The pit stop link simply links back to GGW.

Loudoun pulling out of Dulles Rail isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you have to serve the airport, serve the airport, but there's no real need to extend beyond the airport.

by Froggie on May 20, 2011 9:02 am • link • report

Thanks, Froggie. I fixed the link.

by Eric Fidler on May 20, 2011 9:08 am • link • report

The SmarTrip link goes to Twitter.

by Paul C on May 20, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

@ Froggie,

But if Loudoun drops out, what does that do to the money available for phase 2 construction? How much was Loudoun going to be contributing? If the savings in not extending the line past Dulles is greater than the amount expected to be contributed by Loudoun, then by all means eliminate the stations in Loudoun county. But if their money is needed to cover more than just the segment extending beyond Dulles, their threats of withdrawl create more of a problem. It's a frustrating situation because most certainly an underground station nearer to the main terminal is much better in the long run than an elevated station more than double the distance from the terminal. Sacrificing system convenience due to higher costs is unfortunate.

by Aaron on May 20, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

If Loudoun opts out, prohibit Loudoun transit and buses from picking up/dropping off passengers at any Metro Station.

by Redline SOS on May 20, 2011 9:20 am • link • report

Loudoun's share of the project cost is 4.8%. MWAA's share is 4.1%.

If the line ends at the airport, I can see the airport making a good amount of money charging Loudoun residents to park at the airport station. They might also convince the WMATA Board to add a boarding surcharge at the airport station, ostensibly to charge "tourists".

If residents don't like it, they can always drive the toll road... which MWAA owns anyway!

Besides, wouldn't you rather have "Dulles Airport" as a destination sign instead of "Route 772"?

by Eric Fidler on May 20, 2011 9:34 am • link • report

I was shocked by the number of people I saw riding this morning, literally packs of 5-10 riders every other minute on the custis trail.

by jj on May 20, 2011 9:38 am • link • report

Dang. I forgot to pick up my free bike to work t-shirt.

by aaa on May 20, 2011 9:43 am • link • report

Good, extending Metrorail to Loudoun County would just encourage more sprawl out in McMansion country. If Loudounites are going to be big babies about this, cut them loose. Better that Metro concentrate on extending service in the inner suburbs of Fairfax/Arlington/Alexandria (extend the Orange Line to Centreville and the Yellow Line to Ft. Belvoir).

by Chambo Toles on May 20, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

Great turnout today at Bicycle Space (459 I st. NW) for Bike to Work Day! A truly amazing event that was fun for all and an wonderful way to lower your carbon footprint! Strong show of support from the community, including Assitant Police Chief Diane Grooms and Councilmen Tommy Wells.

by Sierra Club Sustainable Metro DC Campaign on May 20, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

Let them drop the Silver Line to Loudoun County. Idiots.

If they have an ounce of brain this is an empty threat, but we really don't need more virginia country bumkins on our subway anyway.

Rah rah MWAA!

by nwdc on May 20, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

The water runoff tunnels are the 800-pound bankrupting gorilla no one talks about in discussions of parking and development. Whether it's the $2.6Billion WaPo says or the $3.5B I had heard, it will bring DC to it's knees. If we have to float bonds to pay for it our bond rating will sink and our interest paid will soar as we're already on the hook for $700Million in bonds for the baseball stadium.(Which causes a big run-off problem itself).

$100/mo per homeowner seems like a low-ball estimate. And charging the impervious coverage fee equally seems unfair to those to have not concreted over their rear yards for parking pads, to all who haven't taken advantage of DCRA's 100% lot occupancy tricks, and to developers who haven't put in massive underground parking garages in buildings.

When you choose to give RPP spaces to visitors you force residents to concrete their rear yards. When you choose to promote 7-story buildings over 5-story ones, you force developers into the massive underground garages their foundation brings. And covering cobblestone alleys adds to the injury.

For me the problem is apparent. I look out my rear windows at my 4 immediate neighbors all of whom have recently concreted their rear yards for parking pads, an alley that was recently cobblestone but now asphalt, and a huge new underground garage construction that is already pumping lots of ground water into the public storm drains and will eventually have 100% lot occupancy instead of the required 15% rear open space.

To those that always chime in that they pay for their own needs themselves by having their own concrete parking pads, I say No You're Not. To those who always promote larger buildings with underground garages because they bring net revenue, I say No They Don't.

