Pearlstein: The Dulles Rail Project

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein was online Wednesday, Feb. 13, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss realistic solutions to solving the problems with getting federal approval for the Dulles rail project. He will also discuss how this reflects the broader problem of disinvestment in public infrastructure.

Read today's column: Derailing Economic Growth.

A transcript follows.

About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Metro can't handle the masses as it is right now during rush hour. The Dulles Rail will make it worse for people commuting to DC. Agree?

Steven Pearlstein: Wrong. Actually, a fair amount of the cost of Phase One of the dulles project is to buy more rail cars and increase capacity in other ways along the Orange line, into which the extension will dump lots of new riders. Whatever you may think of transportation planners, they are clever enough to figure that one out.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Steven,

Why not ask for federal funds for terrorist/emergency evacuations to fund the Dulles rail project? Last night it took me 4 1/4 hours to get from th 14th St. Bridge in DC to Edsall Rd. in Alexandria, inside the beltway. That was an ice storm. Do the feds think things will go more smoothly with a terrorist/nuclear/biological attack in the nation's capital? A direct train to an airport seems like an ideal evacuation route.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm reluctant to bring in the terrorist evacuation thing into these debates for several reasons. First, I think the threat has been exaggerated by the Bush administration and I'd hate to add any further to that. Second, I doubt if there is the kind of event that would cause mass death and destruction, a subway extension beyond West Falls Church is going to make much of a difference. Third, I shutter at how other communities might use the same criteria to justify funding requests that are less than meritorious.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Steve, my major problem with the Dulles project is that it was hijacked for the "remake Tysons" noise. If rail to Dulles was really important, just extend the Orange Line there. But no, in order to justify ridership, they created a whole new line which rapidly got bogged down by the whole Tysons debacle, which placed so many stations there that using the line to go to Dulles would be a gigantic waste of time.

If they really want to remake the region, MD and VA should get together and send the Purple Line across the Potomac and down towards Tysons. That would bring real useful relief.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm with you on the purple line to Tysons. And I think you have a point that we are trying to accomplish two things (rail to Dulles and along that growing corridor plus remaking Tysons) with one project. Which is probably one reason that, judged from a pure transportation perspective, the project doesn't come up very high on the feds' rating charts. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or the feds shouldn't participate. What it does suggest is that, because some of the benefits are economic growth and land use planning benefits, a greater share of the cost should be paid by local users and taxpayers.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: To what extent do you think the withdrawal of funding - approval for the project has been driven by politics? Specifically, is this a petulant act by the Bush Administration against Virginian's increasingly Democratic leaders (and even Senator Warner has been critical of the Prez)? Its suddenness and lack of explanation certainly felt retaliatory to me.

Steven Pearlstein: I don't think that had much to do with it. I've spent enough time around politicians to say that that kind of retribution, particularly by a lame duck administration, doesn't really deliver much satisfaction, particularly when considered against the political cost.

That said, I did conclude there had been a change in that the only thing was keeping this project alive was a special political consideration that has now evaporated. The rising cost was certainly a factor. But the willingness of the administrator, the secretary and others to treat this project as special also eroded, and its fair to conclude that lame-duckness and changes in congressional control had an influence there. If John Warner's support was still crucial for supporting the bush administration's top priority -- the war in Iraq--then I think Sec. Peters and the White House would have thought much longer and harder about pulling the plug on this project.

_______________________

Mt. Rainier, Md.: Mr. Pearlstein,

I'm a daily Metro rider and huge supporter of rail based commuter options, whether light rail, heavy rail, subway, tram, etc. I know the cost of the Dulles extension, especially a tunnel based version is huge, but does anyone think it will go down if we delay any longer? The way I see it, the lack of success in this effort is, in part, the result of a national shift in transportation policy in the 50s to roads away from rails, and the ridiculous modern American belief that any transportation alternative other then a car should be a profit maker instead of a government service.

Thanks for listening, and I'm looking forward to your straight talk on this. Pearlstien for President!

