Reston Spring

Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label US DOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US DOT. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

DOT Head Questioned Over Support of MWAA Leadership, TransportationNation, March 6, 2013

After U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood praised the beleaguered Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority at a Congressional hearing last autumn, two Democratic members of Congress did a slow burn and sent separate letters to him, stating they were “troubled” and “disappointed and concerned” by his support for MWAA.
MWAA oversees the D.C. area’s airports — and is in charge of the massive $6 billion Silver Line rail project. In recent months the agency has been trying to repair its image after a federal audit that found the agency had unethical hiring and questionable contracting practices. The agency also battled Virginia’s governor, who sought to oust a member of its board, and it’s being sued by a former employee. Now, it’s hiring an outside public relations firm.
Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards and West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wrote LaHood following his November 16 testimony in which he expressed “a lot of confidence in” MWAA’s CEO Jack Potter and MWAA board chairman Michael Curto. . . .
 For the details of the Congressional letters, including copies, please click here.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Post: Commercial Development at Dulles Airport May Impede Herndon’s Metro Station Area Plan, Dave Webster, Herndon Patch, February 19, 2013

On January 16, 2013, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority’s (“MWAA”) Board of Directors passed a resolution proposing to amend its lease with the US Department of Transportation to allow commercial development on Dulles Airport property. (See resolution attached to article.)  At the present time, MWAA is only allowed to use the 3,000 acres surrounding the airport for aviation-related purposes.  Because this land is federally owned, it is exempt from the payment of federal and state income taxes and county real estate and business taxes, although apparently MWAA does make some type of payments in lieu of taxes on developed property.  The Town of Herndon would have a difficult time attracting new businesses here when a business owner could simply travel a couple of miles up the road to undeveloped, essentially tax-free property. . .
What to do?  The lease amendment is presently sitting unsigned on the desk of Ray LaHood, the US Secretary of Transportation.  However, LaHood is leaving office soon.  Who knows whether he will sign the lease amendment before he leaves office or leave the matter to his successor.  In any event, I propose that either Herndon residents, or the Town of Herndon in an official capacity, contact the Secretary to ask that the amendment not be signed until all concerned parties weigh in.  The Reston Citizens Association has already done this.
Click here to see the full Herndon Patch post.  As Mr. Webster mentions, Herndon's concerns are very much the same as those of Reston Citizens Association (RCA).  Beyond the competitiveness issues, RCA also expressed its concerned that MWAA was proposing a new revenue stream for itself without any contribution to relieve the huge $17 billion cost faced by Dulles Toll Road users, not to mention its "funding partners" in Loudoun and Fairfax County.

The RCA letter is posted here on this blog.   RCA President Colin Mills also wrote a blog post on Reston Patch calling on MWAA to share the wealth from its commercial development with Dulles Toll Road users.  Click here to read Colin's post. 

Monday, December 3, 2012

Eyes On Virginia For Additional Silver Line Funding, WAMU, December 2, 2012

Martin DiCaro reports:  
When the Virginia state legislature convenes in January, supporters of the Silver Line rail project will be looking to lawmakers in Richmond to help fund the $6 billion endeavor.
The Republican-majority in the House of Delegates and the administration of Gov. Bob McDonnell have been criticized for approving only $150 million for the second phase of the Silver Line's construction.
While the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is cautiously optimistic a federal loan will come through by the end of this year, it may not be enough to significantly reduce projected toll rate increases on the Dulles Toll Road, which are currently set to finance 75 percent of Phase 2's nearly $3 billion cost. So eyes are focusing on Virginia's legislature. . . .
For the rest of this article, click here.  

For Mr. DiCaro's two-minute radio report, click here. 

Thursday, October 25, 2012

FBI investigating troubled Dulles Rail board, Washington Examiner, October 24, 2012

By Liz Essley
The FBI is investigating the embattled authority overseeing construction of the $6 billion Dulles Rail project, The Washington Examiner has learned.
Federal investigators have spent months looking into contracts worth millions of dollars that were awarded by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to companies that employ friends and relatives of authority officials, sources familiar with the investigation said.
In addition to the FBI probe, an inspector general at the U.S. Department of Transportation is preparing to issue a separate report on its investigation of the authority that is expected detail the agency's history of nepotism, The Examiner has learned. . . .
Click here for the rest of this article.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Robert Clarke Brown's Letter to DOT Secretary LaHood, October 2, 2012

Robert Clarke Brown, who is leaving the MWAA Board this month, wrote an extensive letter to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood criticizing his involvement with MWAA's effort to build the Silver Line.   He criticizes LaHood's interference with the independence of the MWAA Board by virtue of his encroachment on its authorities by appointing an Accountability Officer, involving himself in local governmental issues, and pursuing needless investigations.  He characterizes these activities as distracting from the core issue:  the "fundamentally flawed plan of finance."  He criticizes LaHood for failing to provide leadership and, along with Virginia, for failing to provide adequate funding for the construction project. 

