Why would Metro need Quiet Cars?

It would be impractical, because people can't change cars while the train's in motion. It would work on a true commuter rail system, because people can move between cars. On Metro, it would only serve to increase loading times for people running to the designated quiet car on the train and/or increase the number of complaints like "RAGE driver closed doors on me while going to quiet car because lady on phone."

by Mike on Jul 1, 2011 8:45 am • link • report

A while back, a friend and I were walking home from a bar and passed by an arrest going down. Admittedly being drunk and stupid, he decided to film it. We were maybe 30 feet away at the absolute closest. One of the cops comes over and asks us to cross the street. Now, I knew that the law said we could be there (As long as we aren't physically impeding I think is the standard) but we didn't feel like arguing, so we started to cross. Not in a cross walk though. My friend is told to cross in the crosswalk, which he doesn't. Sio the cop grabs, him, throws to him the curb, and arrests him on the wonderfully vague charge of "failure to obey". Needless to say, charges were never pressed.
Moral of the story is, even when cops kind of do know the law, they will go out of their way to harass you if you try to film them.

by Jaywalker on Jul 1, 2011 8:53 am • link • report

Quiet cars don't make sense for Metro, but they might make sense for longer haul services like Amtrak (which has them), MARC and VRE. But there's way too much on-and-off action with Metro.

Most people tend to be fairly quiet anyway.

by Alex B. on Jul 1, 2011 9:02 am • link • report

Ouch -- glad to hear from the video that Megabus was back on regular service by yesterday afternoon (the delays were yesterday, not today).

But not feeling great about my bus to NYC this afternoon...

by Jacques on Jul 1, 2011 9:03 am • link • report

I agree that quiet cars on Metro are unworkable for the reasons others have pointed out before me, but I will add one more issue: Who would enforce the quiet? If you don't have a conductor walking through the train, as does Amtrak and Metra, 'Quiet' would become just one more point of possible confrontation among angry riders.

by ZZinDC on Jul 1, 2011 9:07 am • link • report

Eventually cops will give up this craze of ordering people not to record them. Only because as technology improves, everything will be recorded pretty much everywhere, all the time.

by TGEoA on Jul 1, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

I haven't read the whole City Paper piece on the Cleveland Park service lane, but Lavandou, whose owner wants the lane to stay, is definitely a restaurant.

by Tim on Jul 1, 2011 9:25 am • link • report

I had a similar experience waiting for a Megabus at the parking lot last July. Two hours in the heat and no communication whatsoever. Saw that the folks getting on the Bolt Bus looked a lot happier, and I've never been back on a Megabus since.

by Jess C. on Jul 1, 2011 9:25 am • link • report

I've had a number of relatively painless Megabus trips lately (especially heading to spots where Bolt doesn't go, like Pittsburgh or Harrisburg), just hoping today doesn't turn out to be a disaster!

by Jacques on Jul 1, 2011 9:33 am • link • report

wow, the hines project is getting NIMBY'd to death. When was it supposed to break ground?

by whoa_now on Jul 1, 2011 9:33 am • link • report

What happened with the woman who filmed an arrest and had her cellphone seized by police, on their claim it contained evidence? (Evidence of an arrest? Of police misconduct? Presumably the crime had already been completed?) Cathy Lanier claimed the police had such power, but I'm not sure what the authority is.

by ah on Jul 1, 2011 9:40 am • link • report

Wow, I just found a new favorite DCU player!

by TM on Jul 1, 2011 9:41 am • link • report

Hrmm...Fairfax could take over parking? That's an intriguing proposition. It's like a lot of things - if it's done well, it might be quite the boon. (Especially if they charge a small premium to use those lots - they can view them as a revenue stream, no? Although I'd hope they have the intelligence to make them garages, not lots...)

Regardless, I hope MWAA does NOT compromise on the airport station location. Cost regardless, it needs to be underground. And if that drives costs up an unconscionable amount? Well, then, maybe it's time to discuss where the overruns came from elsewhere...

