Transit
GGW debates: Build Metro above or below ground at Dulles?
On Wednesday, DC Mayor Vince Gray became the latest public figure to enter the fray over the proposed Metro stop at Dulles Airport. Today, our contributors are weighing in.
Photo by XYZ+T on Flickr.
With costs rising, a vote by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to support an underground station has pitted elected officials against each other over the location of the future stop. And the controversy even thretens to scuttle the second phase of the Silver Line entirely.
MWAA supports an underground station adjacent to the terminal. But others, including Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, are calling for MWAA to choose an elevated station near the north parking garage. This would save about $330 million, but customers would wait for trains on an outdoor platform and would have to take a moving walkway 600 feet farther than the underground option.
Yesterday, Federal Transit Administration Peter Rogoff discussed the issue. He noted that 3 times as many people will use the Tysons stations than Dulles', and that the majority of passengers at Dulles itself will probably be airport workers, based on other airport stations elsewhere. Those are some of the facts that led him and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to push the region to accept the aerial station in order to keep the project moving.
Here's what our contributors have to say about the issue:
Dan Malouff
Anyone else feeling deja vu? Remember when we had to put the Tysons Corner stations above ground in order to secure federal support for the project?
Unfortunately it's looking more and more like the same thing is going on here. If Virginia pulls its support for the project, that's the end of Phase II no matter what MWAA wants. The choice therefore may not be between an above or below ground station, but rather between an above ground station or nothing at all.
As much as I agree that a below ground station would be ideal, we may have to accept that a less ideal station is better than no station at all. The above ground option is simply the best compromise for the greater good. Again.
Jamie Scott
I think the above ground station is a mistake. While 5 minutes of walking doesn't seem like that much time, it could be burdensome for tired travelers coming from longer international flights, disabled and elderly travelers, or travelers with kids.
Anything that makes it easier to use Metro is good. If the Silver Line is the success we all hope it will be, it could drive more flyers out to Dulles. If that indeed happens, the station should be as convenient for folks as possible.
On the other hand, $330 million is a lot. But I am worried that in several years, we'll regret not having a station underground.
Geoff Hatchard
Am I the only person who says, "Sure, let's play brinkmanship, what the hell?"
I mean, I know that if the extension out to Dulles was nixed tomorrow, that money wouldn't suddenly be magically available to build a separated Blue Line in the city the next day. But that's what should happen, if you ask me. Building more and more capacity farther and farther from the center, without bolstering capacity in the core, is just going to lead to problems in the long run.
We have the extension to Tysons Corner. Construction on that leg isn't going to stop now. But if the extension to Reston, Herndon, and Dulles doesn't happen, I'm not going to cry about it.
Alex Block
What I want to know is why this particular underground station is so expensive. I get the desire to keep it out of the sightlines of the Saarinen terminal, but the plan calls for a lot of tunneling that seems excessive.
I'd love to see MWAA develop another alternative that involves bringing rail in along one of the existing roadbeds and changing the auto circulation to fit around that, perhaps like the design John Cambron proposed last year. But I fear that's too much of a change at this stage.
I won't cry for Reston and Herndon, either. However, serving Dulles is and should be a major priority. That airport is one of the region's key links to the outside world, and making that connection as seamless as possible is of vital importance to the region.
Cities have always been built around transportation infrastructure hubs, whether that was a great natural port or the confluence of two rivers, or the convergence of several rail lines or highways. Dulles offers a great opportunity, and it's important that the region use this asset well. Dulles might have been a white elephant when first built, but now it has the luxury of spacious runways, excess capacity, and room to grow that other airports do not have.
Ideally, I think we'd also have a direct rail link to downtown as well, but those kinds of improvements can be added later. Metro has considered some options and discussed them on their blog.
Eric Hallstrom
If we were really interested in making the connection to Dulles as seamless as possible, we'd have a direct express rail link to the city.
A ride on the Silver Line isn't terribly long for a simple, direct ride to downtown, leaving regularly. It will be appealing for travelers and tourists. I still think the trip will be too long for many who would otherwise need to change trains. Even those of us that would have to ride from some parts of Arlington would still need to change, and that creates a much longer trip.
When I think of a true airport rail link, I think of the CAT in Vienna. That being said, I still use the blue line in Chicago to get from the airport to town. And that can be a very long ride (the website says it is 45 minutes to downtown, but that seems optimistic).
Cassidy Mullen
I don't see an underground station being a necessity. So long as it is easily accessible, I am all on board. Especially if it gets the desired savings and keeps the project moving forward.
Also, speaking of timing, a friend of mine was recently in Paris and I asked him to time the trip from the airport to Châtelet. Approximate travel time was 50 minutes, which is about the time projected for the trip from Dulles to Metro Center.
According to PlanItMetro, the trip from Metro Center to Dulles will be 52 minutes. I guess my point is not that the extension to Dulles will not be the best it can be, but will be equivalent to other large airport extensions, though some cities have direct connections, like the express line to London's Heathrow Airport.
However, I think since the Dulles connection will be "good" at best, is that more reason to have a less expensive above ground station if none of that money is going to go to making the metro trip any faster? I'm not 100% sure myself.
David Cranor
I'm split in regard to this debate.
On the one hand, I think $300 million is too much for the underground station. What is the interest payment on that each year, like $9M? And how many people will use it per year? It winds up costing like $2-4 per person per trip. Ask people, would you pay $3 to be teleported 5 minutes closer to the gate and I doubt many people would take your offer. So, I'd be against it on that point.
On the other hand, if the choice is between raising the toll on the toll road to build the underground station and not raising the toll and building an above ground station, I'd choose the aerial option. The road, while very expensive, is still probably underpriced and so let's at least put that money to good use - even if not ideal use.
If there was an option to raise the toll on the toll road and use the money to meet some other, highly rated transit need, I would choose that option. But that option is not on the table.
Neil Flanagan
Passenger convenience and comfort should take priority, because we want people to use the mass-transit option.
But from the perspective of aesthetics, the an aboveground station is better. The below ground station would not be one of metro's dramatic vaults, but instead a lower, split-tube station akin to the ones at Wheaton and Forest Glen. From there, passengers still have to go up an escalator, into the basement. The transit riders won't get the sense of arrival and departure that can distract from the drudgeries of air travel.
Train riders can only see a vista from the side of the railcar. An aboveground station would expose those arriving to a broadside of architectural drama that isn't always easy to get. Once off the train, an architecturally interesting station could frame the terminal better, like a smaller echo in a sympathetic style. You'd be able to see the terminal from the platform, and those in the terminal would be able to see the trains arriving and departing.
But there's no guarantee. In the rush to save costs, aesthetics could be a casualty like convenience. Or it could compensate for the longer walk. But you have to be willing to pay for either.
Nolan Treadaway
After believing initially that the few hundred feet length of tunnel was a huge mistake, I've now come around to the fact that probably won't deter many riders.
But I still have big concerns about above ground vs. below ground. I'm sure that waiting outside, exposed to the elements is going to discourage use. Passengers won't want to wait in the DC humid heat or cold winters, as opposed to being underground, in relative comfort.
But seems like consensus is building around above ground. I do really like the approach to Dulles by car and look forward to being able to take in via train.
David Alpert
Above versus below ground is one of the most significant decisions, but there are many other design elements that can at least make an aboveground station more or less pleasant. For example, the moving walkway that passengers would use exists today, in a tunnel.