MWAA Brown Letter to Secy LaHood 10-2-2012

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Dulles rail project needs better FTA oversight, audit finds, Washington Post, July 28, 2012

The Federal Transit Administration’s oversight of the Silver Line rail project must be more responsive to safety issues and more aggressive in its monitoring of costs and scheduling, according to a federal audit released last week.
The 44-page report by the Department of Transportation’s inspector general focuses on what actions the FTA has taken to address safety concerns first raised in 2009. It also recommends that the agency use its oversight role to ensure that costs are more closely monitored.

The 23-mile Silver Line rail project is being built by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and is one of the nation’s largest infrastructure projects. But the project has been dogged by political battles over its price tag, disputes over funding, and concerns about whether MWAA and other parties involved in its construction are doing enough to ensure passenger safety. . . .
The rest of this article provides a some details on the areas of concern.  It includes a claim by "proponents" of the line that it will carry 60,000 passengers a day--a number we are not sure appears in any published forecast of future passenger use, although we would like to see the Silver Line fully utilized.

 Click here for the rest of this article. 

This final report is the first of two US DOT's OIG is conducting of MWAA's management of Silver Line construction.  The other report focuses on Phase 2.  It's preliminary report on the results of that Phase 2 audit were presented in an interim letter to Congressman Frank Wolf--who called for the audit--in mid-May.  

We certainly share the view that MWAA needs greater responsible outside oversight because, as of now, it has none.  It is a power unto itself, even ignoring the Virginia Governor's appointment of new members to the MWAA Board of Directors.   In another step in that direction, Congressman Frank Wolf is leading a legislative effort to create a permanent Inspector General for MWAA, but that is not an effort that will become reality before this year's elections. 

For those of you who would like to read the DOT's Office of Inspector General's full44-page report, we provide this link to the full PDF download.   Below is the summary of the report:

On July 26, 2012, we issued our report on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) oversight of phase 1 of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail project.  This was a self-initiated audit subsequent to a Management Advisory we issued in October 2009, which expressed concerns about the safety of using 11 pier foundations to support part of the Dulles project’s guideway.  Our audit found that while FTA implemented an oversight process to ensure that MWAA tested the 30-year-old pier foundations, the testing process has not yet provided assurance that the structures will meet the 50-year service life specified in FTA guidance.  We also found that, as of February 2012, when we issued our draft report, FTA had not taken sufficient mitigation actions to address key project issues that put the schedule, cost estimate, and funding from the 2009 Full Funding Grant Agreement at risk.  In its response to our draft report, FTA agreed to direct additional testing to further ensure the 50-year service life for the structures and to take acceptable actions to address the key project issues we raised.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Bulova: Find Federal Funds for Phase 2, Reston Patch, June 19, 2012

Fairfax County Supervisors Chair says Rail to Dulles is too important to fall victim to state, local issues.
By Karen Goff
Rail to Dulles was a subject at Tuesday's Fairfax County Board of Supervisors meeting, where Chairman Sharon Bulova called on the County’s federal representatives to pursue any and all avenues for providing federal funding for Phase 2 of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project.
Bulova also signed a regional letter to Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton, objecting to the administration’s attempt to circumvent the efficient transit funding system in Northern Virginia.
The future of Metrorail's Silver Line Phase 2 is shaky due to a lack of federal funding and the wavering support from Loudoun County. . . .
. . . Bulova pointed out on Tuesday the importance of the Silver Line to the region.
“[Rail to Dulles] will bring transit to our major international airport, provide connections to some of the county’s major business centers, and will serve as a gateway to Washington, DC, and the National Capital Region," she said.
"The Dulles Rail extension is not simply a Fairfax County project or even a regional project – it is a project of national significance. As U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood has stated, the Metro system is ‘America’s system,’ providing access for millions of riders to the nation’s capital.” . . .
But yet Chairman Bulova and the rest of the voting Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (Supervisor Herrity was absent for health reasons) voted unanimously to proceed with Metrorail's Phase 2 without making their approval contingent on greater state or federal aid of any kind.  

Why our county supervisors voted for this initiative--which sticks Dulles Toll Road users with over half the Silver Line's cost--without some conditions of state and federal financing is beyond comprehension.  Was it blind faith that the Secretary LaHood and FTA (much less Governor McDonnell) would see the wisdom and virtue of stepping up and paying up?  As experienced party apparatchiks, they all know that you don't give up something unless you get something in return.   Yet, without so much as a second's hesitation or thought and only the most pro forma of public input, they voted unthinkingly for this outrageous financial arrangement that they and their predecessors (specifically then-Board Chairman Gerry Connolly) agreed to without so much as a public hearing. 

What they did was make more than 100,000 Dulles Toll Road users--more than half Fairfax residents--pay more than $17 billion to finance over half the line's construction, paid for through huge toll increases of the next several decades. 

With this kind of consideration of their constituents, maybe they will return the favor at the next election. 
  

Monday, May 21, 2012

Video: "Reston: Is It the End of the Silver Line," Reston Impact, Host John Lovaas with Terry Maynard

In this one-hour interview, Reston Impact host John Lovaas and RCA Board member Terry Maynard discuss the status, prospects, and issues in the the completion of the Metrorail Silver Line.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Review of CDM Smith's Traffic & Revenue Forecast by DOT OIG and RCA Reston 2020



 “Our preliminary assessment of Dulles Toll Road revenue estimates suggests that the assumptions MWAA used to arrive at the estimates are generally reasonable. MWAA plans to finance almost two-thirds of Phase 2 of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project with revenue from the toll road, which it operates following a 2008 transfer agreement from the Virginia State DOT. Because MWAA’s Phase 2 funding depends heavily on the revenue the toll road can produce and sustain, sound revenue forecasts are critical to the success of MWAA’s funding plans. Our review focused on the inputs and assumptions used in forecasting toll receipts in a March 2012 report commissioned by MWAA.