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Jul 1, 2011 10:08 am • link • report

Megabus has become a total disaster since they moved to N Capitol and K. At least when they queued at the lot near Metro Center, you could take shelter in a nearby hotel or Starbucks, but this is basically a lot in the middle of Sursum Corda far away from Metro and other services.

Has had a definite impact on my decision to use BoltBus more.

by John M on Jul 1, 2011 10:18 am • link • report

Should Metro institute quiet cars? yes.

Can they enforce it? They can't enforce the ban on eating...so no, they couldn't.

by Redline SOS on Jul 1, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

Ser Amantio di Nicolao MWAA officials went to Fairfax and Loudoun County officials and offered to pay their share of the added costs for the underground station. Local officials asked them to pick up the share to be dumped on the Toll Road users, but MWAA refused. That is poor public policy and bad economics. DTR drivers gain nothing from an underground station at Dulles Airport. Also, higher tolls give an economic incentive to leave the DTR and overcrowd other roads.

If the underground station is of such importance to MWAA, MWAA should pick up all the costs and recover those from users of the Airport Station. But MWAA's refusal to do this tells me that the board does not think the extra $330 million in costs when translated to a Dulles station fare surcharge would be perceived as sufficiently valuable by Dulles passengers. If the beneficiaries don't think the underground station has enough value to pay the costs for that station, why should MWAA build it?

by tmtfairfax on Jul 1, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

"If the underground station is of such importance to MWAA, MWAA should pick up all the costs and recover those from users of the Airport Station".

I would agree with this statement. More metro riders means less drivers, means better traffic flow. 2-5$ surcharge on every ticket out of Dulles, and beebop, paid.

by greent on Jul 1, 2011 10:45 am • link • report

What is wrong with taking a couple moving sidewalks to get to the metro station -- sidewalks that are underground by the way? What difference does it make if the station is above ground? the DCA station is above ground and it seems to work just fine. I seriously can't imagine anyone NOT taking the Metro from IAD because they have to go under a parking lot in a brand new corridor. I think Dulles rail is a great idea but at some point we are spending a third of a billion dollars to save a few minutes on a moving sidewalk.

by CBGB on Jul 1, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

Megabus: this is what happens when to cut overhead to the bare minimum, the transportation operator does not provide a building, terminal, or covered waiting area. Megabus is an intercity service, not a local bus stop. It was not even that hot yesterday. What is going to happen for long lines on a full sauna blast day in July or August or a bitterly cold day in winter? If this happens again, should the DC emergency services send a bill to Megabus?

Quiet cars on Metro: agree with the posts on no, this does not make sense nor can it work for a subway metro service. On true commuter trains and Amtrak, yes. But not in a subway system.

Leslie Johnson in PG county: The past few months have been pretty bad for local political corruption scandals. She plead guilty and she is still on the county board - apparently to keep drawing the pay and probably to keep the medical benefits until sentencing - and still voting on county issues. Embarrassing for PG county and will lead to people questioning the integrity of close votes. Is there no way for the rest of the county board to suspend her or expel her prior to sentencing?

by AlanF on Jul 1, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

greent Why should someone who takes a cab, a hired van, a bus, is dropped off by family or friends, who even drives and parks at the Airport pay higher ticket prices to subsidize rail passengers? It is not economically sound, but it is unfair. User fees are generally fair. If I use rail and take advantage of the underground station to avoid a heavy, for example, why should someone who gets out into the rain be required to subsidize me? Bringing rail to Dulles is another choice. MWAA needs passengers irrespective of how they arrive. It should recover the costs for the underground rail station from underground rail users.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 1, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

@greent

This is *exactly* what NJ Transit did with the Newark Airport station. (And, actually, it's kind of expensive. I'm not sure I totally love the idea. It adds up if you're traveling with a family. Still cheaper than parking; possibly not cheaper than the SuperShuttle; separately, the Washington Flyer monopoly continues to be completely insane)

I don't think anybody seriously hates the idea of an aboveground Dulles station. However, most of the ideas pitched for an aboveground station sucked hard, and would have required passengers to walk a considerable distance, climb lots of stairs, and cross several roads.