If the station's escalators lead directly to that tunnel, where their bottom ends open right to the corridor, it could mean less work than if riders have to navigate a warren of twisty corridors to get from one to the other.
Similarly, yesterday Rogoff expressed support for walls or other elements that could make the aboveground station less weather-beaten. If MWAA is going to save a lot of money by building the station outdoors, they should at least use a small fraction of that money to make it a good quality aboveground station.
 | Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board.    |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
by Alan on Jul 8, 2011 11:04 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Jul 8, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
AlexB is correct --putting a deck over the existing hourly parking (and giving it some protection from the weather) then running adding a train station isn't hard. Put in some landscaping. That lot full of cars doesn't add to the viewshed.
I always get the feeling at DCA that Metro is the preferred option. Quicker to get to than your car, and better than a cab.
The bigger problem is just financing. What will the tolls be soon -- $10?
by charlie on Jul 8, 2011 11:11 am • link • report
Above-ground is not a deal-breaker. Seems like National above-ground, open-air subway stop works OK.
Separate from the terminal, similarly, is not a deal-breaker. At National the subway station "feels" like it's within the terminal, even though it's actually across a walkway, because of well-designed connection over roadway and into subway entrance. That trick may not be possible if WMATA insists on above-ground station across the surface lot from terminal, but I'd be willing to give up the iconic view of the sacrosanct Saarinen design if the above-ground subway station were built within the footprint of the surface parking lot somehow.
Shortcoming at National that Dulles could be challenged to avoid: Poor fools with checked bags go to the basement of National for bags, then have to go back upstairs with bags to reconnect with subway.
Hate to be the iconclast here, but drivers to airport will always be the vast majority of passengers, taxi riders second, train third...priorities in planning should recognize that.
by Trulee Pist on Jul 8, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
My impression is that travelers coming to Dulles will have decided before arriving whether they're taking the Metro or driving and that 600 feet is nothing compared to the cost of parking/taxi/etc. Sure, it would be nice to just take an escalator up to the terminal, but the cost certainly isn't chump change.
by John M on Jul 8, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
The entire citycenterDC complex is being built for $300m and it's way more extensive than just a single underground rail station.
We the taxpayers are getting vastly ripped off here and no one is saying anything.
by another idea on Jul 8, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
then, like every otehr first class city in the world, there will be a direct link from downtown to the airport.
by better idea on Jul 8, 2011 11:13 am • link • report
by Trulee Pist on Jul 8, 2011 11:17 am • link • report
by Chris on Jul 8, 2011 11:18 am • link • report
"The Dulles main terminal is a well-known landmark designed by Eero Saarinen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Dulles_International_Airport
Whichever option is chosen in the end needs to ensure that this landmark 'viewshed' is not compromised either for drivers driving to the airport OR for Metro riders arriving at the terminal. I.e., Even though the below ground station sounds like a winner for non-aesthetic reasons, it may not ensure giving the Metro riders the same aesthic experience as drivers currently experience ... Similarly, an above ground station may afford Metro riders the same aesthetic experience as drivers currently get, but if the above ground station is placed too close (or in just the wrong place) it could end up negating the viewshed of the award winning terminal building for drivers. It's a balancing act ... and it's going to take some skill to ensure that the view of arriving at this award winnning terminal is available for passengers arriving via ALL modes. And, of course, other considerations ... like all those listed above ... need to be taken into account too. I just hope this aspect doesn't get forgotten in the rush to address the other considerations. As we all know, there really are instances where function needs to follow form ... and this is one of those instances.
by Lance on Jul 8, 2011 11:19 am • link • report
So build it above-ground but build it right as David says. Use some kind of screening to help shield people from the elements. Make sure the egress from the station goes directly to the tunnel to the terminal. Don't make people navigate a bunch of BS to get there - make it easy and clear.
Also, as Neil points out, one of the benefits of aboveground between the garage and the terminal is that you will get a dramatic view of the terminal building as you approach.
by MLD on Jul 8, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
by MLD on Jul 8, 2011 11:25 am • link • report
by Vik on Jul 8, 2011 11:28 am • link • report
Delhi built an entire metro for about $5 billion. MWAA spent that building their little subway out to Terminal C.
by charlie on Jul 8, 2011 11:29 am • link • report
M$300 is not that much money actually for a station that will be there forever. Based on the success of metrorail, there is no reason to believe suggestions that the station will not be used.
by Jasper on Jul 8, 2011 11:40 am • link • report
There are three questions that should be used to frame the discussion:
1) Is a below ground station the best use of $330M of Silver Line funding?
2) If we should go with an underground station, where should the money come from?
3) Do the benefits of an underground station to the people paying for it, exceed the costs?
Here are my answers:
1) No. The business case for the Silver Line is based on ferrying workers to Tysons, which will increase economic development, eventually paying for the silver line. If any extra money is available, it should be spent on building a pocket track at EFC to reduce headways coming into Tysons from points west and building out the unfunded bike/ped/bus station access plan for tysons.
2) If for some reason we want to build an underground station, even though it has little to do with the primary purpose of the Silver Line, the station should be financed by airport user fees.
3) The station most definitely should not be financed by Dulles Toll Road tolls because they benefit little from an underground station. If the purpose of the underground station is to increase Dulles passenger numbers, then the MWAA should pay for that investment if they think their benefits will exceed the costs.
The reason we're coming up on this problem in the first place is that the entire Silver Line financing is somewhat unfair. Metro is a regional transit system and even though the Silver Line is entirely in Virginia, people in DC and MD will benefit too. Just like the cost of every other element of Metro is shared by everyone in the region, DC and MD should also be contributing something to the Silver Line. In turn, if there's a project some day to build more metro capacity in DC, VA and MD should also chip in.
by Falls Church on Jul 8, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
Who needs metro to go to Dulles and beyond? Keep metro focused on the core, and let VA and MD deal with the further out ares with their own light-rail, BRT, commuter rail or roads.
Metro is a subway system, not a commuter rail system. Froget about Phase II, and focus on improving the core and maintaining what exists now. Stop building out if you cannot maintain what you have built already.
by greent on Jul 8, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
by aaa on Jul 8, 2011 11:54 am • link • report
Yes, not walking 600 feet after seating on a plane or train is just lazy. I imagine the ride would be similar to taking the CTA out to Chicago's MDW. Once of the train, you must do some walking in order to get to the terminals.
OTOH, access to ORD's crazy domestic/international terminals is the worst! That's when we should start complaing about having to walk.
Oh yeah, walking to DCA's terminal A is no fun walk either. Isn't southwest moving there @some point soon?
by HogWash on Jul 8, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
If MWAA sticks to its guns it'll get what it wants. And that's only fair. It got stuck with managing this project. It ought to get something out of it.
by jim on Jul 8, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report
Actually, there is brinkmanship. Loudoun County has threatened to pull out of the project if the underground station is selected. That has a very good chance of killing the project.
by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2011 12:18 pm • link • report
"...board member Tommy Wells worried Thursday that an aboveground station would be 'a second class product.'"
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/metro-agrees-scale-back-design-dulles-rail-line#ixzz1RX1dTQbw
by Trulee Pist on Jul 8, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report
2. The cost of the underground station isn't 300 million. Its 300 million MORE than the above ground station which is coming in at about 70 million last I saw. So the real question is, do we need an undground station for ~370 million? The answer is, of course no.