“MWAA’s population and employment forecasts and gasoline price assumptions appear reasonable. While MWAA’s method for estimating values of time (VOT) does not follow typical practice, the resulting assumptions appear reasonable. We also identified factors that help explain an increase between two Dulles Toll Road studies in the toll projected to maximize revenue.”

US DOT Office of Inspector General Preliminary
            MWAA Audit, May 15, 2012, pp. 12-13.

The above opens the section of the US Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General preliminary MWAA audit report on the most recent forecast for tolls, traffic, and revenues for the Dulles Toll Road.  While the media has so far has focused on the first half of this report that focuses on MWAA’s faulty management practices, this second part of the report is far more important in understanding the implications of the current funding arrangements for the Silver Line’s construction on future toll road use and the economic growth of the Dulles Corridor.  For the record, however, the traffic and revenue forecast was prepared by CDM Smith (CDMS)—formerly Wilbur Smith & Associates (WSA)—for MWAA, not by MWAA itself. 

Most importantly, RCA’s Reston 2020 Committee generally agrees with the DOT OIG audit, although we have taken our analysis further to look at the risks.  In fact, we came to this conclusion in early March 2012 in a committee meeting where we reviewed our analysis of the most recent (CDMS) forecast. 

We prepared a draft presentation concerning the report, but decided not to publish it until now because (a) CDMS was supposed to complete its report within weeks, and (b) we anticipated that DOT OIG would be examining it as well.  We simply decided to wait. 
  • The DOT OIG preliminary report was published yesterday with its summary discussion of the latest version of the CDMS Report.
  • We are still waiting for release to the public of the latest version of the CDM Smith forecast—a March 2012 version entitled “The Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study 2012 Update Working Draft,” according to the DOT OIG audit.  That March 2012 version has not been made public to our knowledge, a part of MWAA’s continuing problem with transparency. 
Our judgments were based on the January “Executive Brief and Preliminary Results, CDM Smith, January 2012.” That draft presentation—with minor editorial correction, but no analytic changes—is presented below in its “draft” format.  Based on the DOT OIG commentary, we do not expect to see significant changes in the March (or later) versions of the CDMS traffic and revenue report. 

Without detailing our analysis in this brief post, we present below the conclusions and the chart that highlights those conclusions.
  • We expect population and employment growth will be slower and gasoline price escalation higher over the next 40 years than CDMS & RPG forecast.
  • Our results suggest the likelihood of revenue shortfalls in every year and growing to 25% by the end of the 40-year forecast period.
  • The odds are two-to-one that the annual forecast revenues are not achieved (67%) at the end of the forecast period.
  • Projected annual revenue shortfalls grow to more than $130MM late in the forecast period.
  • The cumulative revenue shortfall is likely to be about $1.7 billion over 40 years—about one-tenth of total forecast revenues.
  • All of this assumes project and financing costs do not increase after the preparation of the CDMS T&R forecast.
These conclusions are generally depicted in the following chart from the draft presentation:

In our view, this forecast is “generally reasonable” in that it captures nearly 90% of the expected revenues over a four-decade period.  That said, the likelihood that tolls will need to be higher by 10% or so against knowable forecast variables and there are no doubt other costs that cannot yet be foreseen means that tolls are likely to be significantly higher than CDMS’ forecasts in the long term.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Interim Response Letter to Congressmen Wolf and Latham Regarding MWAA, US DOT Office of Inspector General, May 15, 2012

DOT OIG MWAA Interim Letter, May 15, 2012

Federal report faults airports authority for weaknesses in controls, oversight, Washington Post, May 15, 2012

By , Updated: Tuesday, May 15, 11:40 AM


The eight-page draft report, by the U.S. Transportation Department’s inspector general, is expected to be released Tuesday afternoon. A copy of the draft was obtained by The Washington Post.

The airports authority, which has 1,400 employees and a nearly $2 billion annual budget, oversees Reagan National and Dulles International airports as well as construction of Metro’s new Silver Line. Nearly 30 local politicians and officials from MWAA and Virginia’s transportation department are expected to be briefed this afternoon by the inspector general. . . .
Click here for the rest of this WaPo article.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Dulles Rail and "The Highway of the One Percent," RCA Reston 2020 Committee, May 9, 2012

                                                                                          Reston 2020 Committee
Reston Citizens Association
Contact:  Terry Maynard
Reston.2020@yahoo.com
703-476-5376
May 9, 2012


RCA’s Reston 2020 Committee calls fair Silver Line construction
cost sharing, not PLAs, the critical issue in the line’s success

In a new white paper called “Rail to Dulles and “'The Highway of the One Percent,'” the Reston Citizens Association’s (RCA’s) Reston 2020 Committee calls the more than an 800% increase in highway tolls in the years ahead the most critical problem in the Silver Line’s success.  It says the political and media attention given the PLA dispute is misplaced and the issue is basically irrelevant.