Even $2.6 Billion is nothing but devastating for DC taxpayers. Intelligent urban planning (or real smart growth) as real urban planners have espoused in DC for decades could prevent this problem. But it's easier to say "yes" to everyone and pass the bill to the taxpayers down the road.

by Tom Coumaris on May 20, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

Congrats, Metro, on catching up to technology that Chicago started using 7 years ago!

by Joe on May 20, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris; "and a huge new underground garage construction that is already pumping lots of ground water into the public storm drains and will eventually have 100% lot occupancy instead of the required 15% rear open space."

OK, stupid question. How does an underground garage change this? And if in part of the city w/seperate storm drains a non-issue?

Always been curious where WMATA dumps the water they pump out.

by charlie on May 20, 2011 10:00 am • link • report

@Paul C:
The SmarTrip link goes to Twitter (it goes to a specific tweet, not the general site) because that's where the news is. Metro's CFO said it out loud at a public meeting and someone tweeted it.

by Matt Johnson on May 20, 2011 10:03 am • link • report

I would say just extend the line to Dulles and be done with it, but would the line still meet federal funding guidelines necessary for the phase 2 FTA grant? I have a feeling that if Frank Wolf doesn't get what he wants, the federal dollars to don't come.

by Adam L on May 20, 2011 10:03 am • link • report

@ Charlie,

I think Tom is talking about the constant pumping needed to keep the natural groundwater from seeping into the lowest levels of these garages. The water is typically pumped out into the sewer system on a regular basis.

by merarch on May 20, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

Yes, raise taxi rates! $4 just to sit in a cab isn't enough ($5.50 for two people!) Maybe DC should just charge $10 to sit in a cab and go nowhere.

If they were to lower cab prices regular people might actually use them instead of having 20-deep cab lines at hotel stands and government buildings.

These guys are losing money because they're driving around empty all day since no sane person is going to pay these absurd meter rates.

by CBGB on May 20, 2011 10:10 am • link • report

@CBGB

+1

by guest on May 20, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

@Adam L: What FTA grant are you referring to? I didn't know they were even looking at getting an FTA grant.

by Mario on May 20, 2011 10:19 am • link • report

@Chambo Toles:

I'd say go farther on the Yellow Line, at least to Woodbridge. (This weekend I want to make a quick-and-dirty mockup of my suggestion for Yellow/Blue Line expansions around Ft. Belvoir, actually...just for grins.)

(I realize I'm becoming something of a Johnny One-Note about this, but hey; it's not like anyone who matters is going to listen to me, anyway. :-) )

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on May 20, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

Where EXACTLY is the Fairfax/Loudoun border? Dulles straddles the county line, so I'm worried that if Loudoun drops out, they could prevent the Dulles station from being built on "their" land. In most states, the state government would just overrule the county, but Virginia doesn't seem to work that way.

by tom veil on May 20, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@tom veil:
The terminal is in Loudoun County. But this is MWAA's project. If Loudoun drops out, it would likely just mean the line ends at the airport.

The rail yard is to be located west of Dulles Airport, though, and if the line isn't going farther out, that might be an issue.

As for Loudoun saying, "no, you can't build here," I don't think that's a worry. It isn't "their" land. The county doesn't "own" all the land in the county. In this case, the land belongs to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which, as the agency building the project, probably isn't going to object to building the project.

by Matt Johnson on May 20, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

@Ser Amantio

Why should we build Metro all the way to Woodbridge? You get a diminishing return because people aren't going to ride it nearly as much off-peak.

If you want to take transit into work from Woodbridge there is a perfectly good option called VRE.

by MLD on May 20, 2011 10:34 am • link • report

RE Dulles Toll Road,

Well what did anyone expect? You have a county that gets three stations who is technically on the hook for ~5 % of the costs, but has zero input or voice in the scope of the construction or the willy-nilly expansion of those costs.

Then you also have the painful fact that Loudoun residents are also paying more than their fair share on a daily basis via DTR Tolls which have and continue to climb at a ridiculous rate and far, far exceed the capital costs to maintain the DTR. You can't expect a group of people to pay an outsized share of something and not complain.

This entire project was and will continue to be the poster child for public infrasture boondoggles.