3. I hope Loudoun plays hardball. They really have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Loudoun et al; playing hardball is in my mind, the only way the MWAA will do the easy, sensible thing they should have already done, and instituted a per ticket charge on Dulles tickets to help pay for the dang thing. $2 bucks a ticket is ~50 million a year they would raise, but for some reason charging the actual user/beneficiary demo has been outside their plan.
4. From the platform to inside the terminal at Natl is 200 feet, and the walk to terminal A is a good 5 minutes and no one bats an eye. I think this is much to do about nothing.
by freely on Jul 8, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report
The Metrorail stop at DCA certainly has more travelers with suitcases than employees with lunchbags.
by tour guide on Jul 8, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report
If Loudoun bails, the question will be whether the savings from extending along the Greenway and building two (or possibly three: Route 28 becomes questionable) stations are greater or lesser than Loudoun's contribution. Whether the new yard will be necessary could also be questioned: Phase I will be operated out of the Falls Church yard. I don't see why MWAA couldn't come to a new agreement with the other players where they end up contributing less than they do with Loudoun in.
by jim on Jul 8, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report
by jim on Jul 8, 2011 1:00 pm • link • report
by easil on Jul 8, 2011 1:22 pm • link • report
"Negotiations are still underway to bring costs for Phase II of the project more in line with the original $2.5 billion estimate. Fairfax County, along with our funding partners Loudoun County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) are
engaging in a Value Engineering process to complete the Silver Line to Dulles Airport, while making sure the project remains affordable to taxpayers in Fairfax and Loudoun, and for motorists using the Dulles Toll road."
by tmtfairfax on Jul 8, 2011 1:28 pm • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Jul 8, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report
Either of these numbers is rediculous. My office is right off the toll road and I can tell you if I polled my office mates there are surely more avoiding the toll road than taking it ... and that's at the current $2.00 ... Push it up another dollar or two and that road will be nearly empty.
We often hear on GGW about 'pricing it right' in regards to parking rates. The argument is that if you price it right, there will always be availability. The problem with increasing the toll for the toll road without regard to 'pricing it right' is that there's no connection between what is being charged and what that extra convenience buys you. And I can assure you that few people will opt for that extra covenience at those outrageous amounts. AND, I'll be so bold as to predict that by the time we get to that point, the costs to build a METRO LINE to Dulles will be borne by the folks using that Metro line to Dulles. Why? The alternative is their taking a $50 cab ride ... or spending a couple of hours switching from Metro rail to Metro buses. And 'Pricing it right' does indeed work both ways ... Price it right for those opting to take Metro Rail and you'll get it built. You don't and there'll be no money for it to get built. It's not like the folks using the DTR are an ATM for those looking to rail it to Dulles ...
by Lance on Jul 8, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Jul 8, 2011 1:40 pm • link • report
Toll levels on the DTR are important because MWAA has done studies that show significant losses of Toll Road users with high tolls that can jeopardize the repayment of rail bonds and that will move more traffic unto other roads, many of which cannot handle the added volume. NoVA is automobile-centric today and will remain so for many, many years.
by tmtfairfax on Jul 8, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report
Actually, you're wrong about that. It was built as a commuter rail system and not as a subway system. It came about as a substitute for the highways that had been planned to allow easy access to the city by workers in the burbs. That's why all the lines come into the center from the exterior and why we have no easy access between (for example) Bethesda and Silver Spring.
by Lance on Jul 8, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report
Another thing to note is that above vs below is not really going to affect the tolls on the DTR that much. You're talking $10.25 vs $10.75 on the DTR in 2020. It's not like you're going to be paying half of what you would otherwise if they build above ground
If its not going to be that much, then add a surcharge on to the metrorail fare as an exit/entry fee to that station.
Some might suggest that the surcharge is not fair to workers at the airport and that the charge should be added onto airplane tickets. WRONG. Users of a below ground station should have to pay for it.
by TGEoA on Jul 8, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report
by Andy on Jul 8, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report
Not sure why you think I'm insulting the GGW contributors, rather than merely criticizing their analysis. The reason I'm shocked that their analysis didn't consider what I think to be the most two important criteria (financing an fairness) and the reason I'm shocked that I found their framework lacking is that usually this site is much more rigorous in its analysis.
I could have certainly been less harsh in my criticism of their analysis but I think I'm correct when I said that they failed to include financing and fairness as primary criteria. Below is my reading on the primary criteria used by the contributors in their analysis. You tell me if I’m wrong in stating that financing and fairness are not among them:
Jamie Scott – walking time, metro ease of use (ok, a tangential nod to the cost also but not to how the cost is financed)
Geoff Hatchard – game theory argument; building in core vs. suburbs
Alex Block – engineering options; serving dulles as a priority
Eric Hallstrom – “making connection to Dulles as seamless as possible”
Cassidy Mullen – airport ease of access; trip time
Neil Flanagan – “convenience and comfort should take priority”
Nolan Treadway – passenger comfort
David Alpert – pleasantness, as in “there are many other design elements that can at least make an aboveground station more or less pleasant.”
Also, I didn't merely criticize without offering an alternative. I also laid out what I thought was a better framework for the discussion.
Am I the only person who uses heavy handed criticism on this site? Let me quote from a recent GGW posting:
Ignorant Editorial. Let's say you have some opinions about what Metro should do, but you actually know almost nothing about Metro's actual policies. You might talk to your friends about it or comment on blogs, but it's unlikely the Washington Post will put your ideas on its Sunday local opinion page. Unless, that is, you work for the Reason Foundation. The Post published an op-ed from Reason's Sam Staley, who shows he knows little about Metro...Staley apparently didn't bother to look up Metro's fare structure before writing the piece.
Conveniently, that posting also defines components of a good analysis.
Thomson, on the other hand, penned a paragon of what a traffic study analysis article should be. He looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the report, and not just by quoting one person in favor and one opposed, but by actually understanding the intricacies of the issue.
Would you say that today's posting reflected an understanding of the intricacies of the issue?
by Falls Church on Jul 8, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
Personally, I believe that IS an issue for either option. Metro's track record with working escalators and elevators should be a huge concern when considering an underground station. I'd hope that if an underground station is eventually built, the existing elevator/escalator/escastair problems that plague the system will be eradicated. With an above-ground station, there would be more options to mitigate the problems that may be experienced by a person with special needs with luggage (eg a tram/golf cart to take people to the terminal). I just feel like the above-ground station gives more options for dealing with unexpected issues.
by Chris on Jul 8, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
If you feel we've fallen short in our little conversation, by all means, please, submit your own analysis. The editors will gladly run it as a separate article, I promise.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jul 8, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
by Ajax33 on Jul 8, 2011 2:18 pm • link • report
The reason I'm shocked that their analysis didn't consider what I think to be the most two important criteria (financing an fairness) and the reason I'm shocked that I found their framework lacking is that usually this site is much more rigorous in its analysis.
I find your criteria excessively narrow in their definition.
Discussing financing is useless without considering cost. Unlike the Tysons Tunnel debate, for example, the key tradeoff here is about an actual difference in utility and routing. It's not about aboveground or underground, it's about proximity to the terminal. The real question is - how much is that proximity worth?