Steven Pearlstein: I think you are right: the cost-benefit tests that transit projects have to meet are different and, in my opinion, harder than highway projects, which sort of get a pass because they only have to compete against other highway projects. And even there, the evaluation criteria are rather narrow. I seriously doubt that, given the current cramped funding and funding criteria, the Washington metro system would have ever been funded in the first place. And I don't think any rational person -- even Secretary Peters -- would not look back on that decision to begin construction and then build out the system, at tremendous cost, and say it was not a worthwhile expenditure of public funds.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Steven,

Do you think that VA will actually be able to rustle up 900 million dollars from private investors if the Federal Transit Administration goes ahead with its plans to block funding for the Silver Line? I know there's a lot of development potential along a new subway line, but that's nearly a billion dollars from (I would have to think) a handful of real estate developers

Steven Pearlstein: Its not that you have to raise a billion from a couple of developers. This is a hugely important public project with huge, positive economic impacts on lots of businesses and homeowners throughout Northern Virginia. And in order to create such a public good, with lots of wonderful ecological and economic and social spillovers, we have very commonplace financing mechanisms. Its called bonding. And the way we pay the interest and principal on those bonds is called taxes. That's why God invented these things, and this is a perfect opportunity to use them. Invest now and pay over time, as we reap the enormous benefits of these investments.

Believe me, I don't think it was lost on the feds that Virginia wasn't putting a dime into this, other than taxing the commuters on the toll road to pay the state's share of the cost. Commuters would be one beneficiary of the rail line, but hardly the only ones. Anyone who owned a business or a home in the region would also benefit.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Sorry to be so nihilistic, but Metrorail to Dulles, BWI, Manassas, Loudoun County...it'll never happen. At least not with this unholy trifecta of politicians, businesspeople, and NIMBYs. I'm frankly amazed that the ICC made it through that gauntlet!

Steven Pearlstein: Its amazing that we are able to accomplish anything. But somehow we do.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: A tunnel through Tysons seems to make the most sense if rail is mandatory. However, if the goal is moving people from one place to another it seems dedicated roads for buses would be least disruptive, least risky, and cheapest way to go. The buses could be electric or hybrid to keep the environmentalists happy and if the dedicated bus program didn't prove popular we could flip the switch and allow regular traffic on them. If the Metro doesn't generate enough use the taxpayers have to keep paying more indefinitely to keep it running. I love the idea of Metro, but I just wonder at the end of the day if it is an effective system or just perceived as better than buses by the general public.

Steven Pearlstein: Look, the bus solution is what a transportation planner facing funding constraints comes up with as a solution. Its not what an economic visionary comes up with. The fact is that the economic and environmental and development benefits and spinoffs that you get from a subway extension are much higher than the bus rapid transit option. And one reason that is the case is that if you have to drive from your house to the parking lot at the bus station, take a bus to West Falls church, walk across a bridge, go through the turnstyles, wait five minutes for a train, and ride the train to metro center, then transfer to a red line train to Judiciary Square, and walk the five minutes to your job, you're not gonna love it. To many transitions and transfers. The rail has the advantage of cutting down on those transitions. But it also has the effect of getting more people to move their residences closer to subway stations, and more businesses moving their offices closer to subway stations. And it is that dynamic that generates the real big benefits -- ones that, by and large, are ignored in the federal evaluation process.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What does this say about the pull of Virginia's congressional delegation? Why can't this just be attached to a transportation bill? It seems that other delegations are a lot better at getting pork sent home than ours.

Steven Pearlstein: No, I don't think others are so much better. Virginia does pretty well -- the Dulles rail project would have died years ago if there hadn't been special legislation putting it in a special category. Now we'll see if the delegation can deliver -- and not just the Virginia delegation. We need Stenny Hoyer and Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin to use some of their political capital here to do something important for the region. And it would certainly help if Speaker Howell and his team could come around on this and help rather than continuing to throw bricks at the project.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Steven,

You completely missed the biggest problem with this proposal - this project, as it is currently designed, will INCREASE congestion in the area. You're a numbers guy, look at them - this line would only have capacity to carry 11,000 passengers/hour (and that's max). Let's assume it operates at capacity AND every passenger has tysons as their origin and destination. So, with a very optimistic rush hour, that's 25,000 passengers. Currently, Tysons is home to about 115,000 employees. Fairfax County has already approved construction for another 30,000 employees - and if they are allowed to increase density further, they would put over 200,000 people in Tysons. There is no plan (or ability once the elevated is in) to increase ability to move people around tysons. Further gridlock.

