The Toll Road funds are vital because they are expected to pay for the majority of the project, and cover any and all of the inevitable cost overruns. It is the only revenue source that can be increased without political red tape and essentially without limit, since drivers have few alternatives and no say in the level of tolling. The phrase “self-imposed taxation” doesn’t really apply here. Tolls will also probably be used in perpetuity to provide the necessary subsidy to operate the line once built.

The Dulles connection is projected to draw very few riders and will provide a slower connection than an express bus due to the number of stations between the airport and Falls Church / downtown.
I question the wisdom of building this line rather than spending the money on improving Metro’s existing infrastructure, which is suffering problems with crowding and safety.

It’s signaled as regional rail

or it’s signaled like the subway and the el.

it runs regional rail rolling stock

They don’t run Silverliners on it, nor do they run trolley cars on it. They run Norristown High Speed Line odd hybrid of subway car and interurban trolley car, cars. As single cars or two car sets.

and it’s run by the Regional Rail division

Some years. Other years SEPTA calls it Light Rail.

What does any of that have to do with the Norristown HIgh Speed Line running locals, limiteds and expresses on a two track system that looks like an LRV metro system from one point of view and a commuter line from a different one?

Chicago’s Purple Line has a weekday ridership of 10,000, and runs express on a four-track line rather than a two-track line.

For Washington to emulate it would be very expensive due to the need to dig four tracks instead of two, while adding little ridership.

Being expensive to run express trains in metro Washington doesn’t make the Purple Line in Chicago stop at all the stations the Red Line does. Or make the Hughes Park Express stop at Penfield or the Norristown Express stop at Haverford.

Chicago’s Purple Line has a weekday ridership of 10,000, and runs express on a four-track line rather than a two-track line. For Washington to emulate it would be very expensive due to the need to dig four tracks instead of two, while adding little ridership.

Chicago. Inbound to the Loop in the morning, outbound from the Loop in the evening. Think Flushing line…. There’s places in Chicago where the suburban/interurbans ran on the same El as the local trains. They’ve let the track deteriorate, can’t run trains on them any more. Norristown line in Philadelphia is either light rail on steroids or commuter rail using interurbans. That has local and express service.

Sorry. That’s what he said. I lost it trying to get it in italic.

So true. The biggest reasons, of course, are the small pot of money from Congress and the effective per-project cap.

On the huge projects like the LIRR’s East Side Access or the Second Avenue Subway, or even Pittsburgh’s tunnel under the Allegheny River iirc, the federal share tops out well under the 80% standard for highways projects. So spending $12 or $15 billion for Boston’s Big Dig roadway, that’s no problem, but don’t dare try that with rail.

Since Ronald Reagan and the Ayn Rand cult came to power, America’s transit policy has been, in a phrase, “think small.”

Looking at google maps, it seems like you would have to build about 4 miles of mostly elevated track on I-66 to bypass 4 stops. I am not sure the extra couple minutes everyone would save would be worth the that expense. Is the DC metro big enough to justify express-local type service? Are there that many stops to skip? It does connect to MARC and the VRE at various points that could provide express type service to Union Station. I am reminded of Baltimore’s proposal to build a sort of metro-esque type service into its commuter train system that would connect with light rail expansions.