I'd also argue that the discussion does touch on your issues - but the larger point is that the two alternatives do not really encapsulate the relative benefits of each. You can't do a cost/benefit comparison without understanding those benefits.
by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report
For perspective, let's visualize the drive up arrivals and departures point - of course now conveniently located at the terminal - moved to where the above-ground station would be located. People would go nuts if this were the case! Dumb!, Dumb! Dumb! they'd proclaim repeatedly. Way out here? Why? Such a set-up would certainly be hated. But locating a transit station out that way seems to be just fine with some people. Over time, however, the distant location will undoubtedly generate anger, be detested, and held up as folly by travelers and workers alike.
Again and again, transportation experts have encouraged MWAA and WMATA to build the Dulles station as close to the terminal as possible. Originally, the facility was to be placed directly underneath the main terminal, but the idea was dropped as being too pricey. So a middle ground was formulated, a compromise of sorts: an underground station placed within reasonably walking distance. Earlier this year, MWAA approved this option. To be sure, it's more expensive, but such a facility will serve the airport well for the next 50 years or so.
Now let's turn our attention to the future. But first take a moment to think about what Northern Virginia was like 50 years ago. Tyson's Corner was still a sleepy small village. The Beltway had yet to be completed. Dulles Airport was under construction but not yet open. Now try to picture what Northern Virginia will be like 50 years hence. Whoa, baby. At the very least, the region's population will be doubled. Tyson's will be a major city with thousands of residents. The areas around Metro stations will be intensively developed. By 2060, Loudoun County may boast upwards of 1 million inhabitants, as Prince William most certainly will. Fairfax may reach 1.5 million, if not more.
By 2030, not to say 2040, 2050, or 2060, Dulles Airport will be bustling to an extent difficult to envision today. If it's done right and made convenient, thousands and thousands of travelers will take Metro to and from the facility. But here we have officials, despite the prudent advice of transportation planners, pushing for something that will undoubtedly be a ridiculed white elephant from day one. It will be a colossal blunder if this station fails to meet expectations in ridership and convenience.
Here's some ideas of how to fund the underground station at Dulles:
The first and most prudent option is to institute an airport facility Metro fare surcharge at both Dulles and Reagan National. Over 20 or 30 years, this fee will move than cover the extra cost of the underground station and will bring WMATA additional revenue after the bonds have been paid off.
Also, MWAA could implement an airport facility charge ($2 or 3) for cars and busses accessing the properties (again, for both Dulles and Reagan National). Even if only a small portion of the revenue is used to fund the Silver Line, this step should be taken to help fund aviation-related capital projects. It's a no brainer.
MWAA might also want to issue bonds backed by airport revenue streams to fund the underground option. Yes, the placement of the station is that important. As mentioned earlier, if it's done right, it's going to a hopping place. Dulles ultimately will be well served by a pleasant, convenient, first-class transit facility.
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report
by Chris on Jul 8, 2011 2:38 pm • link • report
I personally don't care much whether its above-ground or below-ground (I find discussion stressing importance of the "award-winning" sightlines, etc. incredibily offputting - it is supposed to move millions of people quickly and conveniently - that should be THE consideration, nothing else) - what I do care about is that the primary purpose for the staition is to faciliate travel connections - especially long distance travel connections which I think implies by definiation carrying lots of extra stuff - that the foremost consideration above everything else should be proximity to the terminal. And I'm sorry - maybe it's me - but I can't believe in an age of energy scarity that we should be building any infrastructure that depends on moving sidewalks as a solution. Or is that hyperbole also?
by andy on Jul 8, 2011 2:42 pm • link • report
A football field is 120 yards long - you have to add 10 yards for each of the endzones. It's 100 yards from goal line to goal line.
by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
The elevated station is not 600 feet from the terminal. It's 600 feet farther from the terminal than the underground station.
Also, 600 feet is the length of an 8-car Metro train, and therefore it's the same length as a Metrorail platform.
by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
Something about these numbers being thrown around don't sound right.
by HogWash on Jul 8, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Jul 8, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
The Wiehle station will be expanded to 2300 spaces and the Herndon-Monroe station will be expanded to 3500 spaces. The Route 28 lot will be built with 2000 spaces. There will also be another 6150 spaces in Loudoun, for a total of 13,950 parking spaces.
In comparison, Vienna has 5169 spaces Dunn Loring has 1329, and West Falls Church has 2009, for a total of 8507. The Silver Line will be taking a lot more cars off the road than the Orange Line does.
There is pretty strong evidence that this will be used, as with the bus-only service that Reston-Herndon has, there are already 1745 spaces at Herndon, all of which are typically full on a weekday slightly after 8AM, with many additional passengers arriving by bus, kiss-and-ride, walking, or bike. Nearly all of these passengers ride either the Fairfax Connector 980 (to West Falls Church) or the Metrobus 5A (to Rosslyn or L'Enfant Plaza). This is already an area that uses transit extensively, and that use will only grow with a metrorail station.
Reston has a similar story, with 1,356 spaces divided between three park-and-ride lots. There is also the Reston Town Center transit station, which is mainly reached by foot by the residents of the town center, which is already a walkable urban-style community, if a little bit fake, but will continue to grow as it is connected to Metro.
That's not say that I think the Dulles station should be underground - as attractive as that would be, the cost does not appear to be enough to justify the benefit, especially if David Alpert's suggestion of having easy, direct access can be acheieved. The project has too much value to let it die.
by Alison on Jul 8, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
Two things I think everyone agrees on:
1. The closer station is better.
2. $300M is real money
So arguing 1 is a waste of time. We all know it's better. The question is, is it worth it? Would it be worth it at $300B? Would it be worth it at $300?
In a previous discussion someone had the estimated number of Dulles rail users, does anyone know that? I think I might pay an extra $0.50 to be 600 feet closer. And maybe more because of the aid it gives those who are not world-class athletes with handsome, manly features like me. Let's call it $0.75. More than that, and I'd walk.
How much would I have to pay you to walk 600 feet with luggage?
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report
The football field thing started with Andy, who said that 600 feet is the length of 2 football fields.
Chris argued that football fields are 360 feet long, so that would make 2 football fields 720 feet long.
Andy responded by saying that there are 3 feet in a yard (true) and that there are 100 yards in a football field, which would make 300 feet (3 x 100).
Alex B correctly pointed out that a football field also has an endzone on either end.
So, that's where all that came from.
by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Jul 8, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report
Open mouth. Insert foot.
by aaa on Jul 8, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report
Thanks, Matt. Yup, the above-gound option is 600 feet farther from the terminal than the underground option. And, of course it'll be open to the elements, a certain pleasure for travelers with bags in tow on cold, windy winter nights and days. Hot, humid days as well.
The only people who are going to use that distant station are those who are traveling on the cheap. Can you imagine families trucking their kids and bags to the station just to save a buck or two? I can't. Will the weary business traveler running a bit behind for a flight jump on the train knowing that he or she's got that trek to the terminal ahead of them. Doubtful. What about international travelers who are coming to the DC region for the first time? If they're from Europe or Asia, they're used to conveniently located train service. They'll give Metro a try, then disparage the ridiculous placement of the Dulles station and probably go back to using taxis. And what about the old folk who have a bit of trouble getting around? Forget about it!
So I ask again, exactly who's gong to use that awkwardly placed Metro station? And mind you, the fares to reach Dulles ain't going to be particularly cheap.
