Did someone say "monorail"?

by Crickey7 on Jan 20, 2012 10:26 am • link • report

So, basically the public got schmucked with a Dulles Trojan Horse to actually build rail to nowhere (aka, "the exurbs").

Well played, VA. Well played!

by John on Jan 20, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

Interesting point you make. I agree that the rail should go directly to Dulles; anything else is failure. But thanks for presenting a good argument. Hopefully you aren't too painfully excoriated here...

by MJ on Jan 20, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

Enjoyed this counterbalance post yesterday on Yonah's site, thanks for sharing it here.

It's certainly an idea worth discussing, though I'd offer that while this reasoning and the plan both sound logical and promising, Robert Brown probably isn't thinking about better, he's just thinking about cheaper. Does that mean it couldn't be turned into something worthwhile? Not necessarily, of course.

by Steve D on Jan 20, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

Though, the best point I saw made in the comments on Yonah's site though was this from AlanF. Which is one that's hard to refute, simply because no one can know about the true costs of the people mover system when it's this nascent of an idea.

"...any projected $70 million savings based on a people mover system that has not even been studied, compared to a Metro system in later stages of engineering design, will disappear as the new people mover costs go up."

by Steve D on Jan 20, 2012 10:37 am • link • report

Don't forget to charge an extra $5 for the privilege of using the people mover to the metro station, like they do in JFK.

by roomd on Jan 20, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

Boo Hiss. People movers aren't COOL. Except for the old intra-terminal escape pods that Dulles used to have. If we could take THOSE to the terminal, I would almost consider using Dulles.

by Ronald on Jan 20, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

MWAA and other decision makers need to decide what is most important - bringing passengers and workers to and from the Airport or bringing people to and from Tysons. While Tysons will always be automobile dominated, IMO, it is likely more passengers will use Tysons stations than the Airport station. The four stations in Tysons make it more bothersome and slower to take rail to and from Tysons. It will be a long ride from Downtown D.C. or Rosslyn or Ballston or Vienna, for example, to Dulles. A lot of people will simply take faster modes of transportation to the airport. To me that suggests optimizing the Silver Line for Tysons use would be a better decision. Optimizing the Silver Line would seem to include keeping costs down and reducing travel time to and from Tysons to the extent possible. Making the trip through Dulles faster for Loudoun County commuters (to and from) would seem to be in the public interest to maximize Tysons usage.
Trying to maximize benefits for both locations will likely result in poorer results for both. This suggestion is worthy of serious consideration.

by tmtfairfax on Jan 20, 2012 10:48 am • link • report

And here's the counterpoint for why a separate people mover is a bad idea:

1. It replaces a plan that actually exists and has cost estimates, reviews, etc. with a plan that does not exist, has had no research done, no cost estimates (beyond one person saying "this would save $70 million," I haven't seen a document that estimates costs), no nothing.

2. If the people mover is going to be BETTER than the Metro connection, you have to rely on an element that originally was in the Metro plan but was cut due to cost factors. In order for the people mover to be a good idea the station would have to basically be at or directly under the terminal. This is closer than the Metro station was ever planned to be. Why would we assume that building a people mover station at or under the terminal would be more accepted or feasible than a Metro station?

The reason we're immediately dismissing this proposal is that the supposed "cost savings" are tiny. You're looking at saving 2.5% of the cost of phase II by creating an entirely new project from the ground up. Once you consider potential cost overruns in either project, that $70 million is probably gone. And the people mover station is probably in the daily garage just like the Metro, and there's no timed transfer because the agencies can't cooperate, and hey it's only 1.5 miles and the people mover is really expensive so let's just do it with a bus instead for the next 20 years.

by MLD on Jan 20, 2012 10:50 am • link • report

If they extend the Silver Line past Dullas, this would make more sense. Though I know that's still up in the air. In your argument you mention automatic trains and timing, this is where I think WMATA would fail. Dullas is doing a great job on their below grown trains and if they could extend those out to the station it would be fantastic vs recycling the well worn people movers they have. The timing for travelers that already are going to have to transfer once at East Falls Church then again at Dullas would lead to a lot of missed flights & upset passengers.

by TeganAnn on Jan 20, 2012 10:50 am • link • report

Maybe this website that grovels before these quasi-government boards (accountable to few) should begin understanding it is TAXPAYERS who pay for these projects.

The idea that it was sold as a rail line to Dulles and then say..."oh never mind" light rail or bus routes are just fine is sickening. It's a scandal and they should all be forced to resign even if this was a stupid and careless trial balloon. Many...very many...advocated for a light rail route from West Falls Church to Dulles. No stops..just a link to Dulles. That would have made financial sense.

But to have the construction underway and then change the plan because these 'loons' still cannot believe their underground stop at Dulles is too expensive...is simply insulting. These are the actions of despots. Off with their heads I say!

by Pelham1861 on Jan 20, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

In terms of the cost, isn't a big part of it building the rail line on the dulles road right of way and dealing with traffic mitagation. That would be the same with the peoplemover?

Also, this is assuming MWAA would be willing to let a peoplemover station exist right in front of the station. That is an assumption.