A DCA-like elevated station is impossible, because MWAA fears that it would disrupt the majestic architecture of the terminal building (although someone on GGW pitched a pretty sweet idea for a station design that would mimic the terminal's catenary roofline).

So, really, once again, MWAA are the problem. We were presented with very few realistic and practical alternatives, and picked the one that cost the most, but sucked the least.

by Andrew Schmadel on Jul 1, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

Why not reduce costs by terminating the line at Dulles? MWAA could capture revenue from commuters parking in airport lots to take the train.

by Eric Fidler on Jul 1, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

@ tmtfairfax:
Fair? Everybody pays the extra fee, no matter how you arrive. That is fair.

Subsidized? All modes of transport are subsidized, in one way or another.

Why? Because infrastructure is a benefit to all. Those that use one type of transport mode alleviate usage of another type of transport mode. There is not a war between the transport modes. They are branches of the same team, and we should treat them as such.

Because 2-5$ to build needed infrastucture is a sound investement. Because (as the metro + walk to the old DCA terminal proves) a large walk from where you are dropped off to get into an airport will effect what modes people use.

Imagine if the taxi stand and pickup/dropoff points for cars were not directly out front of the airport, but was put in the same place as the under the parking lot metro plan. How would that be? Not a good idea? Then why is it a good idea for another branch of transport?

by greent on Jul 1, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

If a taxi dropped me off in a place where I was taking a moving walkway the remaining distance to the airport, I don't think I would care much if that moving walkway were 300 feet or 1000 feet.

An underground station would not provide in-terminal access at Dulles. It would be under the existing parking lot and would require elevator/escalator, moving walkway, and then more elevator/escalator.

Putting it above ground and further away will require the same, except going up at the end instead of further down, and somewhat more time on a moving walkway.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V-XhAvRcnf8/TYFipCBi0vI/AAAAAAAAAMw/3EeMZc8FWEw/Dulles+Metro+Station+Alternatives.jpg

by ah on Jul 1, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

@CBGB
I think you are missing the point in regards to underground or above ground. The issue is about how far away from the terminal the station will be, yes at National it is above ground, but it is also right next to the terminal.

You may not have an issue with taking a few extra minutes and walking a bit to get to the terminal, but some people will. The further away it is, the more people won't do it.

To me one should not simply compare the cost of the above ground station to the underground station, but look at the difference in cost at the entire extension. Now I admit I haven't looked closely at this, but it seems to me if we are going to build the extension to Dulles we should put the station as close as possible becuase even a walk of 200 feet I think will put enough people off that the usage will be low.

If the usage is low, why not just stop it in Tyson after phase 1. Though I admit regardless of anything I think this is the best option, and that Dulles is far enough out that the rail shoudl be some type of commuter rail that doesn't make many stops before it gets into the city. It doesn't matter where the station is, I don't think that many people going to the airport want to spend that much time on a metro to get there.

by nathaniel on Jul 1, 2011 11:49 am • link • report

However one imposes a charge on Dulles passengers to pay for the Metro extension, raising tolls on the DTR seems least justifiable. None of those drivers are using the airport--if they were, they would not be paying a toll as they would be on the Dulles Access Road instead.

by ah on Jul 1, 2011 11:50 am • link • report

The MWAA oversees both Dulles and National. You have 23 million passengers a year in/out of Dulles and another 18 million a year in/out of National, or 41 million passengers a year.

Institute a freaking ticket fee and be done with it.

They could slap a $3.50 fee on every ticket and have the underground thing paid for in two years.

It's like MWAA is going out of their way to ensure the people who actually benefit from the underground station, don't have to pay a dollar for it.

by freely on Jul 1, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

Furthermore,

Talk about lost opportunity...

The Silverline got its formal approvals in 2004 and the DTR got its first toll raise to fund it in 2005, yet there still hasn't been one ticket surcharge at Dulles to contribute.

Had the MWAA institutued a $5 dollar per ticket charge in 2005, would no one would have noticed or cared about (cared enough anyway to fly to another airport) , they would have collected $700 million in revenue to actually put toward their construction.