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Jul 8, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report
by Redline SOS on Jul 8, 2011 3:25 pm • link • report
Regardless of whether the Dulles station is built underground, the Silver Line won't be able to operate to it during a major snowstorm, because almost the entire line between Ballston and Dulles will be above ground.
by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
We should be committed to improving access to Metro's core, and I totally agree that the Silver Line should've included a new Blue Line rather than exacerbating the Orange Crush. But we should also consider that the region has a second core - at Tysons - and we should improve access to it as well, not just from the city, but to the suburbs that feed into Tysons as well.
by dan reed! on Jul 8, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report
Hmmm...submit my own analysis. Intriguing. Let me think about that. However, I would want it to be about transpo investment decision making in general with the Silver Line and the Dulles Station as a case-in-point. I'll be in touch.
Also, if you're taking requests, here's one. Don't treat a controversial, complex issue like this one with a free form email conversation posting. What differentiates GGW from general news outlets is its rigor and depth on specialized subject matter. Better to skip posting on a topic than to post something sub-par.
by Falls Church on Jul 8, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report
by G on Jul 8, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report
Let's bear in mind that the majority of Dulles station users will be probably be airport workers. For them 600 feet is nothing as TOD standards usually say that office towers can be up to 1/4 to 1/2 mile from a transit station.
The people with the best info on the cost/benefit of an underground station is MWAA. They have the most data and expertise on what is essentially a question of airport operations. If they are faced with the choice of an underground station financed by some kind of ticket/fare surcharge or an overground station, and they choose an overground station, the underground station probably isn't worth the cost. What's important is that we put MWAA in the position of making that choice and not give them the easy-out of having an underground station but making DTR users pay for it. That's a recipe for making bad investments.
by Falls Church on Jul 8, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report
The cheaper version will surely be viewed cheap and short-sighted. But, those people 30 or 50 years from now won't know this issue as well as we do, and they won't be talking about their own money. So they can just shut it. $300M is a lot of money, can we spend somewhere else better? (I say probably not, not because there aren't better projects - there are, but because there isn't the political will to do so).
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report
I've been to plenty of European and Asian airports where you had to walk a bit to get to the train station. The distance to the (aboveground) Shanghai airport maglev station from baggage claim is at least 600 feet (probably longer), and the intercity train station at Frankfurt airport, while enclosed, is a bit of a hike from the main terminal.
I still think underground is the best option, but aboveground if done well isn't THAT bad.
by Phil on Jul 8, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report
Use the money saved to build bypass tracks in the middle of I-66 between East Falls Church and a new outdoor station in Rosslyn for the Silver Line.
by HW on Jul 8, 2011 3:53 pm • link • report
5,000 riders/day x 20 years
$2 surcharge = $73,000,000
$3 surcharge = $109,500,000
10,000 riders/day x 20 years
$2 surcharge = $146,000,000
$3 surcharge = $219,000,000
15,000 riders/day x 20 years
$2 surcharge = $219,000,000
$3 surcharge = $328,500,000
20,000 riders/day x 20 years
$2 surcharge = $292,000,000
$3 surcharge = $438,000,000
25,000 riders/day x 20 years
$2 surcharge = $365,000,000
$3 surcharge = $547,500,000
30,000 riders/day x 20 years
$2 surcharge = $438,000,000
$3 surcharge = $657,000,000
Again, this airport access fee should be assessed at both Dulles and Reagan National. If you jack up the surcharge to $4 or $5 (still reasonable) at year 2020, the revenue stream could very pay for nearly 1/3 the cost of the Silver LIne's Phase Two. Even with these surcharges, using Metro will still be cheaper than a taxi.
by anon on Jul 8, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report
@ Pelham1861:This idea that passengers cannot 'walk' a little further (perhaps the length of 8 METRO cars) to get into Dulles Airport is just ludicrous.
Do you know how long people circle around a parking lot to get a spot near the store in stead of on the other side of the parking lot? Most people can walk, sure. But do they? No.
As a side note: does anybody know how far the bus stops are apart on the Dulles parking lots?
@ Matt Johnson:the Silver Line won't be able to operate to it during a major snowstorm, because almost the entire line between Ballston and Dulles will be above ground.
Thanks Bush administration! Luckily for you, this will never make it into the footnotes of history why you sucked.
@ dan reed!: It bothers me how many commenters here seem to ignore the significance of the places located on the Silver Line, from Tysons Corner to Reston and Herndon, as if they're all still farmland.
+1 Let's not forget that many of the Greater Washingtonians think that Greater DC ends at Tysons. They regularly ignore the fact that scolded Fairfax county is home to twice as many people as DC. Yes, a lot of them work in DC (as I do), but only building more metro in DC will not help them. We don't need more metro here or there. We need more metro period. Much more metro.
We should be committed to improving access to Metro's core
There is no political will currently to do that. Adding the Silver Line will deteriorate the situation in the core beyond the sucky level where it is now, and force the subject more into the limelight.
@ Falls Church: Let's bear in mind that the majority of Dulles station users will be probably be airport workers.
Incorrect. The majority of Dulles station users will be passengers passing through the station. Just like the majority of Reagan station users are not getting in or out at Reagan. Furthermore, I think you underestimate the number of passengers that Dulles handles.
@ Phil:I've been to plenty of European and Asian airports where you had to walk a bit to get to the train station.
But have you been at the airports where they did do it well? And do you remember how great that was?
by Jasper on Jul 8, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report
Umm, the Bush Administration is not the reason that the majority of the Silver Line is above ground. Most of the line is in the median of a freeway which was built in the late 1960s, with the median reserved for transit.
And even if all of the new Silver construction was underground, which makes very little sense, it would still have to contend with the above ground portion of the Orange Line between West Falls Church and Ballston, which opened in 1986.
If you can somehow find a way to blame the Bush Administration for a line that opened in 1986, please do.
by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2011 4:25 pm • link • report
That may be true to some extent right now and and next few years, but when Tysons builds outs and infill development around the other stations come on line, travelers will vastly outnumber airport workers.
In 2010, Dulles played host to 23,741,603 passengers. With steady growth, by 2040, it could be 50,000,000. At that level, 136,986 passengers on average will be using the airport daily.
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report
by Andrew on Jul 8, 2011 4:33 pm • link • report
Along with the elevated eyesore jogging through Tysons - which is nothing more than a developer's boondoggle masquerading as a promoter of transit use - the Silver Line is beginning to look more and more like it was never really intended to serve IAD airport users. Airpot users will be literally left out in the cold. "Dulles Rail" is a misnomer.
I'll just get there like I always have - in my car. Like most everyone else.
by ceefer66 on Jul 8, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report
by MLD on Jul 8, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report
Not necessarily. Airports have their own snow removal operations. It usually takes a massive storm to shut down a facility the size of Dulles.
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report
That said, what's really needed is for Metro to be more resilient in their heavy snow operations. If snow forces Metro to stop running trains, they need a great focus on resuming service quickly (just like the aforementioned airlines). Better resiliency from the rolling stock for usage in the snow would be a good start.
by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2011 4:51 pm • link • report
Dulles continues to lose business because it is so time consuming to come and go. MWAA could go along way in improving that image with a convenient design. As for tolls and surcharges.....the large proportion of Dulles Silver Line users will be employees and surcharges will make the airport less competitive for the low wage workers that enable it to function (including the poorly paid gate agents, regional airline crews, etc.). Charging people to pick up their friends and family would make sense if not for so many of those people coming from places with limited transit. The toll road is a better target for charges and might help encourage better development around Metro stops in the future.
by Rich on Jul 8, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report
And the list goes on and on. $69.5 million to build a new Fairfax County Pkwy/Fair Lakes interchange; $54 million est. to rebuild the Washington Blvd. and Columbia Pike bridge and interchange in Arlington.
