One issue mentioned in the DCist article said that the above ground location might encourage development more than the below ground station would (at least according to Tom Davis). I hadn't seen that discussed here as a pro for the above ground option.

by Steven Yates on Apr 6, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

Not going to be popular with the "build it as cheaply as possible" crowd (the crowd that ensures we never get a third "express" track on Metro expansions), but I am glad they made this decision.

by Glenn on Apr 6, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report

Woo hoo! That's excellent news. It's a sign that Metro is aware of how important station location and design are to the riders' experience. From the moment they arrive at the airport, visitors to the capital region should be encouraged to see Metro as a safe, comfortable, and reliable option. An underground station should accomplish that; forcing passengers to deal with the vagaries of the weather and automobile traffic to reach a parking garage would not have.

by tom veil on Apr 6, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report

@ Steve,
Development? It's at the airport - where would development happen, on top of the parking garage?

by Glenn on Apr 6, 2011 3:10 pm • link • report

@ tom,

For the record, MWAA made this decision, not Metro.

by Glenn on Apr 6, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report

Score a win for GGW

by MW on Apr 6, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report

For a brief moment, sanity has prevailed.

The committee chair, Mame Reiley, said it best: The aboveground proposal would involve “yet a trek at another airport that right now has too many treks."

Amen.

by Reza on Apr 6, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report

@Glenn

Presumably offices, particularly those with an international focus. Being so close to a major airport I can't imagine it would make for a great mixed use development (because who wants to live that close to an airport). I don't necessarily think development would happen (I don't know either way), I just didn't hear it brought up before now.

by Steven Yates on Apr 6, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

Alpert's doppelganger

http://guestofaguest.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/willem-dafoe-pic.jpg

by TGEoA on Apr 6, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

@Glenn

As to the where, my guess is the garages would be torn down then berried or relocated.

by Steven Yates on Apr 6, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report

So here's a question: does Loudoun County threaten to remove themselves (and the Route 606 and 772 stations) from the project altogether if work moves ahead on the airport tunnel station due to cost reasons?

And does anyone get upset by this?

by Reza on Apr 6, 2011 3:20 pm • link • report

@ Steven,

Seems to me that you have the potential for more development with an Underground station, because now you can also build OVER the station itself (air rights). I can't see a reason that an above-ground station is more conducive to dev than underground - I think experience demonstrates otherwise, too. Compare Rhode Island Ave. to Ballston, for example. Can you even name an above-ground station that has generated development? I guess Silver Spring, but most above-ground stations are just surrounded by parking lots (Fairfax, Dunn-Lorring, etc.) and they simply divide the surrounding areas in two. For this reason I worry about development around the new Tyson's stops.

by Glenn on Apr 6, 2011 3:25 pm • link • report

Removing Loudoun county and their stations would be a win.

by charlie on Apr 6, 2011 3:25 pm • link • report

I'm not sure that there's room for much development that you could walk to on the airport grounds themselves. I believe they have a great deal of that space north of the terminal already accounted for with rental car facilities, air cargo, airport support operations, etc. Not sure I follow Tom Davis' reasoning on that one.

Development of that area would almost certainly be strictly airport-related, I would think - and it would depend a lot more on the development of a landside peoplemover system than anything else.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 3:26 pm • link • report

Great news! Surprised though to see that the underground option is not *under* the terminal.

by Jasper on Apr 6, 2011 3:31 pm • link • report

Sigh. This is good and all, but Tyson's really could have benefited from underground stations so much more.

by andrew on Apr 6, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report

The idea of stimulating non-airport development at the airport seems ridiculous, to me. That can't possibly be the best place to put office buildings. Is there anywhere in the world where this is done?

by David desJardins on Apr 6, 2011 3:43 pm • link • report

This will probably benefit IAD. The added costs should be paid by surcharging rail fares to Dulles. The beneficiaries should pay.

by tmtfairfax on Apr 6, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report

The Tom Davis quote is "Virginia Rep. Tom Davis pointed out that a station located farther away from the terminal might have helped to promote development around the proximity of the airfield."