But god forbid they actually task the users with paying for it. Nope, they will just use a nearby toll road, whose users benefit is ZERO as their gravy train.

by freely on Jul 1, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report

Airport facility fees (PFCs) have long been used to pay for ground transportation improvements -- which help get other passengers and employees out of traffic and not competing for the same parking spaces. PFCs pay for many of the roads, etc. around airports, so it's only fair that they pay for transit as well. The people that PFCs unfairly tax are not drivers but connecting passengers, who pay the PFC twice but don't get to use the ground transportation.

Dulles Toll Road drivers benefit from having an adjacent transit option because, again, it reduces congestion.

Has an airport station surcharge seriously been considered for Dulles? SFO levies a $1.50 surcharge for BART trips beginning/ending there, and bonds on those surcharges helped pay for the construction.

As for Megabus, they recently moved their Minneapolis stop from a city bus transfer depot with an enclosed waiting area (such things are necessary there) to yes, an open air parking lot at the far edge of downtown.

by Payton on Jul 1, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

I don't have a problem with an aboveground IAD station connected by a moving walkway, and in some ways I prefer it.

* The extra walking/standing time is close to meaningless in the context of an airport that already requires a lengthy schlep down the A/B or C/D terminals to the average gate. (Whereas if National's Metro stop were on the far side of its parking garage, you'd notice the added hike more).

* Getting construction done faster and cheaper is good.

* It would be nice to able to see Saarinen's architecture as you approach, instead of rolling into its basement.

* MWAA can put some of the money it saves on a cheaper station towards extending those moving sidewalks.

* It should put the rest of that towards replacing the decrepit C/D terminal.

Also, can we please finally drop the "let's just stop the extension at Phase 1" discussion? The airports authority is not going to let the subway extension that it's directing not reach its airport. Period. They may have to give up features that they want, but it's getting built.

- RP

by Rob Pegoraro on Jul 1, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

@ah - Is the underground tunnel shown in the diagram you linked to the same underground tunnel that currently links the daily garage to the terminal building? If so, it's worth noting that passengers currently pay a $7/day premium to park in that garage and walk that distance to the terminal vs. parking in the long-term lots and riding the bus.

@Nathaniel - The Reagan airport Metro stop is only "right next to the terminal" for passengers flying out of B and C, not Terminal A. Yet I don't think many passengers decide not to fly AirTran or JetBlue just because of the 10 minute walk to the check-in counter in those terminals.

by Eric S. on Jul 1, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report

However one imposes a charge on Dulles passengers to pay for the Metro extension, raising tolls on the DTR seems least justifiable. None of those drivers are using the airport--if they were, they would not be paying a toll as they would be on the Dulles Access Road instead.

So why should DTR users pay for other people's airport access if they are not using the airport? Ridiculous!

by TGEoA on Jul 1, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report

@ah, @TGEoA:
Only some of the passengers on the Silver Line will be going to/from Dulles. The vast majority will be commuters traveling from Loudoun and northern Fairfax counties into Tysons, Arlington, or DC. And for every one of those that used to drive that takes Metro, traffic is lessened. And those drivers don't get to take the free road.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 1, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report

@Matt

I agree, however why should DTR users pay for the underground station?

by TGEoA on Jul 1, 2011 1:15 pm • link • report

@TGEoA-Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Feel "free" to take a walk around D.C. with a decent camera photographing government buildings/complexes/employees and see how long it takes for someone with a firearm, tazer, handcuffs, baton, and radio (to quickly summon colleagues with similar accessories) to "politely" ask you for "your papers". Perhaps your "eventually" has already arrived and they won't stop you...probably not.

by thump on Jul 1, 2011 1:23 pm • link • report

Transit loyalty programs = Unlimited monthly pass. You only get the benefit of the pass if you're using it daily.

by Rob on Jul 1, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report

@thmp

You are under no obligations to show police ID. Heck you don't even have to carry ID.

by TGEoA on Jul 1, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report

Quiet cars are impractical, but I will say this: A few weeks ago I boarded a car who's lights weren't working, and as a result people were generally quieter and I actually found it to be a great way of adjusting from bed to work.