Infrastructure is expensive!
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 5:05 pm • link • report
No it isn't. Tysons Corner still only has about 1/3 the office space of downtown DC. It's just much, much smaller.
Not that it isn't tremendously important. It is. It's just not close to rivaling downtown.
by BeyondDC on Jul 8, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report
Yes. How do you buy things? Do you not consider cost?
Here's some perspective. For the cost of this you could build the infill station at Potomac Yard ($240 million) and have $60M left over for the pedestrian tunnel between the two Farraguts. Is moving this station incrementally closer worth a whole other station, with money left over?
I'll ask again, what is the maximum you'd be willing to pay for the underground station?
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report
True, the AeroTrain is bit nonsensical for some passengers. I suspect you fly United and are wondering why you have to walk back to Concourse C from the outermost AeroTrain station.
Concourse C is considered by MWAA to be a temporary structure. Eventually, when it's replaced, the new concourse will be located directly over the AeroTrain station.
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report
"Actually, you're wrong about that. It was built as a commuter rail system and not as a subway system"
yes Lance, I am aware of the history - everybody knows why it was what it was. However, it is not 1975 anymore. What was done is done. But Loudon and Fairfax are exurbs when the metro was begun 9and to me they still are). There is no need to help them commute. Use the toll road.
Let VA deal with VA. Metro goes out far enough. Deal with the core and make it better. Stop trying to build a system to the nether regions of space.
by greent on Jul 8, 2011 6:05 pm • link • report
I'll ask you. Is the Potomac Yard station worth spending $240 million on? That station is only going to serve a catchment area of a few thousand people. How many folks will use it everyday? Because of building height limits, only so much office space and so many residential units can be built in and around Potomac Yards. Cost per passenger is going to be sky high. Nevertheless, in spite of these negatives, I strongly believe building the station is the right thing to do, and needs to be done right. Damn straight.
Please keep in mind the Dulles station was originally slated to be located directly underneath the main terminal. That proposal option was eventually discarded because it was too expensive. The underground option approved by MWAA is already a compromise, being neither the most expensive nor the cheapest alternative.
The placement of the Dulles station may determine whether the airport flourishes in the coming decades. Dulles is the East Coast's second most important international gateway after JFK. (More than a few may argue that point, particularly those in Atlanta ... point taken. Ahem.) As the region continues to grow, Dulles will expand likewise. It is the region's gateway to the world. On a very basic level it makes little sense to spend $6.5 billion on the Silver Line only to build an second-class, awkwardly sited station at the airport. Transit development is often cited as vital to smart growth, yet putting the station nearly a quarter mile from the terminal is anything but smart.
by Anon on Jul 8, 2011 6:45 pm • link • report
I agree with you about the importance of serving Dulles, and serving it directly. However, the rapidly escalating costs are a concern. As you note, the underground location is already a compromise, and yet it still costs 300-400 million more than the alternative.
This Phase 2 changes summary ( http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/Phase2UpdateInformationPacket-PDF-updated.pdf ) notes that the changes in the underground station involved more tunneling and deeper tunneling to "reduce impacts on airport operations," "reduce impacts to airport roadways," and "allow use of a tunnel boring machine."
I guess MWAA hasn't made the case why these changes are necessary. What kind of impacts are we talking about? What kinds of costs are we incurring to avoid them? Why take cut and cover off the table? This isn't like using cut and cover in a densely populated neighborhood, it ought to be easier to mitigate that kind of construction in an airport. I'd love to see what the cost estimate for that location and construction method is. I'd also like to see an estimate of an at-grade option that would drop passengers off near the existing commercial vehicle drop-off (most of the construction would be in reconfiguring the existing roadways slightly).
by Alex B. on Jul 8, 2011 7:05 pm • link • report
By the way, why is MWAA building the silver line instead of WMATA?
by Spartan on Jul 8, 2011 9:33 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 8, 2011 10:47 pm • link • report
As Alex B. has pointed out, the debate is not really about whether the station is above or below ground. It's really about how close the station will be to the terminal.
An above ground station next to the terminal has been ruled out because of the viewshed issues. So the only way to put it close to the terminal is below ground.
by Matt Johnson on Jul 8, 2011 10:50 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 8, 2011 11:02 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 11:34 pm • link • report
Yeah, I know you weren't trying to play one station off the other. Point taken as well in regards to cost. At this stage, the cost of the underground station cannot rise any further in relation to the above ground alternative. Perhaps the cost gap can be reduced, but that's just wishful thinking as underground construction is almost always going to be much more expensive than above.
In a comment above, mention was made that the Dulles station should be the crown jewel of the Silver Line. While I'm inclined to feel likewise, I'd be satisfied with a station that is convenient and pleasing to travelers, but more importantly, is fully utilized as envisioned. It will be a dreadful mistake to build a facility that is held up as folly, and that I fear is exactly what will transpire if the above ground option is built. Dulles is the international gateway to our nation's capital. We should be building a facility to be proud of. It doesn't have to be gold plated, and most certainly won't be, but it needs to be tastefully designed and reasonably convenient and comfortable. The above ground alternative falls short on the convenience and comfort points. I'm hopeful a way will be found to move the underground station even closer to the terminal without additional cost.
That local officials fail to see the advantages of a temperature controlled underground station at Dulles is befuddling. Again, Dulles Airport is the world's gateway to the Capital Region, and our gateway to the world. Image does count. Convenience matters. A second class transit station will speak volumes to those who visit DC and NoVa on business or pleasure. Sadly, it will starkly illustrate, too, that the United States is not quite the country it used to be.
by Anon on Jul 9, 2011 12:57 am • link • report
Bringing mass transit out to Dulles already concedes that point. Seriously. When Dulles was built we were at a level where mass transit was no longer required. Where everyone who had a need to get there would either have their own vehicle to bring them there and/or have use a cab. Were're in a time where the Chinese are giving up their bicycles as a means of transportation and we're instead taking their place in this regards. I wouldn't worry about whether the terminal is above ground or below ground being an indicator of where we're going as a country. I'd worry more about why we we're losing an economy that had permitted us an unrivaled personal mobility unfeathered by others' schedules or how far we can pedal.
by Lance on Jul 9, 2011 8:09 am • link • report
I am embroidering this on a throw pillow for my car seat. It will have to be one big-ass pillow, but worth it to memorialize the sentiment. USA! USA!
I think the unfeathered comment suggests an excellent artistic theme for the embroidery.
by Trulee Pist on Jul 9, 2011 9:59 am • link • report
The horror! The chinese are also experiencing their worst obesity ever and pollution issues than they ever had, trying to copy the western lifestyles. China gets fat off eating meat everyday, and the USA gets fat eating readymade sugar bags.
Cancel the metro to hinterlands of VA or add a surcharge and build it so people will use it.
Else this will become a feather in the caps of the "cars are better than eveything and they always will be" brigade.