"Proximity of the airfield" is pretty meaningless.

There is plenty of room for development around Autopilot and Airfield Drive, which would not have been far from the proposed outdoor station.

by charlie on Apr 6, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report

thiswas the right and more common since choice

by Jerome on Apr 6, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report

Great news! Surprised though to see that the underground option is not *under* the terminal.

Indeed. 550 feet instead of 1150 feet is only about a 50% improvement. Of course, digging under the (existing) terminal I imagine is prohibitively expensive.

Perhaps when it is rebuilt in 100 years they'll move the terminal back 400 feet so it is atop the metro station.

by ah on Apr 6, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report

I'm with Andrew, but I'll take what we can get on this one. To travelers coming in from the airport, a suburban station will be a suburban station to skip over whether it is above ground or below. There is also the fact that the AirTrain inside the terminal is underground, so why not the Metro rail that leads to the city? Once the riders are inside the train, they will be sheltered from the elements all the way into town.

Very good news. I'm glad MWAA paid attention to the long-term revenue argument. You can only build a station once. It is a shame that similar logic couldn't win the day for Tysons Corner.

by Omar on Apr 6, 2011 3:56 pm • link • report

I should add that I continue to remain aghast at the cost projections for the silver line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Silver Line is quickly approaching the most expensive aboveground rail line ever constructed on a per-mile basis.

Hell. It's approaching the cost of the Chunnel, which is 10 miles longer.

I'm not a member of the "build the cheapest thing possible" crowd, but it seems like we're getting an exceptionally poor value for our money here.

by andrew on Apr 6, 2011 4:20 pm • link • report

I am glad they decided this and think it is for the best, but having said that I have to say that if I was a Loudoun County resident, I would be far beyond apopletic at this point. Every single time MWAA comes out with a budget revision, the tolls on the toll road go up.

Why the residents of Leesburg to Reston are funding such an inordinate chunk of this project when they have no direct or indirect gains from it is beyond me. If you consciously decide to expand a "regional" raid system, the the costs also need to be spread "regionally"

by freely on Apr 6, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report

Development? The airport literally owns all of the land within walking distance of the proposed aboveground station. Was MWAA considering allowing commercial development on airport grounds?

by Tim on Apr 6, 2011 4:43 pm • link • report

I'm in agreement with andrew: this thing is ridiculously expensive. No wonder American cities are looking to light instead of heavy rail for future transit expansions.

I'm actually in the build-it-cheap camp, given the cost of the technically optimal choice. A quarter of a billion dollars or more? To build a single metro station? How many miles of streetcars can BeyondDC project we could do with that money?

by OctaviusIII on Apr 6, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report

Also - sorry to post twice - I've often wondered why there isn't development adjacent to airport terminals. Companies with a lot of travel could save quite a bit on time, and I'm sure the airport merchants would be thrilled to have a dedicated customer base to which they could sell their $10 cookies.

Anyone know better than me?

by OctaviusIII on Apr 6, 2011 4:48 pm • link • report

re Andrew,

As of 2011, the two largest construction projects currently in process in the United States are in the DC Metro area...silver line and dhs's headquarters at St. E's.

The Silver Line was always going to be a boondoggle because of the complete lack of project planning and child-like oversight.

by freely on Apr 6, 2011 4:49 pm • link • report

I've often wondered why there isn't development adjacent to airport terminals. Companies with a lot of travel could save quite a bit on time, and I'm sure the airport merchants would be thrilled to have a dedicated customer base to which they could sell their $10 cookies.

Some obvious reasons: Development requires a lot of space for parking and there's a premium on that at the airport. Strict height limits are necessary near the airport. There's already a lot of traffic to and from airports so putting other uses there increases congestion. Airports tend to expand over time and so they like to preserve their options for future expansion. Few companies have a large fraction of employees who travel extensively by air.

by David desJardins on Apr 6, 2011 4:53 pm • link • report

@freely: As of 2011, the two largest construction projects currently in process in the United States are in the DC Metro area...silver line and dhs's headquarters at St. E's.