by Max on Jul 1, 2011 1:40 pm • link • report

It is so sad that the old people , boomers , and NIMBYs who all live near the new potential Hines project will never be happy unless they knock down the decrepit school building and build a huge multi story parking facility. Do not be surprised if the CHRS suddenly declares the old Hines school monstrosity a historical building and never allows anything to change at all. This is what the old folks and the boomer car drivers who live around this area all desire.

by w on Jul 1, 2011 1:58 pm • link • report

TGEoA, that's true, but it doesn't keep guards from a) not caring about the law, and b) waving BS reasons like "national security" to prevent you from photographing GSA headquarters.

by Neil Flanagan on Jul 1, 2011 1:59 pm • link • report

I have deleted a comment from thump which used ad hominem attacks.

Please remain civil and help us build a healthy discourse.

TGEoA: You have a history of misspelling peoples' names or giving them nicknames, despite them repeatedly asking you to refrain. If you are doing this on purpose (which I believe to be the case), it is petty and unhelpful. It does not contribute to a healthy discourse.

I'm going to ask you to make every effort to respect your fellow commenters and to use their correctly spelled, full names ("handles").

If you continue to engage in the petty behavior of purposefully mis-naming people, I will delete your comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 1, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report

@RP
Why should we stop with the "End at Phase I" talk? Phase II is a bad idea. It is too expensive to build, will be too expensive to operate, and won't provide any of the benefits that it provides closer to the urban core. (I don't see Herndon-Monroe turning into the next Clarendon. Do you?) MWAA may be driving construction but they want everyone else to pay for it. This is ridiculous at a time when support for public funding is decreasing, not increasing. If they really want it, they should drop this game of chicken and step up to full funding of construction and operation. That won't happen because they know the business case isn't there.

by movement on Jul 1, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report

@Matt Johnson-My apologies. I understand why you deleted the comment. As you say, I was prompted by repeated slights. It won't happen again.

by thump on Jul 1, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

@Matt

I usually post from a netbook with a crapoy keyboard. Since some are acting so childish, ill try to accommodate

by TGEoA on Jul 1, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report

Payton "Dulles Toll Road drivers benefit from having an adjacent transit option because, again, it reduces congestion." This is a misperception. Rail will, of course, carry people along the Dulles Corridor, some of whom would have driven on the DTR. But the presence of Dulles Rail will trigger enough additional density at Tysons, Reston, Herndon and points in Loudoun County that the traffic volumes on the DTR will increase substantially, making DTR traffic worse and for longer periods of time during the day.

In fact, traffic studies indicate that the DTR must be expanded by as many as three-to-five lanes from Tysons to at least Hunter Mill Road (and probably further) just to accommodate the higher traffic volumes going on the DTR to and from Tysons. (Incidentally, MWAA has refused to pay for widening of the DTR from tolls.) The typical DTR driver gains absolutely nothing from Dulles Rail unless he/she takes the train. These drivers have been abused by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the MWAA Board. The drivers, who are just ordinary people in most instances, were viewed as captives from whom MWAA could steal their money to pay for rail, which is mainly a trigger for density at Tysons, the economic benefits of which go to the landowners. Making them pay for an underground station at the Airport is way over the top. DTR drivers should be treated more fairly.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 1, 2011 4:10 pm • link • report

MWAA, which is primarily in charge of operating airports, owns the toll road. Certainly people who use MWAA property for non-airport purposes, e.g. commuting between Reston and Tysons, should pay a fee for using it. If you don't like the tolls on the airport-owned toll road, don't use the airport-owned toll road.

by Eric Fidler on Jul 1, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

MWAA does not own the Dulles Toll Road. The Commonwealth of Virginia owns it. The Road was built by Virginia under a plan spearheaded by state senator Omer Hirst. Bonds were issued to build the road to be funded by tolls. Senator Hirst promised that, once the bonds were retired, the tolls would be removed. That was the social contract underlying the Toll Road. (The federal government built the Dulles Airport Access Road. With the creation of MWAA to run the NoVA airport, the Access Road was transferred to MWAA. The federal government still owns the right-of-way.)

The Commonwealth Transportation Board decided to make Virginia's contribution to the construction of Dulles Rail not from state funds, but rather, from increased tolls on the DTR. The good Senator Hirst has been turning over in his grave.