Metro is a regional transportation system and should be paid for accordingly. If we as a "region" have decided to expand it, then the "region" (including both DC and MD should also be contributing, and I say that as a DC resident.

by freely on May 20, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

Stopping the Silver Line at Dulles is the best idea. It will save the project at least 750 million to 1 billion dollars. If Loudoun was smart they would set up a cheap freeway BRT on the Greenway, Route 28 and Route 7 with express service to Reston Parkway Metro, Tysons Metro, Rosslyn, and Downtown DC.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&safe=on&msa=0&msid=207994879598287792047.0004a3b5bd12421a9ada7&t=h&z=11

by mcs on May 20, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

@MLD:

I'm not sure I agree with that...once BRAC goes into effect at Fort Belvoir. Metro to Woodbridge would be a great encouragement to live down there, and it would provide access to places where there isn't VRE access. (Fort Belvoir comes to mind most especially; there's also the Pentagon. Both would be on the same line, without a transfer, and that would go some way towards alleviating much of the traffic problem on Route 1.)

Match it to the VRE station, and make it an easy transfer point for people coming from farther away. (I wouldn't take Metro farther than Woodbridge for that very reason.)

VRE isn't bad, but Woodbridge is close enough that I think Metro should also be considered.

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on May 20, 2011 10:44 am • link • report

Those deep underground garages have to dispose or alter underground water somehow because the ground water level is high in the Old City (below the Escarpment). Most just pump the water into the unified groundwater/sewer system we have in the center and it all overflows into the Potomac and Anacostia, sewage included. (That also lowers the ground water level in the immediate area making it difficult for new trees to take root).

If a project does manage to somehow seal their underground garage against water without pumping, that means there's a huge new void in the ground water table that raises the ground water table in the immediate area causing more flooding into the sewers.

And even if we were to find a way to fund this imminent $2.6 Billion project (much higher homeowner property taxes), it won't take care of future laissez-faire development.

by Tom Coumaris on May 20, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris,

Thanks for your feedback. The Clean Rivers Project is not subject to the District's debt ceiling. As an independent agency, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) has the ability to raise its own funds on the bond market.

More info: http://www.dcwater.com/investor_relations/investor_relations.cfm

Yours,
Alan Heymann
Director, Public Affairs
DC Water

by DC Water on May 20, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris ; interesting, but again, how much of problem?

1) Is this a major amount of water being pumped
2) Pumping this into the unified system during normal days isn't a problem -- all treated
3) is this more being pumped on stormy days when it is a problem?
4) Raising the water level -- ok, I can see if for trees, but is it a problem for seepage into sewers
5) I thought when you brought up underground garages it was going to be runoff again

Interesting new point, though.

by charlie on May 20, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

Thanks Matt J.

by Paul C on May 20, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris

Does the Baseball Stadium really cause that much of a runoff problem? A big chunk of it is obviously a baseball field and it uses green roofs. It's certainly an improvement over what was there right?

by Steven Yates on May 20, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

@Mario

I am not sure what grant program it is, but there is an expectation that MWAA would secure another batch of federal funds for phase II of the project. I would think such a grant would be made by the FTA, but I could be wrong.

by Adam L on May 20, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

5% of $6B is $300M. The savings from not building from Dulles to Rt 722 have to be at least $500M. So if Loudoun drops out, the savings minus their contribution come close to covering the additional cost of undergrounding the Dulles station.

I doubt that MWAA is quivering at the thought that Loudoun might withdraw.

by jim on May 20, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

@DC Water- It's good to know the $2.6Billion won't go against DC's bond rating. The cost per homeowner in DC is still enormous.

@ Charlie- Only a problem in rainy spells is still a big problem. And when part of the ground water table is taken by a big new underground structure, it causes the immediate area's water level to rise, and more frequent flooding. Of course usually the level is lowered by pumping it into the sewer.

@Steven Yates- I'm not sure how green the stadium is compared to what was there. The WaPo story implies it's a negative. Compared to what could have been there I think it's a big negative, especially next to the Anacostia.

by Tom Coumaris on May 20, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

Today is Bike to Work Day.

Just heard an update on NPR regarding BTWD: after interviewing a few cyclists on the health benefits and money savings, the narrator intoned, seriously, "Unfortunately, the event also raises issues on safety -- D.C. Fire and EMS reported a minor accident between at cyclist and a car at the corner of 18th and Columbia in Adams Morgan."