This doesn't seem plausible to me. What about the Second Avenue subway? Or NYC water tunnel #3? I think you can only reach this conclusion if you arbitrarily break up other large projects into many subprojects.

by David desJardins on Apr 6, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report

@David desJardins,

Well, first of all the NYC Tunnel # 3 is only (odd way of putting such a massive cost) 6 billion dollars, its been underconstruction since the 1970's and isn't slated to be finished till 2020. Same spread out timeline for the second avenue subway.

St E's is a 4 billion dollar project, silver line 7 billion (so far).

I think WSJ makes the determination based on the break down of total cost spread over however many years it takes.

by freely on Apr 6, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report

I think WSJ makes the determination based on the break down of total cost spread over however many years it takes.

Hmm, highest rate of spending per day (or year) is an interesting statistic. Not necessarily a figure you want to be at the top of the charts on, I agree.

by David desJardins on Apr 6, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report

It strikes me that Dulles airport has led to a significant amount of development along the toll road of the sort that likely would have occurred elsewhere in the absence of proximity to the airport itself. Obviously some of it would have ended up there, but not all of it.

by ah on Apr 6, 2011 5:38 pm • link • report

@ ah:Of course, digging under the (existing) terminal I imagine is prohibitively expensive.

I was not for the Dutch government that in the last 10 years dug an extra two tracks under Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Now remind me, which is the capital of the richest country in the world: Amsterdam or Washington? Also, digging in the under-water-level swamp that is the Netherlands is a lot harder than in the nice and solid ground around Dulles.

All I'm saying is that the term "prohibitively expensive" is a very relative term, especially when used by politicians.

by Jasper on Apr 6, 2011 8:37 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Now remind me, which is the capital of the richest country in the world: Amsterdam or Washington?

Alex, What is Beijing?

by David desJardins on Apr 6, 2011 8:39 pm • link • report

@Jasper

Is the Schipol terminal a protected architectural landmark like Dulles is?

I would imagine Dulles' terminal architecture would making digging underneath it without disrupting the airport services rather expensive.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 9:08 pm • link • report

@Alex B: I would imagine Dulles' terminal architecture would making digging underneath it without disrupting the airport services rather expensive.

Didn't they just get finished digging a train station under th terminal?

by David desJardins on Apr 6, 2011 9:11 pm • link • report

@David

The AeroTrain station isn't directly under the Saarinen building.

This aerial photo from Bing Maps shows the AeroTrain station under construction:
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=38.95206003846262~-77.4486093937026&lvl=18&dir=0&sty=h&FORM=LMLTCC

You can see the individual tracks curling to the south to access the various gates.

The Metro station would be in basically the same spot, mirrored to the north side of the Saarinen building. So, no, it's not directly under the terminal because doing so would be very expensive and would add nothing to the overall benefit.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 9:25 pm • link • report

@andrew: Sigh. This is good and all, but Tyson's really could have benefited from underground stations so much more.

Building underground stations at Tysons would not only be astronomically more expensive than the already proposed Dulles station, but would also prolong the completion for Phase 1 of the Silver Line for at least a year. The benefits supersede the costs in this case.

by Jason L. on Apr 6, 2011 9:27 pm • link • report

I could never understand how they could consider doing anything other than situating it at the airport terminal. Now, underground (as they're planning) or over ground (like we have at Washington National Airport) I don't think it would have made a difference. (though over ground is slightly nicer as it allows for a view of the beautiful terminal as you are approaching ... AND would be cheaper I'd think!)

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 9:50 pm • link • report

I see this as both good news and bad news. Good news that the station will be closer to the main terminal. Bad news is the gateway station that first time visitors will see will be a striped down cheapened version of the original station in subway design that WMATA is famous for.