Reston 2020 says the huge toll increases will cost regular Fairfax County toll road users almost half of any real income gains over the next four decades as tolls approach $20 one-way and take $17 billion out of the local economy.   Official forecasts indicate that, as a result, 30,000 or more vehicles per day will divert to congested local roads next year when tolls double.  By mid-century, high tolls will lead some 80,000-120,000 potential drivers to desert the toll road, turning it into a “Highway of the One Percent.” 

The exorbitant tolls proposed are also likely to force companies and families to re-think any plans to move to the Dulles Corridor, the white paper says.  In an era of extreme corporate cost-consciousness, companies will far be less likely to move to or pay premiums for space in an area where their customers and employees must pay a huge transportation premium just to get there.  Many families will avoid the more than $8,000 yearly cost that commuters and other regular toll road users would need to pay.

Consistent with its longstanding advocacy for the Silver Line, Reston 2020 calls for those who will benefit financially from its operation to be its principal investors.   It proposes that in addition to toll road users, station area landowners and the local funding jurisdictions—MWAA, Fairfax, and Loudoun counties—share equally in the cost of the line not yet funded by Washington or Richmond.  That means about $1.5 billion and a 26.5% share for each in this cost sharing arrangement to cover the unfunded portion of the line’s estimated $5.7 billion cost. 

 “The Silver Line is an investment in the future of Reston and the Dulles Corridor,” said RCA President Colin Mills.  “In order for it to succeed, everyone needs to step up to the plate and do their part.  We can't put the bulk of the burden on the toll road users' back.  That's not fair, and it's not good planning."

Tammi Petrine and John Hanley, Co-Chairs of Reston 2020, both urged US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to include Reston Citizens Association and other corridor citizens groups in his stakeholder discussions to help ensure a fair financing arrangement that would allow the Dulles Corridor to thrive.  “Reston needs Metrorail,” Petrine added, “but not at toll costs that would choke its growth and streets, and the Secretary’s intervention is our best chance to make that happen.”

“With the huge economic benefits others have forecast for the Silver Line, some $25 billion over 30 years in Loudoun County alone according Dr. Stephen Fuller of GMU’s Center for Regional Analysis,” the report’s drafter Terry Maynard commented, “it’s hard to believe that businesses along the corridor wouldn’t be willing to invest $1.5 billion to help ensure the line’s success.”

Friday, May 4, 2012

Virginia Tolls Are Biggest Silver Line Issue, Not Unions, Residents Say, WAMU 88.5 radio, May 4, 2012


Play associated audio

By: Martin Di Caro
Rates on the Dulles Toll Road could go from their current $1.50 to higher than $6.
A Virginia citizens group says the most critical issue surrounding the construction of Phase 2 of Metro's Silver Line to Dulles Airport is tolls, which are projected to rise to $6 or more on the Dulles Toll Road.
A pro-union provision proposed by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority got most of the attention this week, when federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood held a closed door meeting with the Silver Line stakeholders to try to resolve disputes over the $2.7 billion project. The Reston Citizens Association, which represents 58,000 residents in Fairfax County, says the controversy over whether bidding contractors should receive a preference for choosing union labor is not as important as toll projections on the Dulles Toll Road. Those tolls are supposed to pay off the project’s debt over the next 40 years under the current funding structure.
In a letter sent Friday to Secretary LaHood, Terry Maynard, who sits on the association’s board of directors, said this week’s efforts to resolve the dispute over union labor "barely touch on the most critical issue of the construction of Phase 2 of the Silver Line: three-quarters of the cost of Phase 2 of the rail line’s construction will be borne by the 100,000 or so users of the Dulles Toll Road, many of them Reston residents. The result will be that toll road users will end up paying more than half of the nearly $6 billion total cost of the Silver Line." . . . .

The same article appears in Transportation Nation as "Tolls Still a Sticking Point in Dulles Rail Project."

Monday, April 30, 2012

Some Doubt Phase 2 Will Ever Be Built, Reston Patch, April 30, 2012

Washington Post outlines how money, politics and labor agreement may doom second part of Rail to Dulles.

With a meeting between stakeholders in Rail to Dulles and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood coming up on Wednesday,  The Washington Post takes a look at just how far off the tracks Phase 2 of the project has become.
Here are some key comments from Dana Hedgpeth's Washington Post article:
 After more than 10 years of planning to add 23 miles of Metro rail line in Northern Virginia, the second part of the Silver Line project could be dead before a spade of dirt is turned.
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Virginia, and Loudoun and Fairfax counties are at a stalemate over pro-union labor deals, concerns about costs and an inspector general’s investigation of the authority.
“This project will die if the stakeholders cannot get together and resolve their differences,” said Leo J. Schefer, head of the Washington Airports Task Force, a group of business leaders that supports the Silver Line.
If the project ever does start, it won’t start on time.
. . .  The biggest problem, according to Schefer and others: chest-thumping and good, old-fashioned politics.
“Underlying all of this is party political extremes that are being put ahead of public purpose,” Schefer said.
Politics have been a huge part of the issue in recent years, but underlying the political posturing of both parties is the fact that the Silver Line project has tripled in cost since the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published in 2004.  As the costs were skyrocketing, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) pulled the plug on federal funding--planned at half the total cost of the line--in 2008 when it determined the project was not cost-effective.  At that point, then Governor Kaine and other elected officials intervened to get a $900 million downpayment on the line, and so it began. 