Governor Kaine, later, leased the DTR to MWAA when MWAA was selected over WMATA to build Dulles Rail. I believe there is a lawsuit pending that challenges the transfer of the DTR without General Assembly approval. I do not know the status of the lawsuit.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 1, 2011 4:48 pm • link • report

tmtfairfax, I should have been clearer: MWAA owns the valuable land upon which the non-airport toll road was built.

It's certainly fair to to charge people to use airport-owned land for non-airport uses.

by Eric Fidler on Jul 1, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report

MWAA does not own the land upon which the Toll Road was built. The land or right-of-way, if you prefer, is owned by the Virginia DOT. You can see that on Fairfax County tax maps. Only the roadway was transferred to MWAA for operation.

I have no problem with MWAA charging tolls to fund the upkeep and operation of the Toll Road. It might even be reasonable to use some of the proceeds to help fund Rail to Dulles. But the tolls started at $0.50-$0.75 one way and could be going to $11.00 one-way. That is absurd and unfair. Those tolls are totally out of line with the minimal, if any, benefit rail brings DTR drivers. In addition, instead of keeping high volumes of traffic on the DTR, the excessive tolls will cause more and more drivers to take other routes, which, in turn, will create more unwanted cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. The very neighborhoods that were promised traffic relief from Dulles Rail.

We are too far along with Dulles Rail not to see it to completion. But costs need to be cut. MWAA's board is not sufficiently accountable to anyone. It must be required to follow Virginia's open meeting and FOIA laws. It's exempt. The board needs to pay for the underground station with a surcharge on station users, as another writer indicated is done by BART in California. The Project Labor Agreement for Phase II needs to be scrapped and contracts let to the lowest qualified bidder. When one cuts through the veneer, one finds that Virginia is as corrupt as New Jersey, Chicago or Louisiana, just more sophisticated.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 1, 2011 6:10 pm • link • report

The reason for phase II and even the loudoun station is that target densities at Tysons can't be achieved without a rail line bringing employees in from the west. The entire payoff from the silver line is dependent on increasing jobs and residents by 100k each in tysons. The silver line can't work as a way to get more suburbanites to dc because of capacity constraints at the rosslyn tunnel.

The silver line's benefit to DTR users is higher property values for their homes and greater density in Tysons, reston, etc. which means they are less likely to need to go a far distance for whatever they need (jobs, restaurants, etc.) Thats the big advantage of density -- yes, theres more traffic but you're less likely to need to travel long distances.

As for the dulles station, a below ground station does nothing to promote economic development at tysons, reston, etc. so it should be paid by the airport users who it will benefit or the airport authority if they think its an investment that will pay for itself by a sufficient increase in airport usage. But it has nothing to do with the original business case of the silver line which is that DTR users and fairfax county will pay for the line and receive its benefits.

by Falls Church on Jul 2, 2011 1:49 am • link • report

The Dulles Rail controversy ultimately boils down to this: if DTR users didn't want to pay excessive tolls for the Silver Line, they should've pushed the General Assembly to not transfer the Dulles Rail project to MWAA 5 years ago. Virginia thought they could get something for nothing with this, and it backfired on them.

by Froggie on Jul 2, 2011 8:06 am • link • report

Falls Church is correct about bringing in people from the west to Tysons. In fact, one of the conditions in the Comp Plan for added density is completion of the Silver Line to Dulles Airport. I don't buy his argument that the Silver Line will necessarily bring higher property values except within the TOD areas. That argument was never made by anyone except Clark Tyler and Bill Lecos. And neither one of them ever documented anything. Let's see a sound economic study that documents the likely increase in value of homes of DTR drivers. The bottom line is that DTR drivers are getting next to nothing for the higher tolls.