I only hope when the architects apply pencil to paper WMAA decides to go with a coffered arch vault design instead of a 600' long version of the underground portion of the Fort Totten station that WMAA has shown as the design they want to use.

by Sand Box John on Apr 6, 2011 9:51 pm • link • report

I still struggle to understand how these costs can be so high. It would seem to me you could raze and rebuild the entirety of the roads in front of the terminal for $300 million. . .and add a station, too.
I suspect the problem is that the engineers are constrained to build without changing anything else. More creative approaches, like redesign of some of the roads, etc., would probably reduce the costs.

Give some grad students this challenge, and I bet they come back with some creative solutions that cost no more than 1/2 the projections.

by Steve O on Apr 6, 2011 10:37 pm • link • report

@Steve O:

I too have wondered how the underground station could cost that much (and more generally, I'm baffled by the $7 billion cost of the Silver line as a while). Maybe you're right that redesigns of the area around the terminal could decrease the cost, but keep in mind the airport needs to continue to function during the construction. Any work on the loading/unloading area, I suspect, would be extremely disruptive (and probably expensive to work around).

I'm not sure how I feel about this decision (assuming it sticks). I have a hard time believing that extra 600 feet would have had much of an impact on usage. The alternative (assuming you can't get a ride) to taking metro would be parking in one of the daily lots just as far away or, even worse, the economy lot.

So, $300 million for 600 feet doesn't seem like a great deal. I'd much rather see that $300 million go toward light rail or street cars, but in practice that's not really an option. There might be better uses for $300 million, but I'm not convinced the money would be used any better.

by Andy R on Apr 6, 2011 11:39 pm • link • report

This is great news! Will actually consider using Dulles airport instead of only DCA. Would bee nice if more of silver line stations could be underground, this would probably save on weather issues and maintenance. A third rail really should be installed though, or at least a good amount of pocket tracks for train/car issues.

by Anon on Apr 7, 2011 12:07 am • link • report

@David desJardins
there is a recent example of an office building right next to the terminal and on top of a rail station: the "Squaire" (stupid name) at Frankfurt airport.
Because of the height limit they built horizontally, 2100 ft long, nine stories.

http://www.thesquaire.com/images/MicroZoom_en.png
http://www.thesquaire.com/en/

by Arid on Apr 7, 2011 1:58 am • link • report

BTW. To see how near planes and office building are:
http://www.thesquaire.com/en/the_squaire/location/

Highly-mobile businesses such as auditing, consulting, etc. would profit most from relocating to an airport. Not sure how applicable this is for Dulles, where the space would come from. But one can always rip out those parking lots.

by Arid on Apr 7, 2011 2:12 am • link • report

Ditto - "This is great news! Will actually consider using Dulles airport instead of only DCA."

by John @ RIA on Apr 7, 2011 8:40 am • link • report

The plan to build mass transit from DC to IAD was on the books since Chantilly Airport (that was to be the original name) was still just a dream. And, since most of the money involved here is federal money, I'm not terribly concerned about what the folks in Loudon County feel.

This is a wonderful development, especially for those of us in DC. I'll be able to take Metro to Dulles without having to worry about what the weather will be when I get back from my trip. No worries about standing outside in bitter cold or intense heat - tired after a long trip - waiting for a train.

Having the Metro station underground and adjacent to the terminal will increase usage exponentially in bad weather. It will cut vehicle traffic on I-66 and the Dulles Access Road. And since the plan for half a century has been to build a mass transit link to Dulles, it's reassuring that they're going to do it right.

by Mike S. on Apr 7, 2011 9:01 am • link • report

@Mike S.

