, monorail, bike trails, sidewalks, telecommute centers, etc?  Would the region be better off having spent the $5 billion that way or in one single, giant, white elephant project to Dulles Airport (benefiting mainly the airport, airlines, and other interests west of Tysons)?

the smart growth aspects in Tysons Corner, the project, which had been borderline before, crosses that border into the territory of "big mistake."

into Chantilly and Centreville which already has population eager to use mass transit

Oh wait thats not where Connolly and Smyths district is located

n/t

You have asked the right question, which none of our government officials have EVER asked.  That is, what else can we get for $5 billion, and would it be better?  This question is rarely if ever asked in transportation mega-projects like Dulles Rail, because the answer is almost certainly that we could get a lot more and provide much greater benefits.  People who promote and profit from projects like Dulles rail don't like such answers.

In evaluating this issue, please bear in mind the following points:

1)  Users favor rail over bus by large margins.  The perceptions may not be "fair" but most people view buses as being slow, unreliable, crowded, dirty, et cetera.  In contrast, Metro rail has much better customer satisfaction ratings (e.g., clean, fast, safe ...).

2)  Both rail and bus lose money.  However, bus transit loses a lot more money per person.  Each bus passenger pays only about 1/3 of the costs; whereas about 2/3 of the costs are paid by rail passengers.  The public pays for the remainder of the costs.

3)  I don't know where some people on this board are getting the number 18,000 as being the amount of daily users of the Dulles rail system.  The numbers I have seen refer to about 100,000 person trips per day.  This is a big difference.

4)  I don't like the idea of increases in tolls.  On the other hand, kindly remember that the Dulles Greenway currently charges about $3.20 per trip.  That current Greenway toll price is above the $2.40 price estimated for the Dulles toll road in 2035 (28 years in the future). [NOTE:  The current average Dulles toll is about $0.75.]

5)  The Dulles corridor is commonly referred to as the "economic engine" of Fairfax County.  It is the logical place for rail, not buses. Workers will be coming to this corridor from throughout the region. 

All great points.

In comparing transit options, you must make apples-to-apples comparisons.  Comparing Dulles rail to ordinary bus service is very misleading.

For example:

Buses operate on city streets and do not have a dedicated right of way.  Thus, they can get stuck in traffic.

Buses do not have stations, but rather often just a sign post on the sidewalk.  If you are lucky, there might be a small plexiglass shelter. 

Buses make frequent stops, often every few blocks, slowing them down signifcantly.

By contrast, BRT systems take the features that people like about rail and, instead of running a train, they run a rubber-tired vehicle.  This costs a lot less to build than rail and has comparable or lower operating costs. 

It also enables a much more robust service because, unlike rail, the vehicles are not stuck to tracks.  For example, under the curent proposal, much of the line is in the middle of a 12-lane highway (which, by the way, is a really bad place to put transit).  Thus, someone going to Reston needs to cross 6 lanes of traffic and then switch to a bus or a car to finish their trip.

A BRT could use the Dulles Access road, then exit at Reston and drop people off at stations in Reston Town Center.  Much more efficient and better for the passenger, because they are not dropped off in the middle of a 12 lane highway with the requirement that they switch modes to finish their journey.

About the capacity of the Dulles rail line, the 18,400 number is the number of NEW riders -- that is, people who did not previously use transit.  The larger numbers referred to by the previous post are total boardings.  Most of these total boardings are already using transit (either the Orange line or buses), which is why the NEW RIDER number is so much smaller.  Thus, in short, we are spending $5 billion to essentially shuffle people from one form of transit to another.  We should be spending $5 billion to get NEW RIDERS onto transit.

For more information,  I suggest starting the FTA's report to Congress on this project, which is available at http://www.fta.dot.g... 

That's almost $300,000 per new rider.  Wow, this had better be a hell of a train ride...white glove service, anyone?

it is 18,400 new riders for the Wiehle extension, or roughly $150,000 per new rider.  Plus, those 18,400 do not materialize until 2030, by which time we will have 920,000 new residents.

Sorry not to be clear, but it is still very bad.  They have never released new rider numbers for the completed line.

Please see page 7 of the Staff briefing report entitled "Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension to Wiehle Avenue" that is on the home page website for Fairfax County. 

It is not 18,400.

What you're referring to is "daily person trips," which is not the same thing as new individual passengers.  For starters, since most people do a round trip, it's probably only half of 63,000 for Phase 1 in terms of #s of people.  Then, how many of these are NEW public transit users?  I'm sure the number drops a lot further. Is this worth $5 billion or more?  I have grave doubts.

You make a good point.  However, I don't think you can say that the ridership number for extension is only 1/2 of the totals.

For example, there is no "good" transportation way to get to the places where the new Metrorail sites will be.  I feel (but cannot prove) that Metrorail will attract more public transportation users than any bus system just based on the perceptions of the public toward the two systems.

Also, if you notice all the offices being built and/or expanded, you will realize that the Dulles corridor work population is growing quickly.  These are people that don't go there now, but will in the future.  They are all new users.

Finally, the Dulles corridor is referred to as the "engine of Fairfax" for the simple reason that it is THE business hub of our county.  I think it's office space total is within the top 5-7 in the entire country (it is either ahead of or just behind DC in terms of total office space).  So, I believe that Metrorail (and not bus) is the logical longterm solution for that corridor.

The growth and future plans are already incorporated into the ridership models for rail.  Moreover, if the purpose of transit is to serve this growth, why are the stations outside of Tyson's corner in the middle of a 12-lane highway?  The stations should be next to the buildings.

This project is not integrated well into the communities.  That is NOT "smart growth."

The 63,000 and 95,000 numbers are for average weekday BOARDINGS.  The 18,400 number is for average daily NEW RIDERS.  There is a huge difference. 

A BOARDING is whenever a person gets on the train.  A NEW RIDER is someone was induced to ride transit as a result of the project. Generally, a NEW RIDER is someone who previously drove their car, so this is the most important measure.

The BOARDING number is much larger than the NEW RIDER number.  Why?  In part, because many of the BOARDINGS are by people who already use transit, either the existing Orange Line or buses. In other words, we are spending billions to merely siphon people from one transit system to another. 

The 18,400 NEW RIDERS is for the Wiehle Avenue extension in the YEAR 2030.  In 2030, Northern Virginia is projected to have 920,000 new residents and 650,00 new jobs, according to the Council of Governments.  Do the math.  At best, a few percent of the new residents will use rail -- the rest will be in cars.  We need a much more comprehensive and effective transit strategy. 

Also, I urge you to follow the FTA link I provided previously and look at the projected weekday boardings there.  Here it is again: http://www.fta.dot.g...

County staff said 63,000 average weekday boardings during the opening year for Phase I, as you pointed out.  But four months ago, FTA reported to Congress that there would be 69,600 average weekday boardings during the opening year.  That's a drop of 6,600 average weekday boardings, or roughly 10 percent. 

What happened to the 6,600 weekday boardings?  Why do the projected benefits continue to fall as the costs continue to rise?

For example, in 1997, we were told that the project would cost $1.45 billion and have 114,500 average weekday boardings.  Now, it is $5.1 billion but only 95,000 weekday boardings, many if not most of which already use transit.

I have nothing against rail.  But we ought to insist that the benefits be commensurate with the costs.  That is obviously not the case with Dulles Rail, in my opinion.