Biggest difficult for passengers isn't neccearily the distance, but the elevation.

by charlie on Jan 20, 2012 11:03 am • link • report

So since the moving walkway is part of the current plan, the people mover option will take 35 seconds longer than the Dulles station option. So while not disastrous, it is a little worse.

Another point against is that the I think the people mover (even if it were actually faster) would have this perception of an extra step and that would cause some people to opt to drive instead.

by Steven Yates on Jan 20, 2012 11:05 am • link • report

Dan Malouff is correct. As is MLD and other commentors who raise the questions about the hype-o-thetical people mover. How much would the people mover cost? How would maintainence costs affect the project? How many riders on the Silver Line would be lost due to less convenience to the airport?

by Cavan on Jan 20, 2012 11:05 am • link • report

The only "time savings" would be a few minutes for passengers using the two stations at the very end of the line in Loudoun Country. That's a ridiculous justification for an attempt at a massive bait-and-switch - building "rail to Dulles" that doesn't actually go there.

by Frank IBC on Jan 20, 2012 11:08 am • link • report

Who pays for the ongoing operation of a new transit system? Operator costs will be high, since one assumes "people mover" = bus. What happens if weather is bad, or there is a bunching problem? This is just a terrible idea, in my opinion. Here's my alternative: get rid of the Rt. 28 station. That would save more than $70m, I bet.

by reader on Jan 20, 2012 11:11 am • link • report

This is ridiculous. On the most basic level, if walking 1150ft is such a burden, they can make a 1150ft people mover that would save even more time. Frankly, an 8 car metro train is around 600ft long so the walk from getting off at the wrong end of the train is even a bigger factor. Perfectly timed transfers are impossible in this case since waiting for people from every metro car to get themselves & their luggage to the mover would take minutes. Assuming the people mover also averages 35mph, that 1.5 mile trip alone is 2.6 minutes.

A more realistic model would be to assume that a people mover would appear every 6 minutes (3 minutes if there are 2 tracks&trains at twice the price). So the connection the added time would be 2.6 min for a perfect connected to 8.6 for a perfect miss. Upkeep of a such a system which completely distinct parts doesn't seem to be considered here.

Also, as someone who used to live in the Bay Area, the current BART to OAK bus connections were awful, but were a byproduct of how they built BART (with a stop at the sports stadiums instead of the airport. That they're trying to fix that mess now with a people mover is an improvement, but now how one would want to design a system from scratch.

by Dan H on Jan 20, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

Steven Yates has it - people will perceive this as an extra step (which, to be fair, it is) and will refuse to use it. Nice-sounding idea on paper, but at this point I think it wise to stick with the Dulles station as currently planned. Better a poorly thought-out choice of station than none at all. (Because it should really be underground. Yes.)

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Jan 20, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

1. It replaces a plan that actually exists and has cost estimates, reviews, etc. with a plan that does not exist, has had no research done, no cost estimates (beyond one person saying "this would save $70 million," I haven't seen a document that estimates costs), no nothing.

That point above by MLD deserves re-posting. It's the main reason I am also against this idea. Stick with the plan people. Changing the ship mid-course will only delay the project for years and put the funding sources at further risk. Sure, saving $70mil up front sounds good, but the grand scheme of things it's negligible and there are millions in hidden/unforseen costs that have not been planned out with the alternative plan yet.

I thought the idea was to have some of the silver trains be "express" to Dulles and have them skip many of the smaller stops after EFC? Wouldn't that solve the problem and keep the proposal as is?

Isn't that the whole point?

by LuvDusty on Jan 20, 2012 11:27 am • link • report

What a dimwitted idea!

This whole "people mover" idea is copped from the AirRail system at JFK and the new system being buit at MIA - both airports with multiple terminal locations, and where it's impractical to send the local transit line due to said multi-terminal layout.

But Dulles is a SINGLE TERMINAL AIRPORT: all check-ins and security screenings happen at the Saarinen terminal, a single point of entry and exit, the embodiment of simplicity. Adding a "what-if" people mover to the Silver Line adds needless complexity and additional failure points to this transit system. It is, as John states, a "Trojan horse" situation: "Metro to Dulles" that bypasses Dulles.

The adage holds true: the simplest solution is often the best. And in this case, having a Dulles Metrorail station is the simplest - and best - solution.

by Rudi on Jan 20, 2012 11:28 am • link • report

While I appreciate people looking for cost savings in a project like this, I do see the concern about touting the cost savings that include part of the more mature plan with a completely new idea that has not been fully evaluated. If there was a more mature plan for the people mover, maybe that would help. But given the scope of projects like this I share the concerns of others that are worried that the final cost of a people mover would eat up the savings of requiring it.

The people mover could be a nifty idea though. Too bad it wasn't brought up about 3 years earlier. With some thought, it could also connect the long-term parking to the terminal, reducing the need for the shuttle buses, similar to Chicago's O'Hare airport, which has a people mover that connects 4 terminal buildings, long term parking, and regional rail. Commuter rail there is not connected that way, but comparable to the current Dulles plan (meaning, plan for a long walk from station to terminal).

by another Josh on Jan 20, 2012 11:29 am • link • report

I wish the author or editor of this post had inserted a definition and/or graphic to tell us what a people mover is. Everyone is discussing it, but I don't know what this is.