This plan has zero foresight - we will be saying in 10 years that "we should have done something different." For example, if the rail was built along the ground, and fairfax county required developers to build up 15 feet above the current ground level (making it appear that ground level was higher) and creating a new surface level (think Chicago downtown close to the River), then you would increase capacity, hide the rail, hide roads that could move faster with less interference, increase ability for walking, and de-ugly the landscape.

We aren't even getting into the horrible waste of tax dollars for Bechtel with no ceiling and no bid, the poor orange line riders who are going to suffer, it will take so long to get to IAD most people won't use it, and the fact that my above projection was so overly optimistic, it isn't even funny.

You are right to advocate for a solution - but you should consider a solution that will help address the massive problem, instead of one (currently on the table) that will only exacerbate it. I worked in Tysons too long and watched it get worse and worse over the years to know that this plan will only keep the downward spiral going - not even stabilize the horrible position it is in currently.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm less of a numbers guy than you assume, but be that as it may:

The big idea of running the line through Tysons, and having four stops there (at a cost of $50 million a pop)is that you create a city where people live and work. And in time that can cause big, big changes in communiting patterns. Your analysis is based on a very statis model.

One way to save money on the project, of course, is to just skirt the edge of Tysons and basically run the whole thing along 267 and the Dulles toll road. And then at Tysons, you can have a hub of a bus circulator system. But with the buses, you won't fundamentally change the character and design and confiuration of Tysons and so you won't change the basic congestion problems we already have there. So it won't develop in a way that both increases density while decreasing congestion. That's the magic in this plan. But you assume in your argument that you can't increase density and decrease congestion. In that, your "numbers" take is just like the feds.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: If they need to raise revenue for this project, why not start charging tolls on the center lanes to and from the airport? The airport benefits from the rail, so why shouldn't airport users help pay for it? For that matter, given the congestion on the toll road, seems to me they ought to open up those center lanes to everybody, not just airport users. Charge everybody, let everybody use them!

Steven Pearlstein: Legislation that established Dulles prohibits that. It's not a bad idea, however, and should be considered. The airport authority will oppose it, however, because they think it will cause backups and discourage use of the airport. I suspect there is a technology solution to the backups and I seriously doubt a small toll would discourage airport use.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: I own a 40-employee software company in McLean and have thought about this alot. Can you please respond to the idea of Rapid Bus Transit for northern Virginia? Wouldn't that be (a) far less expensive and (b) far faster to implement? 1/2 of the DC transit riders take buses (I ride the 15K to work from Georgetown) - so 1/2 the riders will need to transfer from rail-to-bus or bus-to-rail no matter what happens. The lack of consideration given to Rapid Bus Transit makes me suspicious that Dulles Rail is at least partially driven by commercial real estate owners locking in their long-term value through subway stations.

Steven Pearlstein: I wish we could put to rest this idea that the Dulles rail project is just a huge public expenditure to benefit a few wealthy land owners in Tysons. Please. Let's put aside these conspiracy theories. Its just not true and it is absurd on its face.

The bus solution was given serious consideration, and it was put aside because it simply wouldn't have the kind of big benefits in terms of planning and development and economic growth that a subway does. Bigger investment, bigger payoff. As I said, it is a transportation planner's solution to what is narrowly perceived as a transportation problem. Yes, buses would be cheaper and easier to implement. But if there were such a great idea, then why are all those people sitting on the Dulles toll raod every day for hours when they could be riding the buses that now move swiftly down the airport access road to Tysons and West Falls Church? Has high density development popped up near the bus terminals? Not the last time I checked.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Obviously there have to be some changes to the current plan in order to get fed buy-in. My opinion - separate this thing into smaller phases. The first phase is a straight shot from West Falls Church to Dulles. No stops. Once we're nearing completion on that, start on bringing Tysons in. This project has failed because they are trying to merge two conflicting goals - rail to Dulles and rail to Tysons. Those who want rail to Dulles cannot fathom riding a subway through Tysons in order to get there. We have seen way too many failures because our projects are just too BIG. Divide and conquer.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm not sure I agree that the four stops in Tysons make the trip to Dulles so much longer that people won't use it to get to and from the airport. We're talking an extra five to ten minutes, to participate in an airport check in process that has already reached two hours long. Its cheap, simple, reliable. Not sure you've convinced me.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Steve, I always enjoy and usually learn from your columns. I regret that I've got an 11am meeting, and so I'll miss the online discussion, but pursuant to your column of today re: Dulles rail, perhaps you could address an angle of this issue that I don't see reporter Amy Gardner or anyone else at the Post addressing (this is a long one, but please bear with me):