I would note, however, that with the above-ground plan, you would be able to walk from the terminal to the Metro station without ever exposing yourself to a raindrop - just like you currently can at DCA.

by Alex B. on Apr 7, 2011 9:11 am • link • report

I think the higher costs associated with the underground station mostly stem from the long tunnel that will need to be built. It is literally about half the length of the one that would have run through Tysons Corner (approx 1.8 miles vs. 3.6 miles)...at least according to their most recently available design updates for the underground alternative:

http://www.dullesmetro.com/phase_2_updates/index.cfm

I think Virginia leaders are again being shortsighted and ignoring long term maintenance savings and increased ridership for short term pain, but thats how our society is now. Our roads are crumbling everywhere you go now, so things are just going to keep getting worse in our transportation department. Glad the rest of the developed world isn't following our leadership.

by xtr657 on Apr 7, 2011 9:50 am • link • report

Note on costs: not to be snarky, but I hear a lot of complaining about costs--mostly relying on the "common sense" approach of saying "Wow! That's a lot of money!"--but no analysis.

Just to put things in perspective, the latest Nimitz class aircraft carrier the "Ford" is projected to cost $9 million dollars ($14 million if you include R&D). Of course, no one blinks an eye at that expense. The main difference between that and something like Boston's Big Dig is that you actually get a return on your investment with infrastructure, whereas an aircraft carrier group is a very effective way to haemorrhage money.

Big infrastructure projects are expensive. That's why our society--mired in myopic "common sense" thinking--does as little as possible.

If the US made regular investments in infrastructure like most other developed nations, we might get better at it, and costs might go down. Of course, in Teabagger land, anything that doesn't either explode or subsidize the wealthy is a boondoggle.

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 9:54 am • link • report

Sub "billion" for "million" above, dammit.

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

"And, since most of the money involved here is federal money, I'm not terribly concerned about what the folks in Loudon County feel.""

Actually, no. Phase I has federal money. Phase II funding is still in the air. I don't see much federal money on the table, which means this is coming out of the hides of DTR commuters.

by charlie on Apr 7, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

Oboe complains that those concerned with cost don't provide any analysis. He then proceeds to argue based solely on bare assertions and vulgar and ugly name calling. It isn't analysis merely to proclaim that the Big Dig gives a return on investment and our national defense does not. Are those who want to spend other people's money at a rate of $1.5 million per yard exempt from having to provide analysis?

by Nat Greene on Apr 7, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

He then proceeds to argue based solely on bare assertions and vulgar and ugly name calling.

"Ugly name calling"? Man, I never knew calling society "myopic" would set off a round of pearl-clutching!

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

"Are those who want to spend other people's money at a rate of $1.5 million per yard exempt from having to provide analysis"

Oboe's well taken point, is that, yes, if that project is inside of DoD.

Let's be honest though. We could only build about 20 airport to city railroads this year for what we spend in Afghanistan -- based on the price of the Silver Line. Clearly, that isn't enough.

by charlie on Apr 7, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

In terms of the costs of other really big projects in the US, the Silver Line is still less than the current estimate for the East Side Access project in NYC and Queens which is reportedly up to $8 or $8.5 billion according to the FTA. Building a whole new station under Grand Central with multiple tracks and platforms, tunnels to the East river under Manhattan, and tunnels in Queens is not going to be inexpensive.

Would be interesting to see a break down of the costs for the Silver Line project. It is getting pretty expensive for a 23 mile Metro extension, most of which is running in the median strip of a highway - with admittedly 2 expensive diversions through Tysons and Dulles Airport. The cost increases are likely a mix of necessary design and engineering changes but increases in the projected cost of materials - concrete, steel, fuel - in the 2013-2106 time frame are likely a major factor in the cost escalations. But if they can build Phase 2 without incurring a huge debt load (yes we are looking at you, Big Dig), how much it cost will be forgotten in a few years after it opens. But hopefully someone is auditing the MWAA books and overseeing the engineering to make sure that the costs are justified.

by AlanF on Apr 7, 2011 11:12 am • link • report

@Nat

...money at a rate of $1.5 million per yard...

One more thing: isn't this is just hyperbole? I wonder what we're spending per gallon of water displaced by the aircraft carrier?