Aren't all trains, buses, cars, and moving sidewalks "people movers"?

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 20, 2012 11:31 am • link • report

Changing the plans for this rail line and spending more time studying implementation of a people mover would almost certainly lead to higher costs. We see it all the time... project delays lead to higher costs. This notion that we can save $70 million likely doesn't take into account the added costs to phase 2 due to construction delays.

by Aaron on Jan 20, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

@reader
I agree there is a need to get rid of some of the exurb stations. Too many riders from there will crowd the already packed orange line segment of the silver line even more than it already is. Also, people movers are far different from busses, they're kind of monorail/air train-esque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_mover

by thedofc on Jan 20, 2012 11:42 am • link • report

For this proposal to work, a number of concessions would have to be made. For instance, the people mover would need to end directly in front of the terminal to make it appealing to passengers, especially those travelling with luggage. Having to take a train from downtown DC for 45 minutes AND THEN transferring to a people mover and a possible long walk doesn't sound appealing for most. At any rate, we've learned that this isn't possible because of the historical nature of Eero Saarinen's structure.

If we were working with an existing rail line and trying to link it with the airport, this proposal would make far more sense. However we're building an entirely new rail line with the original expressed purpose of connecting Dulles with the rest of the region; it makes no sense to cut out this vital segment.

by John Marzabadi on Jan 20, 2012 11:45 am • link • report

I'd raise an objection to the use of waiting time as the only cost of switching modes here. It's probably appropriate in a lot of other transport contexts, but we're talking about people going to/coming from a plane so there's luggage and confused tourists involved.

I'm not sure how many people would rule out an option due to an extra transfer, but I am sure it's significantly more than zero.

by Mike on Jan 20, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

This is like building the National Airport stop in Crystal City, and having folks ride a people mover into that airport.

Don't we all know how awesome it is that we can ride Metro practically into the airport? Why are we willing to settle for less in Dulles? The idea of transferring to another system kills the appeal of the rail extension in the first place.

by YouStreet on Jan 20, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

@Josh
Your suggestion about a people mover connecting other parts of the airport (e.g. the daily garages that are quite a hike) is a good one, but it points up yet another problem with the people mover idea. If you're building one, why not have it stop at the daily garage son the way to the terminal? And pretty soon, it's a 15 minute trip from Route 28 to the terminal. Not to mention that the same stagemanagers of security theater will freak out that a people mover would be within 150ft of the terminal.

There is no $70 million savings. $70 million is a rounding error in this project, and as many other have pointed out, even that tiny savings is based on hypothetical plans that haven't been priced out in detail. (Those who point to the supposed "savings" need to be reminded of this every time they raise it. Because $70 million sounds like a lot of money, and for many less informed constituents who will be paying the bill, it soudn slike a reason to favor the idea. It isn't.)

by Paula Product on Jan 20, 2012 11:53 am • link • report

We could save even more money by skipping the "people mover" idea, and using flat-bed stake trucks to transport people and their luggage from the station to the terminal. This would be more flexible as well.

by oboe on Jan 20, 2012 11:57 am • link • report

The whole reason this is being discussed is to save costs, right?

I don't see any cost savings at all.

We're talking about building an brand new, 1.5 mile people mover system in addition to the Metro line. Atlanta recently opened a separate, landside people mover (different from their airside people mover, which is akin to IAD's AeroTrain) operating over a similar distance (1.5 miles) cost enough that you're not going to realize a net savings simply by eliminating one station.

by Alex B. on Jan 20, 2012 12:20 pm • link • report

Regardless of the details, this proposal is a slippery slope to a non-usable metro connection at Dulles.

by Nicoli on Jan 20, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report

There is definitely the issue of the perception of an extra step with a people-mover - although, the metro station requires its own extra step in the form of a long walk or moving walkway - although air travellers tend to take walking and moving walkways as a given, and may not percieve this as an extra step. Obviously the best compromise would be to go with this plan, only replace the people-mover with an really long moving walkway (a la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slidewalk).

by Lucre on Jan 20, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report

The other point about rail to Dulles that never really gets is that it's not just airline passengers who would be taking rail to Dulles. People who work at the airport would probably be the heaviest users of the transit system. Customer service reps, janitorial and maintenance staff, etc. In addition to the airline and airport staff, there are over 100 retail and restaurant locations in the airport alone! A people mover makes sense if the only people taking Metro to the airport are the occasional travelers. It does not make sense if you consider the hundreds (thousands?) of people who commute every day to the airport.

The biggest problem for Metro to Dulles is the fact that it's a 24-hour airport with 19-hour rail service.

by Adam L on Jan 20, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

the 'timed transfer' would never work right, especially for people *leaving* the airport, because metro trains are never on schedule

by guest on Jan 20, 2012 12:43 pm • link • report

I recently flew for the first time to Atlanta Hartfield, which has a similar people mover. I was impressed with how efficient and well planned it was. It connected the airport to hotel/conference site, mass transit and rental cars without having to navigate competing shuttle buses, cabs, and various other groung transport. It was a fast and convenient way to exit the airport. Not sure if Dulles would use a people mover to connect to other resources outside the immediate airport (ie long term parking, rental cars), but it's an idea worth considering.

by anon on Jan 20, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report

the suggestion of adding the extra step seems to me could only have come from someone who has not used mass transit to get to/from an airport.