It seems to me that the Dulles rail project (as currently conceived) rests on the crucial premise that we can somehow merge a "Silver Line" -- one that'll be longer & serve more stations that the existing Virginia portion of the Orange Line -- onto the existing Orange Line AND funnel all these trains, along with the Blue Line trains, onto a single track, without inducing complete, daily gridlock on this vital rail artery that tens of thousands of commuters now depend upon. I know it's not what Tysons-area developers, the Airport Authority, our local politicians (who rely on the developers for campaign cash), Metro's GM (who relies on the politicians for operating cash), or the Post's editorial board (who have already endorsed the deal) want to hear, but as a longtime daily Orange Line commuter who rides downtown from Vienna each day and who has observed (and suffered) firsthand what Metro can & can't do, this premise seems to me to be some kind of complete, utter and absolute fantasy, the proverbial emperor with no clothes.

I ride Metro every day, as I've done for the last 16 years (except for a couple of years spent overseas) and right now, despite the deteriorating service and rising fares, it's still a better bargain than driving for me, because of one thing: I can usually count on it to get me downtown from Vienna in 35-45 minutes' ride time each day (depending on how badly trains are backed up from Metro Center or the Rosslyn chokepoint). And PLEASE don't get me wrong: I think a properly-conceived rail line into the city from the Tyson's/Dulles/Ashburn corridor is a no-brainer and OUGHT to be done asap; and I totally agree with the thrust of your column today re: the ideological blinders that seem to be preventing proper public investment into critical transportation infrastructure. However, I think that it's equally shortsighted to take the stance that ANY Dulles rail project is better than NO Dulles rail project. It seems to me that without a second river crossing for a second rail line (which you'd think would be easy for any administration to justify on homeland security grounds alone, irrespective of any supporting economic rationale!), all that this project -- as currently conceived -- will accomplish is not to diminish gridlock, but simply shift gridlock's burden from people in the Tyson's area & points northwest (who moved there knowing there was no working rail line to serve them) onto the backs of people in the current I-66 corridor (who moved there thinking that there WAS one, called the Orange Line). If this Silver Line gets built as currently designed, what can the regular Joes & Janes who schlep into work on the Orange Line look forward to from the currently-conceived, single-track Dulles rail proposal? If the one-way rail trip between Vienna & downtown is going to double (or worse), even as Metro fares keep rising, then these folks will see gridlock on the rails as bad as the gridlock in their cars, with no commensurate time-savings. If that happens, I fear a flood of them will be back in their cars; and won't that unwind many of the alleged public benefits of this deal, and leave us with permanently higher taxes to fund the boondoggle (the developers having long since absconded with the private benefits)? If the pols are going to tax us to build a project, why not go for one that's designed right -- with a desperately-needed second river tunnel -- so that it makes sense from traffic-planning and thus long-term economic standpoints? To say we've come so far on the current Dulles rail design that we might as well push our political levers to get it built, seems to me like saying, "We've headed so far down a wrong-headed path that we might as well finish the trip."