The key difference is that Dulles Toll Road users must now pay what the federal government won't in addition to the 25%--a more than generous share in our estimation--it was booked to pay in the FEIS.  That means toll road users are stuck paying 75% of the cost of Phase 2 of the line, especially if neither the federal, state, nor local governments nor MWAA (whom the rail is intended to serve) will agree to contribute to the construction and financing costs. 

Reston 2020 neither wants toll road users to be stuck with three-quarters of the bill nor a Metrorail line that ends at Wiehle station in Reston.  It has offered a number of alternative financing ideas for Phase 2 and encourages its prompt construction as soon as those alternatives are in place.  We all need rail to Dulles and we need those who will benefit most to carry the load.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Cuccinelli: Metrorail could hit funding snag, Washington Times, December 8, 2011

Anticipates General Assembly will not approve $150M for Dulles project

By David Sherfinski
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II is betting against the General Assembly approving $150 million for the Dulles Metrorail project — a prospect that would throw a wrench into months of delicate negotiations among stakeholders who have finally reached a tentative accord on its financing. . .
. . . “I would oppose putting a single penny of state dollars to bail out Phase 2,” he said. “I hope that legislators will not agree to spend the $150 million.” . . .
The prospect of the state contributing to Phase 2 of Silver Line construction has always been an "iffy" proposition at best, both with Gov. McDonnell's weak endorsement of the aid contingent on limiting any PLA provisions in the Phase 2 contract and the partisan divide within the state assembly.   Gov. McDonnell's position was to put forth a proposal to the state assembly that Virginia help pay for debt financing in the first five years of Phase 2 financing to the tune of $150 million.   In the scheme of things, $150 million is about one percent of the total cost of financing the Silver Line--which could run $12-$15 billion over the next 30-50 years depending on whose estimates you use for debt servicing costs.

Because Virginia's contribution, if any, would go to pay debt servicing and not directly figure in the construction cost formula, it is unlikely that a decision by the Virginia assembly not to contribute to Phase 2 would alone scuttle the project directly.  It remains to be seen, however, whether a Virginia withdrawal from the LaHood pact would mean the US Department of Transportation would also scuttle its agreement to offer cheap TIFIA financing to the other funding partners.  And Loudoun County also remains hesitant about participating in the Phase 2 effort.  All that could unravel the LaHood MOA despite the small size of the potential TIFIA contribution--about $315 million--and Loudoun's limited planned contribution (4.8%) to the cost of building the Silver Line. 

For the rest of this Washington Times article, click here

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Misleading the Public on Savings in the Metrorail Agreement, Terry Maynard, November 15, 2011

Contrary to statements by politicians and the media, the DOT-initiated agreement to reduce the cost of the Silver Line will result in few savings from current estimates of construction costs and future tolls.  Moreover, the actual costs of Phase 2 construction will likely be much higher than current estimates if history is any guide, actually driving up the costs to all parties, including toll road users.

To much fanfare and even the reported giddiness on the part of Secretary LaHood--“I’m on cloud nine”-- the DOT announced last Thursday a new deal for Phase II of Metrorail that “will reduce the cost of the Phase 2 project by hundreds of millions of dollars and keep tolls more affordable for Dulles Toll Road users.”  Since then, the chairmen of the Fairfax and Loudoun county boards have strongly endorsed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and they and MWAA expect to ratify it quickly—well before people have a chance to find the absence of savings in this deal.  Loudoun acts today and MWAA will ratify the agreement tomorrow--unheard of speed for action by these boards.

So, will the MOA do what is promised?  Not so much, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee reduced costs for anyone, especially toll road users.  And, if the deal really provided some financial advantage for the partners and their constituencies, wouldn’t you think that the area incumbents running for re-election in northern Virginia would have demanded that it be publicized well before the elections instead of two days afterwards? 

One thing I’ve learned in five decades of adulthood is to be skeptical about enthusiastic statements from politicians; and the more enthusiastic politicians are, the more skeptical—even fearful—the citizenry should become. 

First, there is the problem of what forecast cost are you saving from.  Of course, the players say they have saved about one billion dollars off the $3.8 billion cost of Phase 2 of the Silver Line—the highest possible cost yet forecast.  That included the Dulles Metrorail station under the terminal at the airport, a notion that was largely dead on arrival when it was announced a year ago.  In fact, MWAA agreed to change to an above ground station at Dulles—truly saving about $600 million—in July in response to the local public outrage, just a month after DOT stepped in and five months before this MOA was announced.  Yet there is nothing quite like a politician declaring victory in a battle others fought.

Then there is the outright deception.  DOT says it is saving about $300 million on Phase 2 by shifting—not cutting—the cost of Phase 2 construction to the two counties.  No, it’s not.  The MOA merely specifies which costs the two counties will absorb—several local Metro stations and parking garages.  The only real savings in this process are minor changes in design, such as steel versus concrete construction.  These were presented in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) white paper in July. 