As others have said its an extra transfer and thus a deterrent.

And as others have pointed out: whats a "people mover"?

Also, in the hypothetical the only way it could work as not an extra step/deterrent is if it dropped you off right across from the ticket counter/security line, and getting that type of access is unlikely.

One more thing; is the station at Rte 28 underground? If not there's an extra deterrent by making people wait outside for the connection, which will almost always not be perfectly timed.

by Tina on Jan 20, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

@anon, what you describe at Hartfield is not the proposed idea here. There are some other comments about the differences further up.

by Tina on Jan 20, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report

I think the people mover idea is interesting, but only if it is an extension on the existing Dulles people mover system. I'm not crazy about the stations on the existing people mover system - they are very deep under the airport - a long escalator or elevator ride, but they are better than a long moving walkway to the planned above ground Metrorail station.

Will the people mover extension cost less than savings from not building the planned Metrorail loop and station? I wonder.

by John Flack on Jan 20, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

People Mover = bus, Metro = Rail; don't we already have a "people mover" system from West Falls Church of buses that go to Dulles? If you stop short of an Airport station, just go "no build alternative" and give us our money back.

by John T on Jan 20, 2012 1:15 pm • link • report

Extending the existing people mover makes little sense because it will have to bypass the security, checkin and baggage collection, which is not going to happen.

by roomd on Jan 20, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

A people mover would cost so much more than $70 million that this thought experiment by Yonah was a complete waste of time.

by NikolasM on Jan 20, 2012 1:19 pm • link • report

What might this People Mover thingie cost? An elevated 3 mile circuitous guideway with two or more stations, featuring fully automated vehicles. Sounds like it has the big "B" written all over it, as in Billion.

Wasn't the cost estimate to place the Metrorail station directly underneath the terminal $600 million?

The nincompoop MWAA board member who brought this idea up should be tarred and feathered.

by Sage on Jan 20, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

What 600 to 1100 foot walk? There is no need to walk that distance. Are you so unfamiliar with the Dulles Airport that you don't know there is, already existing, a tunnel with moving walkways, yes, moving walkways, from where the Metro station will be to the terminal? That is so the lazy people don't have to actually walk the whole distance, but can be transported with little effort on their own part. Also, the "savings" of $70M is really just a down payment on a whole new transport system to connect to the airport terminal. A whole new system which will likely have incompatible equipment and thus increased operating and life time costs. Does not sound like a savings to me.

by Pat on Jan 20, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report

Cost-cutting for Dulles Rail just became much more important. Last night, the Fairfax County Planning Commission was told the Tysons Table 7 costs through 2040 are likely to exceed $3 billion and, with financing costs, could well reach $4 billion. Add to that GMU's Professor Stephen Fuller's projection Fairfax County will lose more than 90,000 jobs due to cutbacks in federal contracting, things are pretty ugly. The axes will be out for Dulles Rail and everything else.

by tmtfairfax on Jan 20, 2012 2:18 pm • link • report

Everyone asking about people movers:
It's already been answered more than once in this thread, but not everyone reads every comment. You probably won't read this one either, but I'm going to take a stab at an answer anyway.

A people mover is a generally accepted term (like "light rail" or "commuter rail") for a fully automated vehicle running on a grade-separated guideway. These are typically short circulators, though you can build an entire transit system from one, as is the case in Vancouver, BC.

You can read more about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_mover

These are not buses, @John T. They're essentially trains, though they often run on rubber tires or as single vehicles. Since there is no operator on board, their labor costs are essentially zero.

To anyone who thinks we can extend the existing AeroTrain outside of the airport:
The existing AeroTrain at Dulles Airport connects the Terminal to the Midfield Concourses. It is entirely inside the secured portion of the airport.

If it was to be extended beyond the terminal, passengers would be able to bypass the TSA checkpoint by riding the train from Metro directly to the gate. And while many of us would prefer that, the TSA would probably object.

Now, it is possible that Dulles could use the same vehicles and the same operations center to run the landside people mover connection to the Metro. But operationally, the systems have to be separate. At least as long as we have airport security, anyway.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 20, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report

Don't we have a deal in place to fund Phase II of the Silver Line? It's high time to quick nitpicking on costs and move forward.

by Sage on Jan 20, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report

You know.

This isn't a horrible idea, especially if it puts customers closer to the airport, or somehow ties into the airport's [fantastically expensive] internal people mover system (or forms the basis of a future one). A single-seat ride to the airport is very enticing, but I can find a few advantages of this design.

It would be a hands-down better alternative if Dulles ever built a second terminal, as it'd be extremely unlikely for them to build a second station (or we'd end up with some approximation of the confusing mess of Heathrow's 3 separate stations).

It also provides a more direct route for daily commuters coming in from Loudoun County.

