A Virginia group committed to successful completion of the Dulles Rail project proposed nearly $800 million in cost cuts Tuesday in an attempt to keep a sky-high price tag from derailing the entire effort. The move marks the first crack at reconciling the vision for Dulles Rail promoted by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is in charge of the project, with the demands of local and state officials, whose constituents will pay for it.
The nonprofit group, called the Washington Airports Task Force, sided with local officials in calling for an aboveground station to be built at Washington Dulles International Airport, instead of the more expensive underground station approved by the airports authority. That savings alone would total about $330 million, or about 9 percent of the project’s estimated $3.5 billion price tag.
The task force has no administrative authority over the construction of the Metrorail line to Dulles and into Loudoun County, but has served since 1982 as an adviser to Northern Virginia’s two airports.
Up to $200 million in savings could come from handing off the construction of parking lots near future Metro stations to developers interested in building near the land, according to the task force. Up to $100 million could be trimmed by building a smaller-than-planned rail yard to house and maintain the train cars.
The task force is also suggesting seeking low-interest loans through state and federal governments, which could save $150 million in interest payments that would otherwise fall to drivers along the Dulles Toll Road.
Leo Schefer, president of the task force, called the successful completion of the project “a matter of gravest consequence to the future prosperity of our entire region.”
Officials including the chairmen of the Fairfax and Loudoun county boards and Virginia’s secretary of transportation have threatened to withhold funding if costs aren’t brought closer to original estimates near $2.5 billion.
Former Republican Rep. Tom Davis, a member of the airports authority, said the panel is considering the suggested savings.
“We’re looking at a lot [of options], and we’re going to need a lot,” he said. “We’re looking for revenue enhancements as well as cutting costs, but we’re not there yet.”