Froggie is just plain wrong. The Virginia General Assembly has never transferred the DTR to MWAA. Tim Kaine did that on his own. I believe that there is at least one lawsuit challenging that transfer. And the transfer occurred before any estimates on tolls were made public. Had drivers and their employers been told that tolls could reach $11, they would have fought against the full funding agreement from the feds. The DTR drivers were sold out by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and many elected officials, who are now running scared.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 2, 2011 9:17 am • link • report

I agree that a detailed economic impact study should be done for the silver line or any major transpo investment but I think propertu valuea will increase far beyond the TOD areas. One of the primary drivers of property values is accessibilitu to high paying jobs -- even if you have to drive 30 mins to get to the jobs. In fact many non-TOD areas of the burbs are very much affected by job development in the city.

by Falls Church on Jul 2, 2011 10:08 am • link • report

Also, being a short drive from a metro station increases property values which benefits DTR users even if they themselves don't switch from using the DTR to riding the silver line.

by Falls Church on Jul 2, 2011 10:34 am • link • report

Falls Church - think about it for a minute. Your original statement was "The silver line's benefit to DTR users is higher property values for their homes ..." There is no correlation between where a person lives and driving on the DTR. If we assume for purposes of the discussion that home values within say two miles of a rail stop increase because of proximity to the station, that tells us nothing about the value of the homes of DTR drivers. DTR users gain little more than nothing for the huge tolls they will need to pay. They were set up to pay for the profits Tysons landowners will make from unlimited density within the TODs. Also, everyone else's share of the costs for the Silver Line are capped except for those who gain the least -- Dulles Toll Road users

A better approach would be to give Fairfax County authority to impose a parking tax within Tysons. That would create an economic incentive for people to take transit to and from Tysons. The Tysons landowners oppose a parking tax at this time.

Developers and landowners in Tysons should make their profits from building great buildings. There is no justification for letting get windfalls just from rezoning. They should have been required to pay much, much more for infrastructure. But the problem is that Fairfax County is permitting development that exceeds its value when measured by the costs of infrastructure. If I can make hundreds of millions building after rezoning, I should pay most of the costs for the infrastructure necessary to support my buildings after rezoning. If those costs are too much for me, I should be restricted to build only the density that I can afford to support.

Keep in mind that most people in Fairfax County would rather see much of the growth outside the county. Sprawl benefits residents of Fairfax County in that the costs for building infrastructure to support the growth fall to taxpayers outside the county. We've seen years of growth with real estate taxes skyrocketing and quality of life declining. Fewer and fewer people buy the argument that they should suffer to prevent sprawl.

by tmtfairfax on Jul 2, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

My only objection to MWAA plan for a station in subway at Dulles Airport is we are going get a station that looks like this:

instead of a station that should look like this:

Photos by David Pirmann
The station a Dulles Airport is going to be the first metrorail station many travelers will see on the final leg of their journey into National Capitol. When they get downtown and start seeing the stations in the older parts of the system they will think, boy that station out at the airport is nothing compared to stations in town. They must have thought the airport station was not as important or they were to cheap to make that station an equal or better to the stations in town.

I say build it correctly (island platform in a single coffered arch vault) or build the elevated station adjacent to the parking garage.

by Sand Box John on Jul 2, 2011 10:57 am • link • report

I see almost no difference in the quality of the stations in those two photos. I even enlarged the photos because I was curious as to what you were talking about. I can see the walls seem to have a different pattern but one doesn't seem better than the other. They both just look like Metro stations to me.

by Doug on Jul 2, 2011 6:39 pm • link • report

Doug, the lower one is a double-track space with a big arch like you see downtown, and the lower one is a one-track tube that is much smaller and shorter. The actual experience is much different in person at the Forest Glen or Wheaton stations with this design.

by Neil Flanagan on Jul 2, 2011 7:47 pm • link • report

RE: METRA's use of quiet cars has no applicability to Metro because they do not do the same thing. The equivalent Chicago mass transit line to Metro is the EL and there is no talk of making that a silent car

METRA is a heavy rail system similar to MARC trains where people sit on seats for longer commutes in and out of chicago and uses heavy rail lines like AMTRAK or the LIRR.

while I know WMATA wants to project the appearance of METRO serving bedroom communities and acting like a heavy rail it isn't. Metro is a subway just like the EL and NYC subway.

by Burger on Jul 5, 2011 10:50 am • link • report