Take a look at the BART connection to SFO for an example of the absolute worst-case combination of rail transit and an airport people mover. Airport users transferring to BART need to use the awkwardly-configured people mover before getting to the train station, which isn't even located on the BART mainline (it stops just short of that). The spur line to the airport is an enormous pain in the ass for BART to operate, results in fewer trains stopping at Millbrae (and fewer trains at the airport than would have otherwise been possible with a station on the mainline).

I honestly can't fathom why it was designed that way (I say this a lot about BART), and it would be an incredibly poor example for IAD to emulate.

The under-construction people mover that will connect OAK to BART is fairly comparable to this proposal, and seems like it will be fairly convenient and efficient, and far more sane and logical than the SFO BART extension.

Another interesting proposal: Connect the train directly to the (secure) AeroTrain, and place a baggage check and TSA screening facility in the Metro station. This will probably never fly, but would certainly be an interesting concept.

by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 2:43 pm • link • report

@MJ: As a part of the project TSA could put a new checkpoint where passengers change from Metro to the people mover trains, and therefore maintain the "sterile" boundaries.

by goldfish on Jan 20, 2012 3:13 pm • link • report

@goldfish:
There goes your $70M savings.

At any rate, you wouldn't be able to stay on the same train, which seems to be what some are suggesting.

You'd have to get off and go through a checkpoint. There would also need to be baggage carousels and ticket counters.

And at that point, you might as well have everyone go through the terminal.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 20, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report

@MJ, you have the checkpoint right when you get off Metro, which you have to get off anyway. And since when does adding a security checkpoint cost $70M?

by goldfish on Jan 20, 2012 3:42 pm • link • report

@sage

Yes we have a fairly fragile deal, but there's all sorts of risks to it. The new Loudoun Board, which is sort of tea-partyish, is making noises about dropping out. This may have been a misguided attempt to soothe them, to show that MWAA was trying to think of ways to shorten the ride for Loudoun customers.

by jim on Jan 20, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report

@goldfish:
I was interpreting your last comment to mean that riders would still undergo screening at the airport, just in a facility carved out from under the airport (at the level of the current AeroTrain).

I see now that you meant that passengers exiting Metro at Route 28/Sully Road station would undergo screening before entering the people mover.

That would mean building an off-site facility for screening, which would not be cheap. As I pointed out before, since riders haven't even reached the airport yet, you'd need not just screening, but also baggage check in, bomb screening machines, a ticket counter for each airline, waiting areas, and restrooms, at a minimum.

Additionally, you wouldn't be able to handle arriving passengers very well. People arriving on airplanes would have their baggage automatically routed to the carousels in the Saarinen terminal. They would either need to exit security, retrieve their bags, re-check their bags, re-enter security, and then re-retrieve their bags at the Route 28/Sully Road station carousel. (This is exactly how passengers arriving from overseas at ATL have to do it if they're exiting at Atlanta).

That doesn't sound efficient. Or cheap.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 20, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report

@goldfish:
Sorry, didn't finish that thought. It should read:

"People arriving on airplanes...would either need to exit security... OR have some way of routing their luggage to the Route 28 sub-terminal when they checked it wherever their journey started.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 20, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

@goldfish: You would not only need a security checkpoint, but airline check-in stations for all carriers, as one of the prerequisites for getting through TSA security is your valid ticket for a flight. That's not really feasible in a Metro station, unless you make it huge. And the airlines likely wouldn't be too keen to create secondary check-in counters at the station: that's a lot of money and upkeep!

Again, go for the simplest solution: locate the Metro station at IAD, using the original orientation.

by Rudi on Jan 20, 2012 5:26 pm • link • report

I'm in favor of applying this as a general rule. If at any point someone has an idea that may or may not be a reasonable alternative to a plan that has been analyzed for years and passed through multiple layers of bureaucratic approval, we should stop working on that plan to examine the alternative.

How could we justify anything else? After all, the alternative might be cheaper! It might be better in some other way too!

by Gray on Jan 20, 2012 7:36 pm • link • report

This idea is not as farfetched as you might think.

MWAA has a long term plan to build a land side people mover on the north side of the main terminal. See Page 6 Volume IV Chapter 4 of the DCMP FEIS. (3.29 MB PDF file).

Alex B is correct, in a way, the cost savings would be real in that it would reduce the local burden to build Phase II by the estimated $70 million. However MWAA would have to come up with more money to extend their proposed land side people mover beyond what they have in their long term plan to connect it to metrorail.

by Sand Box John on Jan 21, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

Lets change the perspective a little bit. The question isn't whether the train should bypass the airport, but whether it should even go to the proposed 606 terminal. I bet WMATA can save money by terminating the train at IAD. Build a gigantic garage at 28 and have dedicated ramps that connect to the Greenway. A station at 606 would just encourage even more development in western Loudoun county and beyond. Plus, most of the people move out to Loudoun not because they can't afford to live inside 28 or 495, but because they don't want to be in the "crowded" Fairfax county, so leave them alone and let them be.
A direct line to IAD would benefit far more people in the metro area than a direct line to 606.

by HelloMe on Jan 21, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report

70 million in today's dollars seems downright cheap for a direct connection to the airport. With any potential people mover you'd not only be talking about more initial dollars to construct, but a loss in the efficiency of shared maintenance facilities for the trains. A people mover would have different trains, parts, and gauge track etc than either the metro or the aerotrain, so ENTIRELY new maintenance facilities would need to be built for only a 1.5 mile line - the scale of efficiency would be pretty bad.