Steven Pearlstein: You know, if you stand back and look at what you are saying, you're basically saying there is no solution to the fact that lots of people want to take a very efficient (cost, environmental) means of transportation, and that expanding capacity will make it unaffordable. That just doesn't pass the simple logic test. These things are hard to do, I admit, and adding marginal capacity in a fully developed area can be expensive. But golly, we're not all that stupid. If we need another bridge crossing, then build another bridge crossing. If we took your attitude, that there's nothing humanly possible to do here, we would never have built the first highway because we would know it would be so popular that everyone would use it, or the tolls would be so high that nobody would use it. There is this concept call equilibrium in which supply and demand come into balance at a certain price.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: The Feds are right to be wary of massive open ended subsidies for regional transportation projects. They are barely out from under our, local boston, 13 billion dollar boondoggle. Not to say the federal government shouldn't spend on infrastructure, but why do you dismiss their concerns about population density so quickly? What if the project is built and it turns into a largely empty multi billion dollar airport shuttle? Perhaps the region could get more out of taking advantage of its vertical real estate where extensive public transport is already in place.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm a Bostonian myself, and I would agree the Big Dig offers a cautionary tale but also an appropriate metaphor. Even at $13 billion, if that is the number, I suspect the project will be cost effective over a 30 year time horizon, which is the way you need to look at it. But most of that benefit will come from the revitalization of downtown Boston that comes with freeing up useful land and making traffic flow more smoothly. And most of that benefit is local. So my view is that the locals should have paid more of the cost, and the feds less. And that's my solution for the Dulles rail line as well.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.:"Society" is obsessed with tax cuts? Try "Republicans". Honesty, please.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, who do you think elected the Republicans? And why is it that we have Democratic candidates who are afraid to raise taxes on anyone other than the superich and large corporations?

_______________________

Riverdale Park, Md.: Do you think the US has lost its stomach for big engineering projects? I wonder: would the Chesapeake Bay Bridge be built now?

Steven Pearlstein: Probably not. But that would have been a mistake, wouldn't it have been?

_______________________

Reston, Va.: What is the major problem that made the Secretary of Transportation say no at this late time to the project?

Steven Pearlstein: Rising cost and changing political environment.

_______________________

Great Falls, Va.: Interesting column. It's difficult to imagine any infrastructure deal going through these days, other than the most shortsighted. (Expanded bus service for the Dulles corridor?) When the NYC subway was built, many of the areas served were little more than cow pastures. But now it's the envy of every other city in the country.

It's depressing to see the myopia involved, and I say that as fiscal conservative who typically abhors taxes. But there are obviously some things -- like, say, national defense -- that we need to do at the federal level. An interstate infrastructure project seems to qualify, especially when it affects the ability of federal government employees to get to work.

Steven Pearlstein: I agree. But again, let me emphasize, the lack of the willingness of Virginia officials to invest Virginia dollars here is part of the problem. State politicians who are unwilling to raise taxes to fund a worthwhile project have a weaker case when they ask federal politicians to raise taxes to fund the same project. They need to put their money where their mouth is.

_______________________

Sterling, Va.: Steve:

You are completely off the tracks on rail costs in Tysons ($50 million per station). The projected cost of the 4 miles Tysons detour is well over $1 billion, about $300 million per mile.

Developers near the stations are proposing up to 10 FAR (same density as Downtown DC). No detailed studies have been performed by the Tysons Corner Land Use Task Force to show fiscal and travel impact on McLean or Vienna or commuters who must use Routes 7 and 123.

Why should Toll Road users who have paid for over 20 years paid to line the pockets of already wealthy Tysons property owners? Why not have residents and businesses in DC, Maryland, Alexandria, Arlington and elsewhere in Northern Virginia kick in a billion or two if this project is so important regionally?

Steven Pearlstein: I agree with your last point. I'm not positive on those station costs, but that's the rough number I was given by some federal officials familiar with the project. That's just station cost (as in, what would you save if you eliminate one of the four stations). It doesn't include the cost of running the line through Tysons in the first place.

_______________________

Re: Congress : I think Cardin and Mikulski and a lot of other DC-metro area politicians would be happy to support a rail extension.

But there is a problem: Look at the bill to support better funding for WMATA. Senator Coburnn -- from Oklahoma! -- has put a hold on that bill and it has gone nowhere. And isn't about to since Coburn has holds on dozens of pieces of legislation (WMATA folks are in line behind many other causes).

Relying on Congress isn't a good way to go. Too many variables.

Steven Pearlstein: It's called democracy.

_______________________

Herndon, Guatemala: When I served in Washington, I lived in Herndon. I left the house at 6:45, my wife would give me a ride to the Herndon Park and Ride where I would catch a fully packed bus to West Falls Chruch where I could cram into a Metro to DC. All told the trip was about 1 hr 15 minutes door to door. I always tried hard to get out of work by 7 p.m., otherwise the bus from West Falls Church back to Herndon went on the whenever schedule. Alternatives were non existent. Drive, impossible in a single car. Carpool, impossible with irregular hours. I will happily pay the additional taxes to support the Metro, so I can have a life and my property can appreciate.