Anyone know how many fender-benders happened between motor vehicles during the morning commute this morning?

by oboe on May 20, 2011 1:17 pm • link • report

@Oboe,

And your point is? DDOT has told us that there are a minimum of 45 times the number of vehicles on the streets at any given time than bicycles, yet I doubt there were 45 fender benders in the District this morning.

by freely on May 20, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report

I'm so relieved that my property taxes won't go up but that my DC Water bill will just triple.

by Tom Coumaris on May 20, 2011 3:44 pm • link • report

@freely:
There are roughly 10 million accidents a year[1]. Given 5.6 million people in the metro area and assuming a uniform spread, that makes nearly 500 accidents a day for the DC metro area.

[1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1102.pdf

by Ron Alford on May 20, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report

@freely,

You illustrate the cognitive issues nicely: you "doubt there were 45 fender benders in the District this morning." And yet, it's extremely likely there were at least that number. Add in the number of unreported accidents and you've probably got even more.

We can ignore all that, though, because driving is a safe and normal part of everyday life. Cycling on the other hand is Extremely Dangerous Endeavor. Did you hear a cyclist was involved in a minor accident this morning?

I bumped my head on my car door frame this morning as I drove over to pick up coffee this morning. I feel slighted that I didn't make the local news.

by oboe on May 20, 2011 4:39 pm • link • report

Trains can produce just as much sprawl as highway.

Dulles is far enough as it is, it's a good terminus.

Use the money saved in maintenance and operations to improve service in the core.

by JJJJJ on May 20, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report

@JJJJJ

One quibble - sprawl is not just outward development, but outward auto-dependent development. If the trains move people outward but they develop in walkable communities around transit stations and use transit and walking to get around, then the negative consequences are substantially reduced.

Sprawl has 4 key elements:

-Location: it moves outward
-Density: There's not much of it
-Design: It's all auto-oriented
-Diversity: There isn't any diversity of use, therefore more trips are required to do day-to-day tasks.

A well planned and well developed transit line away from the core only fulfills one of those criteria: outward movement.

Now, we can debate the quality of the development around the planned Dulles stations, but that still doesn't mean that simply because a line is going outward that it's causing 'sprawl.'

Given Metro's history of large park and ride facilities at the end of lines, that might be the case - but there's nothing inherent to that kind of thinking.

by Alex B. on May 20, 2011 6:08 pm • link • report

I was discussing the water thing with a friend today and was told eight years ago, in order to encourage underground parking garages, a bill was passed to exempt developers from paying any DC Water sewage bill for the ground water they pump out of their underground structures. Now that bills are going so high it should be time to revisit that law.

by Tom Coumaris on May 20, 2011 8:03 pm • link • report

Alex B, I disagree.

Sprawl is about the urban area getting bigger and bigger and taking up more land. Streetcar suburbs were sprawl, considering the alternate choice was to keep growing the core. Trees were cut down and farms were razed to build homes now easily reachable by train.

The traditional streetcar suburb is walkable, but full of single family detached homes. You could fit 10 blocks worth of homes into a single building downtown.

And of course, as you mentioned, modern outer stations serve as park and rides. So every minute of time the train saves over car commute, is a minute further away people are comfortable living. Look at the entire area north of NYC. You have commuter rail which uses a combination of local, express and super-express trains to get huge pieces of land within 60 minutes of midtown.

People do have their commuting limit. If the only way from westchester to NYC was a 2 lane gravel road, in which 50 miles takes 4 hours....no one would live there. Put in a train that does it in 45 minutes, and all the forests get chopped down so people can build their homes.

by JJJJJ on May 21, 2011 2:48 am • link • report

@JJJJJ

Here's the thing, though- cities have always grown outward. This is not a new phenomena. My point is that the shape of that outward growth matters a great deal. If it's clusters of small walkable pockets around transit stations instead of an endless blanket of sprawling auto-oriented subdivisions, that's a huge difference.

Obviously, I'd like to see that growth in the core, but barring significant geographical barriers, that's just not the case in any city we see today.

The area north of NYC is a great example - it does indeed sprawl out tremendously, but it's also going to be far more resilient in a time of high oil prices because of the commuter rail networks available to those residents.

Just like all suburbs are not the same, defining sprawl solely as outward growth from the core misses a huge element of how that portion of the megalopolis actually works.

by Alex B. on May 21, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report