Also, with the Dulles Metro Station positioned at the parking garage, there is the possibility of TOD around or over the garage itself (airport hotel & conference center, etc.) which would provide even more bang for the buck.

Lastly, you're losing out using the giant Dulles short term garage as potential metro commuter parking, as opposed to constructing additional parking garages at route 28 and the Loudoun stations.

Why are we even talking about this?

by stevek_fairfax on Jan 21, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

@MJ: It could only work as an express check-in where passengers or workers already have credentials to get through security. (Not everyone needs a boarding pass. There are lot of workers in the sterile section that never get on a plane: they go through a special checkpoint that most passengers never see. Also, parents meeting children at the gate also go though security without a boarding pass.) Passengers can print out their boarding pass anywhere. Luggage can be handled the same way as when it is checked on the street.

Finally, the checkpoint would be cheap(er) because it is new construction, not a retrofit.

by goldfish on Jan 21, 2012 10:04 pm • link • report

I have to admit that after reading about half the comments I zipped down here so I don't know what all the other commenters have said, BUT, as someone who has worked on DCMP Phase II design, I have doubts that the APM would only cost 70 million or whatever Yonah's estimate is.

His piece is good, and for the most part I agree with it, but as someone who has seen the drawings and knows what the specific engineering challenges of the approaches close to the terminal are, I'm saying that if the APM were to follow a similar alignment it would face the same engineering challenges if it were underground, such as the underpinning of the terminal and the maintenance of traffic and landside operations during construction.

Aside from the feasibility of an APM alignment in proximity to the terminal, the realignment of the metro route, and the Preliminary Engineering that would need to be conducted, would add a considerable amount of time and cost to the project which I do not believe that Yonah has factored into his estimate above. I could be wrong, and I do agree with some of Yonah's points, but I believe that at this point in the design process (PE is more than 95% complete) that the costs outweigh the benefits. The time for this talk would have been when PE was below 15-20 percent completion.

by Dan S on Jan 21, 2012 11:08 pm • link • report

Oh and my apologies. That wasn't Yonah's estimate.

by Dan S on Jan 21, 2012 11:12 pm • link • report

Yonas,

I believe you are a transportation consultant. If you are then you should know that in there is a huge penalty associated to transfer and that waiting time is valued twice as high as in vehicle time. So all in all it's a no brainer that the travel timea you assume are wrong as you are forgetting the whole theory of transport behavior in your calculations.

by Vincent on Jan 23, 2012 12:24 am • link • report

Yonah, what on earth makes you think that the airport authority will allow them to build the people mover station right in front of the airport like that? If they were going to allow that, then the Metro station could have been there, too.

by tom veil on Jan 23, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

@tom veil:
I just want to point out that this idea was started by an Airports Authority Board Member.

I actually agree with you on this. If a people mover were built, it would probably end up with a station in the same location as the proposed Metro stop. But Yonah is arguing based on what an MWAA boardmember said was feasible.

It's an IF THEN statement. If you change the IF, the THEN changes, too.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 23, 2012 1:08 pm • link • report

In all of these Dulles Airport discussions there are never any details on the number of people projected to actually use the station. What percent will they be of the line's daily ridership? What percent will be flyers and what percent will be employees? In most cities airport employees vastly outnumber the number of flyers on rail connections to airports. What percent of all Dulles travelers are projected to use the Silver line? How does this compare to the number who use the Blue or Yellow lines to National Airport? How does this number compare with the number of flyers who use the several mass transit modes to BWI? It would be highly useful if the GGW blog readers had some of this information as we speculate on the best way to access Dulles Airport.

by Mr. Transit on Jan 23, 2012 2:28 pm • link • report

As a frequent flyer around the world and home base here in NoVa, I am all for the "people mover" option. In fact it is more important as an international traveler to reduce walking distance rather than focusing on purely transit time and cost. For this be successful, the people mover would need to stop at 3 to 4 entrances across the front entrances/exits from Dulles to minimize the walking distance entering and leaving the airport. I have found the people movers to be a very pleasant experience in San Francisco and at JFK in New York. On the flip side, it is not pleasant at all to walk across the entire airport property at London Heathrow to get to the tube entrance. The people mover option is better for me as a flyer.

by Brian on Jan 23, 2012 5:25 pm • link • report

I am thrilled to see this piece praising the people mover alternative. When I heard the news about the suggestion on WTOP, the reporter noted the stunned slack-jawed silence. It's a classic case of folks not being able to think out of the box they have constructed for themselves.

My reaction was that this was probably an idea that should be seriously explored. Reading this piece, with the details presented here, I am now convinced that this is as much smarter option.

For those suggesting that this means the whole idea brings us back to a train to nowhere, I assume they are thinking the West Falls Church bus transfer would serve the same purpose, without any new spending.