Steven Pearlstein: Nicely put. Thanks.

_______________________

Salt Lake City, Utah: Mr. Pearlstein, in your article you attribute the current Dulles cost to "rising steel and labor". These costs are certainly part of the problem. However, a much more important factor may be intentional cost under-estimation on the part of the project planners and promoters as has been the case with almost every rail transit project in the last 20 years. The empirically demonstrable process in promoting rail projects is to "high-ball" the initial ridership estimates, and "low-ball" the cost estimate to generate initial planning funds and gain momentum. Once the project is underway ridership estimates incrementally come down and costs are continuously re-adjusted upward.

There is a small but well-respected body of academic and professional literature on the fraudulent rail planning process. If you are interested, I will be happy to provide the citations.

William

Steven Pearlstein: I'm sure you are right in the short run, although in the long run more people ride the Metro today than could ever have been envisioned when the system was planned. How do I know. Because in some aspects the system is trying to handle more riders than it was designed for. Which is precisely my main point here: You can't ignore the dynamic long term effects on where people live, where jobs are located and where growth occurs.

_______________________

Re: That's why God invented these things....: I knew God invented death. I didn't know He was responsible for taxes as well.

Steven Pearlstein: She invented everything!

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I've lived in Virginia since 1979 and first moved east of Manassas as I wanted to be able to use the coming rail line from Fredericksburg. I waited six years and finally moved as all they did was more studies. They have been screwing around about rail to Dulles since before I moved here but no plans to purchase property have been made and they haven't even decided whether it will be underground or above ground. The estimated cost has more than doubled and is likely to do so a couple of more times before it ever becomes operational. In the meantime, once the project is started construction will contribute to years of even worse traffic problems and once finally, if ever, it is in operation, the cost of operation will tax us out of our homes, cars and businesses.

Two months ago a local MacDonalds was torn down and a new building erected, opened and is now in operation. Why not let a private company build and operate it?

Jim

Steven Pearlstein: That's a red herring and you know it. These are complicated things, the public has to approve of them, and that is what takes the time -- not the actual designing and building. The analogy is inapt.

_______________________

DC: This project failed because they're trying to accomplish two goals with one project. Rail to Dulles vs. Rail to Tysons. Start with Rail to Dulles. Rail to Tysons should come afterwards.

Steven Pearlstein: It's an interesting idea, except that you lose a lot of ridership when you do that. In the end, the project would probably look even less cost effective than it does now.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: The design build contract's fixed price is only good until the end of February when, if the federal share isn't forthcoming, the project as it stands will die as the costs will once again escalate. Is a congressional earmark, as you suggested, possible in that time frame? If not, could the monies raised so far from the taxing district and tolls be used to bridge the gap and keep the project moving forward?

Steven Pearlstein: No, its not possible in that time frame. But don't underestimate the desire of the contractors to do this project as we head into a recession.

_______________________

Steven Pearlstein: That's all the time we have today. I'm going to print a couple of additional submissions without substantive comment. See you next week.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Why isn't it good enough to run Metro down the Dulles Toll Road instead of straight through Tysons? The cost savings would be HUGE to the project, and the results would be the same. True "Smart Growth" would be to placing transportation infrastructure on existing right of way and re-zoning land adjacent to the stations to encourage dense growth.

The truth of the matter is that Tysons is the perfect example of why Smart Growth thinking is needed, and just bisecting Tysons with a Metro line is not going to help. By pulling the line a little further away, you can encourage some businesses and residential development to come off the Rte 7 corridor, and perhaps then redesign Tysons once the area restructures itself to the Metro allignment.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Don't you think there's a possibility that proponents of this project are overstating its economic effect?

Just because a Metro line runs through an area doesn't mean that the area improves (90% of the PG county stations are a testament to that).

If businesses and residents are so unhappy with the current configuration of Tysons, then why does it continue to grow? My arguement is that there is prime office space in Courthouse, Alexandria, Rosslyn, and Springfield that are all Metro accessibile, but all of the businesses gravitate towards Tysons anyway. Why should the government reward people who have chosen to develop away from public transportation with a dedicated subway line?

