Silver Line Cost Overruns & No Traffic Relief -- The Silence is Deafening

I've learned through many years in business that most good business managers listen to customer concerns and attempt to address them in a reasonable manner. For example, when a customer objects to the up-front price of a product, the supplier might use facts and data to demonstrate that, over the product's expected life-cycle, its maintenance costs are much lower than those of lower-priced, competing products, such that total life-cycle costs are lower. Alternatively, the supplier might agree to "throw in" two-years of "no-charge" maintenance or agree to match the price of a competing product.

Sometimes, however, try as they will, suppliers simply cannot provide an adequate response and they lose a sale. For example, a couple years ago, I bought a new car. I shopped several dealers and got price quotes from some. One dealer gave me a firm price that seemed reasonable. I took that price and recontacted two other dealers that were most responsive and competitive. I gave them the best price and asked them to beat it. Both tried, but neither could. So I bought the car from the first dealer. What is important is that those car dealers that wanted my business had to address my issues, in this case, price. They didn't ignore the issue or try to play games.

Yet, the supporters of the Silver Line, landowners, their agents and contractors and government officials, are not addressing the issues raised about the Silver Line. The two big issues are: who will pay for cost overruns; and why are we spending so much money for rail without also obtaining any meaningful traffic relief? Table 6.2-2 from the December 2004 Final EIS (posted herein on September 9, 2006) remains unaddressed. The best answer I've heard (indirectly) was "it just has to be wrong."

Likewise, with construction costs continuing to rise well above ordinary inflation (doubters may turn to the Association of General Contractors' website for details) and the history of huge cost overruns in transportation projects (think "Big Dig" readers), the Silver Line will most certainly incur them. Yet, the promoters of Dulles Rail remain silent as to who will bear them. The silence is, indeed, deafening. The clear and reasonable inference is that real estate taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users will pay the excess costs.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "huckster" as follows: "One who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. " Does anyone besides me think that the promoters of Dulles Rail fit that definition?