I cannot agree. That's a very inconvenient transfer, and it's not nearly as quick as this would be. Plus, there is the well-understood idea that trains are more appealing than buses. It's why I'm not convinced that Montgomery County is doing the right thing in replacing light-rail for rapid-transit buses -- but, at least, they're proposing to create a system with a rapid right-of-way. It might be fairly indistinguishable from light rail, except for the type of energy used and the stigma associated with buses. They're also covering a much longer distance and multiple stops, so a bus makes more sense in that case.

With Dulles, a transfer to/from a people mover that comes to the terminal is the exact correct solution to the problem created when the underground Dulles station was abandoned. In fact, if this idea had been floated at the time as an alternative, I suspect it would have been more popular than the distant above-ground station.

Hopefully, the folks at Dulles and Metro will be willing to take a look at this creative and economic solution. Details about whether to create a security checkpoint and access to the secure Aerotrain are far less important than making the decision itself to move to some sort of separate transportation to/from a transfer point at the Route 28 Silver Line stop. It's not as convenient as the original underground terminal station, but it's the next-best alternative.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jan 26, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report

"agree there is a need to get rid of some of the exurb stations. Too many riders from there will crowd the already packed orange line segment of the silver line even more than it already is. "

by thedofc

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much better to force them on to crowded highways? Or, to drive a while and seek out parking spots at closer-in Metro stops, where they will again be crowding on to the same trains?

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jan 26, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report

@Fischy

But this idea isn't a solution to any problem. In fact, no one has explicitly stated what the problem is.

The problem, from this Board Member's standpoint, is that costs are too high. And the idea of a completely separate people mover system will not lower the total cost at all, it will raise it. Tremendously.

by Alex B. on Jan 26, 2012 12:14 pm • link • report

@Alex B. -- I don't see why you claim that it would increase costs at all, much less tremendously so. It obviates the need to construct a Metro station. Even without tunneling, that means certain specific requirements that will probably cost more than constructing a transfer access at the Route 28 stop and a terminal stop for a people mover. Moreover, the whole idea is it will be cheaper to build that new system than the cost of the additional Metro track and the extra Metro station. You offer no reason for your conjecture that this is not so.

Of course, someone needs a design to run the numbers, but the premise that a people mover will be cheaper. I see some discussion above about maintenance cost -- but, of course, Metro tracks have to be maintained, too. Presumably it would be more expensive to maintain the people mover system, but there's no basis to think that will make the system more expensive than the Metro link.

So, without any reason to think this is more expensive, one has to ask whether this does solve a problem. That long walk from the terminal dragging bags (and probably not dressed for temperature extremes) is a problem. This is a neat solution. Maybe the idea of another transfer is off-putting, but I bet those who try it out will be happier for it.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jan 26, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Do some basic math.

Cutting the station saves 70 million from the Dulles Metro budget.

IAD's recent Aerotrain people mover cost $1.4 billion. With a B. Atlanta recently opened a 1.4 mile landside automated people mover, similar in scope to this proposal - the initial projected cost was near $700 million.

I've seen no evidence that the combined projects (Metro without a IAD stop + 1.5 mile new people mover) will offer a net savings.

Point being, there's tons of reasons to think it would be more expensive.

by Alex B. on Jan 26, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

@Fischy

Read my comment above. The Dulles AeroTrain cost $1.4 billion. This would be about half as much at a minimum (inflation and all). Taking out the silver line station would probably equal that amount. The board member said replacing the station with a people mover would save $70 million. $70 million is a blip in this kind of project, 2.5% of the cost of phase II. That will easily be eaten up by cost overruns, and cost overruns will be higher if you have two projects rather than just one project.

Besides the cost problem, there's the problem that the people mover "plan" isn't a plan at all yet AND it relies on some factors that were cut from the Metro plan to decrease costs. It took seven years just to get from contracting to a finished AeroTrain system. This potential people mover is still years away from contracting. So you'll end up with a metro system and no people mover. And the cost cutters will decide that's OK and we'll be on buses from route 28 to Dulles for the next 20 years. If you think the airport/MARC connection at BWI is more convenient than Metro at National then this plan is for you!

In order for the people mover to be a better solution than a metro station, the people mover station would have to be at or underneath the Dulles terminal. That didn't happen with the Metro (in fact the Metro was never going to be right at the terminal), so why would we assume that a people mover plan would come to any other solution?

by MLD on Jan 26, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report

If in fact y'all are correct about the relative costs of a new system versus the cost of building a Dulles Metro stop, then you're definitely correct that this doesn't make sense. I had assumed there would be actual cost savings, not increased costs by a potential factor of 10.

I still think that those using such a system would grow to like it because it could offer something more like door-to-door service -- but it certainly wouldn't be worth the increased cost. If ya'll are right then the idea just throws us back to the costs of the underground station -- which was rejected only for that reason.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jan 26, 2012 1:58 pm • link • report

As someone who has worked on DCMP Phase II design for MWAA, I'm gonna voice my opinion and say that the time for this debate is long past. The Preliminary Engineering is almost 100 percent complete and this project is basically just waiting on funding.

I wrote a very long comment on Yonah's site talking about the engineering challenges specific to this idea. It is copy and pasted below. Before you talk about cost, consider that these challenges are the same reason that MWAA decided to go with the aerial alignment.