Our economy is not crashing because of cars v. public transport. It is crashing because we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world. It is crashing because bankers and energy companies got as rich as they wanted while screwing over every person they felt like. And then the people these thieves screwed over were forced to give them welfare because they were to big to fail. Weird how capitolism works until it doesn't then we prop it up with welfare and it works again.
by greent on Jul 9, 2011 10:00 am • link • report
Actually, capitalism was working ... until our tax dollars got used to prop up failing businesses and not-credit-worthy mortgage holders. And now we wonder why our dollar (which got devalued by being printed in excess of real economic growth to support it) buys less of commodities such as oil and it 'costs more'. Hint, it's not the oil costing more, it's our dollar being worth less ... 'cause rather than let captialism do its magic, we propped up institutions and people who had made bad decisions ... Bad decisions which the taxpayer got left holding the bag for ... while the multi-million dollar bonuses continue to be paid out ...
by Lance on Jul 9, 2011 11:31 am • link • report
Airlines being bailed out was capitalism working?
Bankers giving credit to persons they knew were not able to pay for it is capitalism working?
Bankers, Mortgage and Financial industries putting bad loans into bundled packages that they then sold to others banks and countries without informing anyone of the horridness of their product is capitalism working?
I agree with your last line: the bonus babies just keep on keeping on.
What exactly would be capitalism not working?
(and... the price of oil has gone up, dollar or yen)
by greent on Jul 9, 2011 1:09 pm • link • report
Haven't read every post here, but earlier someone asked why the underground Metro station at IAD would be so much more expensive than the above ground option.
This may not _directly_ address that question, but In L.A. in the mid-1990s our Green Line ( a light rail line, not a true subway) was kept out of LAX entirely because 1) An above ground route with moving rail cars visible to approaching air traffic would be distracting to pilots (yes, sounds like major BS to me, too). 2) Construction of an underground route/station would be unacceptably disruptive and costly due to the relocation of underground airport utilities (including fuel lines). The REAL reason was thought by some to be 3) lobbying from the taxi cab and shuttle bus operators as well as resistance from the airport itself due to potential loss of its own parking lot revenue. I guess the point here (if there is one) is that efforts - no matter how enlightened - to logically debate how politicians should spend public money are generally doomed to failure.
That said, I have to admire the high level of civil discourse in this thread. Here, on-line discussions involving traffic & transit matters quickly devolve into the equivalent of freeway road rage shootings. No matter where the IAD station eventually ends up, you folks have a great rail system, years and years ahead of ours.
For the two of you in D.C. who haven't heard: Stay away from West L.A. on July 15-16-17 due to the the I-405/Sepulveda pass freeway closure, AKA Carmageddon.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/06/405_freeway_closure_july_16_17_traffic_los_angeles_subway.php
by scp of DTLA on Jul 9, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report
lol, "unrivaled personal mobility" is the kind of escapist fiction that car ads push. Sprawl development destroys the very thing that people think they're buying into.
by Bob See on Jul 9, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report
Certainly the Chinese are not stuck in a cars-only mode of thinking. They have now placed unprecedented restrictions on driving and car ownership in Beijing and Shanghai, and they have the largest transit and high-speed rail construction programs in the world.
by Phil on Jul 9, 2011 5:52 pm • link • report
Hehehe. That's kind of funny, given that I know for a fact that if I drive back into DC from my office in the suburbs in the early afternoon that I CANNOT LEAVE until at least 7pm or so.
Were're in a time where the Chinese are giving up their bicycles as a means of transportation and we're instead taking their place in this regards.
The Chinese have a maglev train that connects Shanghai to the airport and runs at more than 250 mph. Makes your "Dulles toll road" look like a quaint vestige of the 1950s. Put enjoy your provincial lifestyle with its old-fashioned vestiges of a bygone era.
by Tyro on Jul 9, 2011 7:04 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 9, 2011 7:19 pm • link • report
True true. I stand corrected. But they did kill the tunnel under the Beltway.
If you can somehow find a way to blame the Bush Administration for a line that opened in 1986, please do.
DARPA had at some point a RFP out for mathematicians showing that time travel was possible. Don't know if they still have. I digress.
@ Anon:Infrastructure is expensive!
+1
@ David C:I'll ask again, what is the maximum you'd be willing to pay for the underground station?
This is a silly question, as my combined tax payments and metro fares will never add up to M$300.
@ greent:However, it is not 1975 anymore. What was done is done. But Loudon and Fairfax are exurbs when the metro was begun 9and to me they still are). There is no need to help them commute.
That's rather contradictory. Claiming that it's not 1975 anymore, but then claiming you argue from a 1975 situation. It is silly to say there is no need to help people commute. That is an argument against public infrastructure. Without public infrastructure, toll roads would start at your front door. Not handy.
Let VA deal with VA. Metro goes out far enough.
No it does not. Perhaps for your personal needs. But not for the millions of people not living in DC.
@ Anon: Please keep in mind the Dulles station was originally slated to be located directly underneath the main terminal. That proposal option was eventually discarded because it was too expensive. The underground option approved by MWAA is already a compromise, being neither the most expensive nor the cheapest alternative.
You are my new favorite commenter. +1
@ Spartan: By the way, why is MWAA building the silver line instead of WMATA
Because people foresaw that in the end, shitty poor solutions would be made. And hence the design needed to be put in the hands of people as far from politicians are feasible.
@ Anon, David C: Yeah, I know you weren't trying to play one station off the other.
Except that David C was.
by Jasper on Jul 10, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report
Is this a joke. You realize I don't mean YOU personally. I mean at what point should the decision makers decide this is too much.
And as I said, I wasn't trying to play the two off against each other. If you're going to call me a liar, you better come with more than just an accusation.
by David C on Jul 10, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
Not nearly @ M$300.
And as I said, I wasn't trying to play the two off against each other. If you're going to call me a liar, you better come with more than just an accusation.
You may not have been trying, saying, suggesting, or intending to do so, but you did. Let's not confuse intent with action.
I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Whenever people say things of the order "I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude, but", they usually continue by being rude. The fact that they apologize in advance does not change the fact that they are.
You said: For the cost of this you could build the infill station at Potomac Yard ($240 million) and have $60M left over for the pedestrian tunnel between the two Farraguts. Is moving this station incrementally closer worth a whole other station, with money left over?
To then say that you did not *want* to put them against each other may be true; I can not determine your intentions. But the matter of the fact is that you did. Right there, in those lines.
BTW: I did not call you a liar; I pointed out a difference between your stated intentions and your actions.
by Jasper on Jul 10, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report
As convincing as that argument is, the point of my question is to ask you to try and value the underground/near station. What are the advantages AND what are they worth? Determining what the value of the underground/near station is relative to the above ground/far one is a pretty critical step in determining if it's worth the added cost. Just saying it is worth more than $300M but not saying how much, or how you got to that number is pretty weak. If you don't know how much it's worth, than I'm not going to believe you when you say "more than $300M".
by David C on Jul 10, 2011 6:23 pm • link • report
It seems completely reasonable that you would have a better idea of what I was saying than I do.
But...
Anon said that I wasn't "trying to play one station off the other." And then you said that I was trying to. ["was" refers to "trying" in your comment where you said "But he was"]. Then you follow it up with saying that I "may not have been trying..to do so". Which is it? Was I trying to do so or not? You sounded pretty sure that I was before, but now, not so much. It sounds like you're pretty confused.