Moreover, the costs the counties have agreed to pick up counts only against their existing share commitment; it is not an addition to it.  The MOA specifically states that none of the parties will increase its share contribution to the effort—16.1% for Fairfax, 4.8% for Loudoun, and 4.1% for MWAA.  Please note the obtuseness of the language in the MOA on this matter:

c. To the extent that Additional Funding Sources are used to pay any portion of the cost to design and construct any of the Phase 2 facilities described in Sections 3.2(a) or 3.2(b), then solely for purposes of computing the capital contribution percentages of the parties to the Funding Agreement, the amount paid by any such Additional Funding Sources shall not be credited as provided by the last sentence of Section 2.2(b)(3)(e) of the Funding Agreement, but instead shall be credited 16.1% against the Phase 2 funding obligation of Fairfax, 4.8% against the Phase 2 funding obligation of Loudoun, 4.1% against the Phase 2 funding obligation of MWAA from non-DTR Funds, and 75% against the obligation of MWAA to fund a portion of Phase 2 from DTR Funds, as those terms are used in the Funding Agreement.

And, as for Fairfax County, the penultimate paragraph of the MOA makes this even clearer:

All provisions of the Funding Agreement not specifically modified by this MOA, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 2.3 of the Funding Agreement, remain in full force and effect and are not superseded by the execution of this MOA. Nothing in this MOA requires Fairfax to pay or will result in Fairfax paying more than 16.1% of the total Dulles Rail Project Cost as such term is used in the Funding Agreement.

So the result of this cost shifting is that the counties just know some specific parts of Phase 2 they are paying for, not that they will pay any more than the share they originally agreed to pay.  Dulles Toll Road users remain stuck paying for three-quarters of Phase 2 construction.

So, in reality, the MOA will lead to the possible saving of about $100 million from current construction cost estimates, and “as much as $75 million” of that is on hypothetical “value engineering”—as if the engineers are now planning some gold-plated rail line.  In short, the cost of Phase 2 is now estimated at $3.1 billion versus $3.2 billion with an above ground station at Dulles airport.

There is also some marginally good news on financing Phase 2 construction, but these savings will have no effect on the direct construction cost of the Silver Line and are certainly nothing to be giddy about.  First, the parties have agreed to seek “additional funding sources.” Not sure who might step up to provide more financing, but—in the end—any new funds would count against the partners’ shares for funding Phase 2.    Similarly in the MOA, DOT pledges to consider applications for TIFIA financing not to exceed $315 million from the partners with a credit subsidy not to exceed $30 million in aggregate.  That’s 10% of the cost of Phase 2 that could be financed at low federal rates, running about 3% right now.  Finally, Gov. McDonnell has pledged to ask the state legislature next year to contribute $150 million.  As the MOA states, “This assistance is intended to be used to pay interest on MWAA’s Dulles Toll Road Revenue Bonds. The funds shall be held by the bond trustee and drawn to support the debt service payments in the first five years following their issuance.” On balance, these limited debt arrangements will almost certainly save less than one billion dollars on debt service charges paid by toll road users that will range between $10-$15 billion over the next 40 years or so.  

Besides the minimal savings in either construction or financing costs, the core of the problem is that the MOA does nothing relieve Dulles Toll Road users of the primary burden for financing the construction of the Silver Line.  As planned in the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), toll road users would pay 20% of the then-estimated $3.5 billion cost of the entire line—about $700 million.  Under the MOA and the 2007 agreement among the “funding partners”—Fairfax, Loudoun, and MWAA:
  •  Toll road users will still pay 75% of the cost of Phase 2 or $2.3 billion.  That’s almost eight times toll road users’ forecast 20% share of $300 million for Phase 2 as described in the 2004 FEIS.
  • Toll road users will pay more than two-thirds ($4.1 billion) of the currently projected $6.0 billion cost for the entire Silver Line.  That’s nearly a six-fold increase in the cost to Dulles Toll Road users since 2004.
Only fools and politicians would believe this will make “tolls more affordable for Dulles Toll Road users.”   In fact, all the blather in this agreement might result in a five to ten percent reduction in current estimates of future $15-$20 toll two decades from now, but that will still mean a huge five- to ten-fold increase in family toll road commuting budgets.

But, as they say in the infomercials, “Wait, that’s not all!” 

All these savings, such as they are, are premised on the April 2011 analysis laid out by MWAA in evaluating the four Dulles station location alternatives.  People close to MWAA’s effort indicate that the analysis—other than the Dulles station cost—is essentially a “100% preliminary engineering” analysis, although the study does not say that anywhere.  According to the financial agreement among the funding partners, Fairfax and Loudoun counties have 90 days after receiving MWAA’s final 100% preliminary engineering study to approve their participation in Phase 2 of the Silver Line.  So we can reasonably expect that the final engineering report—due early in 2012—to come close to current estimates and a commitment by the counties to participate will follow soon thereafter.