Comment:

While I believe that transit lines should come as close to the airports they serve as possible, I agree with Steve K (the post above me) on this one.

I posted a similar post on GGW just a couple minutes ago, but as someone who worked on the DCMP Phase II design (which includes the airport alignment) I can say that the cost estimates for the people mover system, or at least the ones I’ve seen on the few articles that float such an idea, are nowhere near what it would cost to build an APM system servicing the terminal with a walking time that Yonah envisions above. This is for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that if the APM line follows one of the studied metro alignments (the ones that bring it in proximity to the terminal or basically every alignment besides the North Garage Alignment) it would face the same engineering challenges. Some of these challenges include maintenance of traffic and landside operations during construction (which is no small task for a major US airport), passing historic review (by not obstructing the historic view-shed of the Saarinen terminal) if it is not an underground alignment, not obstruct future development on the airport’s land such as the future east parking garage which is on the airport master plan, and last but certainly not least, underpinning the foundation of the terminal. These are pretty tough challenges and as the design parameters for the APM system would undoubtedly be different than WMATA parameters, an entirely different preliminary design process would be required adding time and cost.

The second reason is that just as the APM line would require more engineering studies, the metro line in the median of the Dulles Greenway would as well. One of the major hurdles for that segment would be finding property for a new traction power substation or TPSS.

The third reason sit that MWAA would have to assume operational costs for the APM in addition to the upfront capital costs. This surely discourages any MWAA board member for voting for this proposal. Assuming, as a cost saving measure, that the vehicles used for this APM system would be similar to those currently in use on in airside operations, a tie-in to the current system would be ideal so that the cars could be serviced in the same service facility. This doesn’t have to be a tunnel or anything, but if it isn’t than that poses another logistical challenge as the facility is closer to the south central portion of the property.

As a disclaimer I don’t know how the estimate was made but I just figured I would let folks who weren’t as familiar with the project know about some of the specific engineering challenges. I actually think this may have been an effective proposal earlier in the project however at this point in the design process, I don’t believe it would be cost effective. If you have any other questions or need clarification PLEASE don’t hesitate to ask. I don’t expect the above to make complete sense.

Second comment:

As a part of the Airport Alignment Alternatives Analysis, an in depth engineering analysis of the Airport segment, 5 Alternatives to what is referred to as the Main Baseline Tunnel (MBT) were studied. The main baseline tunnel was the original tunnel alignment considered in the first wave of preliminary engineering. As cost went up and mitigation efforts began, the MBT alignment was trimmed and trimmed. Eventually an alternatives analysis was performed.

The first alternative outlined in the analysis (Alt 1) is an arrivals level aerial alignment. This alignment would have placed the station immediately in front of the terminal where the current arrivals ramp for passenger vehicles is. The pros: relatively short walking time, not underground (so initial cost wouldn’t be as much as an underground station in the same spot), no landside facilities would be lost. The cons: Disruption of landside ops and Maintenance of Traffic (MOT; it should be noted that this alt would probably be the worst out of all the alternatives in this regard), possible obstruction of historic view-shed of the terminal.

The second alternative outlined in the analysis (alt 2) is a tunnel alignment underneath the terminal. This would have placed the station under the right center of the terminal. This right-center location was necessary so that the alignment moving outbound from the station would be able to reach the surface and not encounter existing foundations and structures. The pros: Short walking time (probably the shortest of all the alignments), underground station (arguably more comfortable for passengers b/c of climate control), minimal disruption to MOT. The cons: Loss of landside ops space, (because of the location of this station directly underneath the terminal, all ancillary facilities would need to be located at ground level because of the additional cost of tunneling beneath the terminal), construction difficulty (you are underpinning a massive terminal building here… the technical challenges of this endeavor would inevitably present some problems during construction in addition to adding total time to construction), cost (this would have been by far the most expensive although I cannot give you a hard estimate because I can’t remember the numbers).

The third alignment outlined in the analysis is MBT alternative 4A which has a modified tunnel alignment mined with TBM with a cut and cover station underneath the pedestrian tunnel node coming from the north parking garage. This is the commonly known tunnel alignment which was being considered before the MWAA board decided to run with the aerial alignment. Pros: relatively short walking distance (to both sides of the terminal), passenger comfort, no disruption to view-shed. Cons: Cost is more than an aerial structure (less than other tunnels), there would be disruption to parking operations in the parking bowl in front of the terminal during construction of the station.

The fourth alignment (alt 4b) is the exact same alignment except done by cut and cover method the entire way. The only additional pros or cons to this are both cons. The estimated cost was a little higher than alt 4A and the disruption of traffic during construction would obviously be worse.

The fifth alignment (alt 5) is the commonly known North Garage Aerial Alignment.
As you probably know if butts up to the south face of the North Garage and is aerial for the entire length of the alignment. This is the preferred alternative for the MWAA board at the moment. Pros: least expensive option (thats all i can think of hahahah). Cons: obstructs historic view, longest walk time of any of the alternatives, not climate controlled (although there will be a canopy covering the platform).

I have a brief PowerPoint I put together with some great graphics if you would like me to email it to you I definitely can.

Hopefully that should clarify some topics.

by Dan S on Jan 26, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report