Then you mention that your pet peeve is when people preface a statement with a contradictory statement. Something I didn't do. Again, you sound confused.
The final sign that you're confused comes from your interpretation of my statement
For the cost of this you could build the infill station at Potomac Yard ($240 million) and have $60M left over for the pedestrian tunnel between the two Farraguts. Is moving this station incrementally closer worth a whole other station, with money left over?
Emphasis is mine. I was not saying that we can have either the Potomac Yard station or the underground Dulles station, but rather "a whole other station". The point of the Potomac Yard reference was to show what an infill station costs. I figure most people realize that the funding of these two projects are totally decoupled. Perhaps more confusion on your part.
But the matter of the fact is that you did.
No. As shown above, that is no a matter of fact. It is your opinion at best. And since I said it, I think I know better what I'm saying.
I did not call you a liar
Not with that word. But I said "I'm not trying to make this a contest between Potomac Yard and the Dulles station" and then you said I was. How is that different from saying that I'm lying?
I'm sorry,
Apology accepted.
by David C on Jul 10, 2011 6:50 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 10, 2011 6:51 pm • link • report
I can not claim enough economic and political insight to put a value on such questions. However, having experienced convenience of the the under-the-main-terminal train station in Schiphol Amsterdam airport, I'd say that it's worth a lot. A whole lot. Furthermore, I am not impressed by big numbers. M$300 sounds like a lot, but it's only a fraction of the billions that the Silver Line costs. It's even a smaller sliver of the total amount of money spent on transit in the US, especially compared to road spending. Finally, is other countries can pay for it, I don't see why the US could not. More specifically, Loudoun and Fairfax are the two richest counties in the US.
So, in short, my argument is that the there is no reason why the two richest counties of the richest country in the world could not avoid a decent metro station at their airport, like other cities in the world have done.
I can not answer questions like whether M$300 would be better spent at fighting illiteracy in DC, improvement of education in western North Carolina, fighting three wars, handing out HIV medication in Africa, or conservation of some nice butterfly in Minnesota.
by Jasper on Jul 10, 2011 6:56 pm • link • report
You can't put a value on it, but you know it is greater than $300M.
I am not impressed by big numbers. M$300 sounds like a lot, but it's only a fraction of the billions that the Silver Line costs.
What percentage of a project do you think it is OK to waste? Personally, I think it's 0%. But that's me.
It's even a smaller sliver of the total amount of money spent on transit in the US, especially compared to road spending.
What percentage of nationwide transit spending do you think it is OK to waste?
my argument is that the there is no reason why the two richest counties of the richest country in the world could not avoid a decent metro station at their airport, like other cities in the world have done.
You're right. There isn't. They could also build a giant pit into which they could pour gold coins and then bury it. But I wouldn't recommend it either.
Finally, is other countries can pay for it, I don't see why the US could not. More specifically, Loudoun and Fairfax are the two richest counties in the US.
I'm not arguing that we can't pay for it, I'm asking if we should. There is an opportunity cost. And the opportunity cost (theoretically) is 1 infill station and a pedestrian tunnel between two stations in downtown. How much will this premier station increase ridership and how would you compare it the increase in capacity and ridership with an additional station and the pedestrian connection?
The whole Silver Line is projected to have 75000 riders per day. And I think the Dulles station is expected to have about 5000 riders per day. A 10% increase - which would be crazy high in my opinion would only be 500 riders per day. At ~$40,000 in interest per day, that means you're paying $80 per new customer. Is that any way to run a railroad? Or if you want to add in the value of times saved, that's ~3 minutes person. That's 25 hours per day. Even at $40 an hour, that's still only $1000 in time saved. So now you're paying $78 per customer.
Personally, I don't think we can afford to pay that much for new customers (and we're not even counting capital costs). The Potomac Yard station (just as an example) would have 12-17,000 passengers per day by 2030. That's more like $3 per customer, and that's the kind of price point we should be looking for.
So maybe you can't consider opportunity costs, but I can. And MWAA should. That's what we're paying them to do. If not, they might as well start digging that giant pit.
by David C on Jul 10, 2011 10:24 pm • link • report
And that's what they did. And they choose to do it.
The estimates are worthless. Metro is bursting out of its seams. There is no reason to assume the Silver Line won't fill up as well. After all, it's build in an area with hundreds of thousands of people live. You know, like the rest of the system.
by Jasper on Jul 11, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report
Did they? I'd love to see what they valued the new station at and why. Where is that?
by David C on Jul 11, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report
The Environmental Impact Statement and Section 106 historic resources documentation are based on the underground station being the locally preferred alternative. If station alternative is changed, both documents would need to be revised pretty significantly for some real $$$. And.... NO guarantee that the Virginia State Historical Preservation Officer would sign off on the new Sec. 106 document.
Now would that be a lovely unsatisifying expense of money!!!
by Some Ideas on Jul 11, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report
There's a typo in the original article/post. It should be threatens, with an a.
nevermind the special needs of folks with kids and people with disabilities or the elderly
Since we are discussing pet peeves, one of mine is when folks with kids suddenly are considered "special needs". When did that happen? I understand those w/disabilities and the elderly as special needs.
But you have kids? So suddenly you have "special needs"? Ugh...next thing you know there will be special car lanes or special parking spots, for people who made a CHOICE to have children. Ugh.
As for above or below ground Dulles station...who cares, the bigger problem is that nobody will ride the darn thing cause it'll take 2x longer than driving or taking a cab, and won't be that much cheaper in the long run.
by LuvDusty on Jul 11, 2011 4:39 pm • link • report
How much will the max fare be with the Silver line completed if they stick to the current fare structure based on distance like $12
by kk on Jul 13, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report
Just to revist this qucikly. Let's look at it another way. If all my other assumptions are correct, ridership at Dulles would have to be 20,000 per day to break even. At National it's 6349. 20,000 would make it the 7th busiest staion in the system, and 25% busier than the busiest station in Virginia (Rosslyn at 16,000+). So even if the estimates are off, they aren't off that much.
by David C on Jul 13, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report
How much will the max fare be with the Silver line completed if they stick to the current fare structure based on distance like $12.
And don't forget the charge for the bus to get to your onboarding station. Unless you live within short walking distance of the orange or silver line, there's the potential that you'd have to take a bus to the station first.
Or worse, you have to drive to the station and park and pay for the daily parking at the official MetroParking, which can be $5+ a day, or more.
So when it comes right down to it, no matter how inexpensive the fare to Dulles ends up being, odds are it may still be more expensive than driving or taking a cab to Dulles. Which then defeats the whole point doesn't it?
If the idea is to get folks to stop driving and start taking public transit, then it has to be worth it.
by LuvDusty on Jul 14, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
It will probably be a point of discussion when the silver line how to handle this issue, whether the max distance will have to be increased, whether the share will be incresed or decreased, etc.
by Michael Perkins on Jul 14, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report
For phase one I don't think they'll have to change anything, but for phase two they will have to look at the fare structure since the line will extend 30 miles outside the core. (right now furthest distance from Metro Center is 17 miles to Shady Grove)
Who knows though, it will probably depend on ridership. If most people are using it to get to Tysons, and not many are travelling all the way into the core, they may not have much to gain by raising the cap.
by MLD on Jul 14, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report
by Leo Schefer on Jul 14, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report
Add a Comment