Unfortunately, the history of Phase 1 of the Silver Line project has demonstrated the large margin of error of 100% preliminary engineering analyses in underestimating the true cost of construction.  In fact, two 100% preliminary engineering studies were done for Phase 1, according to a 2007 DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit:
  • An April 2006 estimate for Phase 1 by FTA's project management oversight consultant (PMOC) put the cost for Phase 1 at $2.07 billion.  Since then, the estimated cost of Phase 1 has risen by more than 40 percent.
  • In July 2007, the PMOC did an "updated 100% preliminary engineering" assessment that put the cost of Phase 1 at $2.65 billion, 11 percent below the current $2.95 billion estimate.
So, instead of $3.1 billion, the final cost of Phase 2 construction could run $3.5-4.5 billion, putting the total cost of Silver Line construction at $6.5-$7.5 billion and raising debt requirements accordingly. 

In short, the MOA offers minimal cost and financing savings over currently estimated project costs for Phase 2 of the Silver Line, and does nothing to reduce the risk that costs will rise 10%-40% as planning and construction progress.  It is an agreement that sustains the status quo, offering little construction cost relief overall—with many price risks still unknown—or for Dulles Toll Road users in particular.


Terry Maynard
Reston, VA

Friday, November 11, 2011

Reported Deal on Financing Phase 2 of the Silver Line

Note:  See updates in italics.

In this morning's (Nov. 11, 2011) Washington Post, Dana Hedgpeth reports that the US Department of Transportation has reached an agreement on the financing of Phase 2 of the Metrorail Silver Line, although it needs ratification by the several parties.  The meat of the deal as reported is:
The most important part of the deal is that LaHood’s office agreed to provide federal loan assistance to help Fairfax, Loudoun and the airports authority finance their investment in the project.
LaHood said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) also agreed to bring $150 million to the table to help finance the project.
Regrettably, the memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that the amount of federal  (TIFIA) credit assistance available to the parties will not exceed $30 million--about one percent of the cost of Phase 2.  Similarly, the $150 million from Virginia is subject to appropriation by the Virginia legislature in its 2012 legislative session.   Moreover, this money will be used to defray interest costs, not the construction of the Metrorail line, in the five years following the appropriation.  In so doing, it will comprises merely 1-2% of the $10-$15 billion total debt servicing cost for the Silver Line over the next 40 years. 

One of the major claimed "savings" from this effort is, in fact, the shifting of costs for the construction of several stations and associated parking garages from MWAA to Fairfax and Loudoun counties, a "savings" of about $310 million in Phase 2 costs.  The good news is that the roughly 10% reduction in MWAA financing needs for Phase 2 could reduce the onerous increases in Dulles Toll Road (DTR) tolls by a similar amount.  Unfortunately, the MOA makes clear that county shares of the cost of Phase 2 construction do not change, so this does not represent an increased commitment by the counties, merely a specification of what they will pay for.  Moreover, the "savings" from this cost shifting is simply a deceit.  The total costs of Phase 2 will not be changed by this shifting of a line item from one set of books to another.  In short, the federal and state government have done the absolute minimum to provide political cover that they are participating in making Phase 2 of the Silver Line economically feasible.

The most important thing this agreement does NOT do is relieve Dulles Toll Road (DTR) users of much of the burden of of paying for rail line.  The agreement states that "MWAA will use its best efforts to limit the size of future toll rate increases on the Dulles Toll Road," but does not change the basic formulation of financial agreement among the funding partners.  In short, DTR users remain stuck with paying for more than half of the total Silver Line cost and three-quarters of any cost increases.  While the agreement states that the 2009 Wilbur Smith toll rate assessment includes "a reasonable approximation" of future toll rates, raising the cost of Phase 2 from $2.5 billion to $2.8 billion (the $3.2 billion cost of Phase 2 less the roughly $400 million the counties have agreed to absorb) means that tolls will likely rise at least 10 percent from WSA's last assessment.  That estimate indicated tolls would rise to $11.25 in the 2040s; a new estimate would be on the order of at least $12-$13 full toll. 

As discussed in a separate post on this blog about why Silver Line construction costs should be audited, cost escalations have been rampant in the planning for Phase 1 of the Silver Line.  What is important is that local officials will soon be making a yes/no decision on whether to proceed with Phase 2 based on a "100% Preliminary Engineering" assessment of Phase 2.  Sources suggest that MWAA's analysis of alternative station locations reflects such an assessment, except for the fleshing out of Dulles station costs.  This is the analysis used to formulate the current DOT-led agreement.  In Phase 1, two "100% preliminary engineering" assessments were done with the following results:
  • An April 2006 estimate for Phase 1 by FTA's project management oversight consultant (PMOC) put the cost for Phase 1 at $2.07 billion.  Since then, the estimated cost of Phase 1 has risen by more than 40 percent.
  • In July 2007, the PMOC did an "updated 100% preliminary engineering" assessment that put the cost of Phase 1 at $2.65 billion, 11 percent below the current $2.95 billion estimate. 
If the same kinds of estimative errors exist in the current engineering estimate, costs for Phase 2 could rise anywhere from $400 million (total of $3.6 billion) to $1.4 billion (total of $4.6 billion) before the project is complete.  And DTR users would be picking up three-quarters of those extra costs.

