February 2008

SPECIAL EDITION

Dulles Metrorail Project: At Stake is Much More than a Rail Line
We have the good fortune to live in a prosperous region where the quality of life with one exception is high.  That exception is surface transportation.  While Washington is the Nation’s Capital, locally it is comprised of 19 different governments, each with its own land use and transportation policies.  Most realized decades ago that new jobs are a net asset to local government revenues, whereas housing, with the educational and other services they require, is a drain on the exchequer.  However, new jobs help keep the real estate tax rate low for voters if the associated housing can be pushed into another jurisdictions.  So the job growth in Fairfax, Montgomery and Loudoun counties has resulted in neighboring jurisdictions such as Warrenton, Frederick and Winchester becoming dormitories for the workers.  As a result, traffic on roads leading into Northern Virginia has jumped 27% in just four years.Over the last seven years, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties have seized upon Dulles rail as a way to mitigate this problem without burdening neighboring communities with unwanted levels of density on their doorsteps.

In the 21^st century, the choice of whether much of our region expands horizontally (so called urban sprawl) or vertically through ecologically friendly urban developments in which many people can live close to their work, will be determined by the extension of Metrorail through the Dulles Corridor.

Arlington planned a relatively dense mix of housing, retail, commercial and office space clustered around planned Metro stations 16 years before the Metrorail service actually arrived.  They expected to double housing and employment densities while only adding 80% to highway demand.  A decade later in the Ballston corridor, densities have indeed doubled, but automotive traffic has increased only 16%.  Better still, a conscientious effort between developers, the county and neighborhoods to work together has given the neighbors adjacent to the Ballston corridor many amenities within walking distance without the dreaded burden of visible density overshadowing their communities.

Today’s employers serve world markets and locate where they have good airport access.  As a result, the Dulles and Route 28 Corridors have grown from an insignificant 4% to 25% of the entire metro region’s economy in just 25 years.  The Dulles Metrorail project extends 23 miles from West Falls Church to Moorefield Station in Loudoun County.  It will add 25% to the Metro system, and, of more importance, provide a transit link between much of the region and a vigorous portion of its economy.  That will help people change jobs without leaping into an automobile, and it will give Dulles Corridor employers a much greater geographic area upon which to draw for their employees.

Due to the nature of Tysons Corner and the Dulles Corridor, the region has an opportunity to accommodate a portion of its growth without adding to the burden of its overused highways, or increasing its greenhouse gases in an exponential manner.  Given rail and increased road capacity, the Dulles Corridor can become a 21^st century main street for the region with nodes of Ballston-style urban density for Tysons Corner, and to a lesser or greater extent around stations along the corridor to the terminus at Moorefield Station in Loudoun.  An office or residence alongside a Metrorail stop in the corridor will be an increasingly attractive location with a relatively short rail trip to the world’s largest customer – the federal government – at one end of the line, and the region’s international gateway –Washington Dulles – at the other end.

So it’s not just a rail line that’s at stake in the Dulles Corridor.  What’s at stake is the manner in which much of our region will evolve into the 21^st century.

Public vs. Private Financing for Dulles Rail
Financing the Dulles Metrorail project through an “equity partner,” should it become necessary, could increase interest costs by half a billion dollars for every $1 billion borrowed.  Pushing Dulles rail financing totally into the private sector would thus put the cost of interest up significantly, which would result in higher tolls in the Dulles Corridor.  The practical difference between public and private financing can be seen today in the tolls on the Dulles Greenway compared to the Dulles Toll Road.

The Dulles rail project is being funded and built as an extension to the Metrorail system by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA).  It is being built to Metro standards, and once built will be turned over to Metro to operate.  As a “municipal” body, MWAA can fund the project with tax-exempt bonds.  That means MWAA can get an interest rate of around 5.5%, possibly less, vs. 7.5% to 8.5% if a private company sought to borrow the money.  And MWAA does not have to provide a financial return to its owner, just good service to the public.  That said, there are companies taking on these type projects around the world, providing some good joint proposals that include development, engineering and financing all in one package.

The United States does need to modernize the financing of transportation infrastructure.  That means harnessing the best of public and private sector practices as Virginia and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority have sought to do in the current rail project.    The private landowners have volunteered to pay $400 million towards this project through the creation of a special taxing district, making this an important public-private partnership.  Another major portion of the financing comes from public sector toll road revenues, so that all told, about 80% of the project would be funded by local, not federal, money.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the Dulles Corridor
Different areas need different transit solutions.  The nature and volume of demand in the Dulles Corridor makes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) suboptimal.  In 2000, BRT was evaluated and rejected by the Dulles Corridor Task Force[1] for two principal reasons:

1.    It could not handle the projected volume.  The required volume of buses could not connect to the train at the West Falls Church Metro station in a convenient manner, even if the buses were able to disgorge their passengers literally across the platform from the train.

2.    The creation of dedicated lanes to serve Tysons Corner would have required closure of highway lanes on Route 7 and 123.

The Dulles Corridor Task Force concluded that rail, with its higher capacity and greater passenger appeal, was a better option, even though it obviously would have a higher capital cost.

In 2001, the Dulles Corridor Rail Association conducted an extensive market survey of potential transit ridership in the Dulles Corridor.  The survey found strong ridership projections at all income levels for rail, but not for BRT (Figure 1).  Thirty percent of residents would use rail, compared to only 10% to 14% who would use BRT.  Of equal significance, 53% to 48% said they could not use BRT, but only 22% could not use rail.

Figure 1

BRT as a total solution, and in combination with rail, was examined in greater depth as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  The EIS reached the same conclusions as the Dulles Corridor Task Force and recommended one of the rail alternatives studied, which became the Locally Preferred Alternative.  This rail alternative is the basis for the current project and was supported by all the legislative bodies and public agencies concerned, as well as by an overwhelming majority of public comment.

We essentially have BRT running today as a stepping stone to rail.  Express bus service runs today in the Dulles Corridor at high load factors to the transit terminal at Tysons Corner and to downtown destinations.  With the help of federal grants secured by Congressman Wolf, these services were launched in the early 1990s.  They basically operate nonstop through the corridor using more comfortable coaches than traditional transit buses.  The services run relatively unimpeded by traffic in the Dulles Airport access lanes, and thus provide an attractive alternative to the automobile for many commuters. 

A further consideration: the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, as part of the rail project, plans to spend approximately $300 million to double the capacity of roads in the corridor.  Conversely, BRT would expand to take dedicated highway lanes without moving the volume possible with rail.