I say let Tysons go to gridlock and encourage business to move to more desirable locations and redevelop the area to correct the mistakes that county supervisors made in the 80's. Then you can run a rail line and encourage development in Tysons. It's a chicken/egg argument, but people who make bad decisions should not be given $1 billion government bailouts. Use that money to improve the existing transportation system.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Just an idea: I'm still relatively new to the area but instead of building one big line - expand the Orange to Dulles and build a connector to Tyson's Corner via the Orange/Purple Line. For those getting to Dulles, they would be able to bypass the stops in Tyson's Corner while still providing relief to the Tyson's area.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Steven, another chatter mentioned the Purple Line. We are worried sick, as early plans would have taken homes, yards and hundreds of trees in East Silver Spring. We don't know yet what Md. Transit Admin. will propose. Upgrades in the regular bus, taxi, and shared-car systems would help people get around. Instead, I fear that the rail-fueled "smart growth" plans would gobble up any small house or apt. or business within a mile of a rail stop within 10 years. Our neighborhood population is stable, where are these wild growth projections coming from?

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What troubles me about the Dulles Rail project, and all transportation projects in the region is that they are jurisdictionally-based. The Silver line, the Purple line, and any major project appears completely separate and distinct from a comprehensive transportation strategy.

We need a true regional body to levy taxes, collect fees and make the hard expensive decisions, something like the Port Authority of NY and NJ. Otherwise I fear the Washington region will be mired in politics and NIMBY thinking. Your thoughts?

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Fairfax County, Va.: I was looking at a VRE map the other day (I don't happen to ride VRE myself, but those double-deck trains sure look comfy) and suddenly wondered why we aren't just seeing a plain old VRE line out to Dulles with one or two stops on the way -- and no Metro involvement at all.

I'm not suggesting changing horses in midstream now but am puzzled that what seems like a far more successful system aimed at covering longer distances with few intermediate stops was bypassed in favor of Metro. What do you think?

Steven Pearlstein: Answer is simple: There is no rail line out there. If there were, this all would have been much easier.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Why does Tysons transportation have to include Metro? Metro is expensive to build and maintain, and their management is slow to change, unless of course they're raising fares and parking rates. The system is nearing theoretical capacity, and throwing another 20,000 riders per day into the mix is not going to help the rest of the region.

Let's face is, Fairfax County royally dropped the ball in allowing runaway growth in Tysons, and now they're stuck with it. Fairfax should deal with the problem with a series of local transportation projects including but not limited to:

1. Reconfigure Rte 7, 123, 236, and I-66 interchanges with the beltway. Hopefully some of this work could be piggybacked on the beltway HOT lane construction.

2. Request that 236 be converted to Interstate status and qualify for federal transportation funds that would include a high speed rail connection from Dulles Airport to Union Station or West Falls Chruch Metro (depending on funding)

3. Force ALL existing land owners to comply with a mixed zoning requirement to eliminate single-use strip malls, car dealerships, and office buildings by 2020.

4. Once mixed zoning has begun, purchase additional right-of-way along Rte 7 corridor and divide the road into a local road and expressway.

5. Incorporate Tysons and allow it to collect taxes to provide for itself like Alexandria City, Fairfax, and Vienna.

6. Use tax money to develop a light rail or Circulator-style bus system to tranport people around the area and to the Vienna Metro.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: I know Metro is just mostly just fine, but is the fact that it's our only real paradigm skewing the discussion of what KIND of link should exist to Dulles?

That corridor is not the kind of high-density development (and shouldn't be) that makes "heavy rail every 10-15 minutes" the right level of service.

Aside from service to the airport itself, wouldn't light rail or bus-rapid-transit make more sense?

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: With the downturn in construction and the number of questions about some of the cost estimates, will it be smarter to go for more bids and fresh cost estimates? I suspect we have more out there who need the work.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Every major international airport has metrorail from center city to the airport, for example Paris, London, Barcelona are ones I've seen. Has anyone said no to this concept for getting cars off the road, like in yesterday's icestorm, for establishing a growth corridor, and getting more people to ride the rails? Has the administration said more than NO to this project?

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.