Below is the text of the DOT MOA:

FTA Metrorail Silver Line Financial Agreement 111011

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Why We Need an Audit of Silver Line Cost, Funding, and Scheduling, Terry Maynard

Last week, the Reston Citizens Association (RCA) Board of Directors approved unanimously a resolution calling for a full audit of the Silver Line—Phase 1 and Phase 2—by an independent entity overseen by a local panel of experts, officials, and citizens selected by our local Congressmen.  In a follow-up post in Reston Patch, RCA President Colin Mills provides important contextual information for that decision. 

At the core of the RCA Board’s concerns is that the construction of Phase 1 is now projected to cost 94% more and be completed some four and a half years later than first systematically projected in the December 2004.  While the Board believes that there will be few additional cost escalations and schedule delays for Phase 1 absent some totally unexpected set of events, its focus is on preventing the same escalations and delays from happening in Phase 2. 

Figure 1:  Cost and Schedule Estimates for the Silver Line, Phase 1, 2004-2011


While a near doubling of cost estimates (based on year-of-expenditure cost estimates) for a four-year project in seven years is discouraging, the estimative shortcomings causing most of the increases seem to be basic forecasting considerations that ought to have been included and/or more accurate at the outset.  A review of the 2007 US DOT Office of Inspector General baseline report on the Silver Line, Phase 1, provides some brief descriptions of the causes for the various price increases:

  • In August 2005, a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) consultant projected a $1.8 billion cost based on a 50% preliminary engineering design study, a better understanding of the planned construction approach, and significant changes in right- of-way, materials, labor, and fuel costs.

  • In October 2005, FTA’s project management oversight consultant (PMOC) performed an evaluation of the $1.840 billion cost estimate and concluded that the contingency and inflation factors used in the estimate were insufficient.

  • In April 2006, a general engineering consultant (GEC) prepared an independent cost estimate based on the true 100 percent Preliminary Engineering design and incorporating revised contingency and inflation factors as recommended by the PMOC. The GEC set Phase I’s estimated cost at $2.065 billion. DRPT subsequently adopted a Phase I budget of $2.065 billion.

  • The PMOC found significant issues with the $2.065 billion estimate in a review performed in September/October 2006. The PMOC concluded, “the escalation factor used was inadequate, the contingency was too low, and the project’s cost and schedule could be seriously impacted due to the many uncertainties identified as a result of the lack of design and/or missing scope in the 100% PE design.”

  • Based on the March 2007 negotiation of the design-build contract with the Dulles Transit Partners (DTP), the cost estimate was presented as a range of $2.4-2.7 billion because there is uncertainty as to how much the “agency costs,” which are outside of the DTP contract, will be. Agency costs include project management, rail cars, start-up, and testing.


Moreover, the Phase 1 estimates never came close to being accurate until a deal was struck with Dulles Transit Partners (DTP), who presumably calculated with some precision all the costs they expected to incur so as not to be caught short as the project unfolded.  And, as recent news reports indicate, even then it appears that there will be further price increases and schedule delays for Phase 1.  (Interestingly, DTP’s bid offer was $2.95 billion for Phase 1, which was negotiated down.  Now it appears that a $2.95 billion cost is well within the realm of possibility.)

One can’t help but wonder why the various sources of error listed in the DOT OIG report occurred and were so extreme.  Indeed, it would appear that most should have been avoided.  The errors raise questions about the environment in which these projections were generated as well as the estimative techniques themselves. 

  • Were pressures placed on those preparing the estimates to minimize construction cost expectations to help assure approval of the project and its funding by federal, state, and local authorities?  And are similar pressures being applied now as preliminary engineering estimates for Phase 2 are being drafted?  How can this be prevented or mitigated? 

  • Are the methods used by the engineers who put together the various projections sufficiently accurate to be the basis of decisions to approve and finance major infrastructure construction initiatives?  To what extent were established construction engineering forecasting methods used in making these forecasts?  How well have these estimative techniques performed in accurately forecasting major transportation project construction costs in the past?  Will they be better in forecasting the cost of Phase 2?  Do we need a statement of the some probability and/or range of error metric to help understand how to consider a Phase 2 cost forecast?

The unfortunate history of cost escalations for Phase 1 weighs heavily on cost expectations for Phase 2, including whether the current cost estimate for Phase 2 at $3.14 billion (including $371 million in proposed cost shifts to Fairfax and Loudoun counties) with an above ground Dulles airport station are at all believable.  That projection is based on an April 2011 MWAA assessment of the several alternative Dulles station construction options.  It does not claim to be as complete as a “preliminary engineering” study—other than that the preliminary engineering study for the under-terminal baseline study was ongoing—but rather an analysis of technical feasibility, risks, and costs.  At this time, a “100% preliminary engineering” assessment is due in spring 2012.  It will serve as the basis of Fairfax and Loudoun County Board decisions whether to participate in Phase 2. 

What the cost projections for Phase 2 will be, whether they are close to accurate, who will pay those costs, and when Phase 2 construction might begin and end are all still up in the air.  Given the history of Phase 1, the risk is that the total costs for Phase 2 may ultimately be over $4 billion (only 27% above the current $3.14 billion projection), and that toll road users will be paying well over half of that cost—plus interest.  We need to understand fully what the costs are, who will pay them, and when Phase 2 will be completed before we decide to proceed.  An audit is the best way to gain those needed answers.