:)

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

Did anyone ever take in to account that there may already be tunnels already dug?

by patron on Apr 7, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

A better comparison would be how much it costs us to build projects like this in the US compared to other developed countries with similar standards of living, e.g., Germany, Netherlands, etc. My impression is that it's around a factor of 2 more. If that's right, it's certainly a big factor in why we have less infrastructure.

by David desJardins on Apr 7, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

If that's right, it's certainly a big factor in why we have less infrastructure.

Right, but it's the chicken/egg problem.

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

@oboe -- For $14b you get a ship that will intimidate blustering dictators of resource-rich countries. This lowers the price of oil and other commodities, the withholding of which could be used as blackmail. How much would oil cost if Gaddafi set the price, say $300/bbl? Using the current price of ca. $110/bbl the carrier saves the US $2.2B/year. By this reasoning the payback time is a little more than 6 years. (I do not agree with this, BTW.)

How does that compare to infrastructure investment?

by goldfish on Apr 7, 2011 11:41 am • link • report

@oboe: Right, but it's the chicken/egg problem.

If you mean to assert that the reason our infrastructure projects cost more is that we do less of them, I personally doubt that has anything much to do with it.

Our health care also costs twice as much as the rest of the world and it's not because we do less of that. I think the common factors include lack of price controls and accountability. Other factors include things like prevailing wage laws, that we inflict on ourselves. Germany is heavily unionized, it's not *just* that large infrastructure projects here are unionized, but I think the interaction with the unions and their effects are quite different. But I would be glad to see a serious study of the subject and what details account for the difference in cost.

by David desJardins on Apr 7, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

@ David desJardins:Alex, What is Beijing? +1

@ Alex B:Is the Schipol terminal a protected architectural landmark like Dulles is?

Not that I am aware. But it is prettier, having an outpost of the Rijksmuseum and a library.

I would imagine Dulles' terminal architecture would making digging underneath it without disrupting the airport services rather expensive.

It is possible. And Schiphol is a larger airport than Dulles.

@ David desJardins: Didn't they just get finished digging a train station under th terminal?

Look, it's even possible under Dulles! Didn't they build the underground space for a metro station decades ago?

@ Alex B:So, no, it's not directly under the terminal because doing so would be very expensive and would add nothing to the overall benefit.

Compared to what? More expensive than a government shutdown? More expensive than an ice cream? Saying something is really expensive means nothing. Cost are relative.

@ oboe, Nat Greene: "Ugly name calling"? Man, I never knew calling society "myopic" would set off a round of pearl-clutching!

If calling someone "myopic" is name calling, than it is the most eloquent name calling I have heard in a long time.

by Jasper on Apr 7, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

@goldfish:

It's nice that we're willing to foot 90% of the bill for security for the rest of the western (and eastern for that matter) world--while they're building out their infrastructure.

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

@Jasper

Compared to what? More expensive than a government shutdown? More expensive than an ice cream? Saying something is really expensive means nothing. Cost are relative.

Compared to an underground station that's adjacent to the terminal, as opposed to being directly beneath it.

by Alex B. on Apr 7, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

In terms of the other "tunnel" at Dulles, you can see the problems at MWAA.

If I recall, that tunnel was over a billion dollar for about a half mile.

$500K per yard?

by charlie on Apr 7, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

@oboe, you did not answer the question.

by goldfish on Apr 7, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

"This lowers the price of oil and other commodities, the withholding of which could be used as blackmail. How much would oil cost if Gaddafi set the price, say $300/bbl?"

Hmm. Let me check -- yes, that's right. We invade one OPEC country, take it over, are bombing another, and, well, that's right -- oil costs 10x what it did before that idiot Bush was elected. So carriers for cheap oil isn't working out quite as planned....

by charlie on Apr 7, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

Oboe, your aircraft carrier displacement example indicates that you haven't the foggiest idea what "hyperbole" means. The cost of an aircraft carrier per gallon of water it displaces is irrelevant, not hyperbole. The $1.5 million cost of each yard of walking an underground station saves travelers is extremely relevant to this issue, and it certainly isn't hyperbole. In fact, it probably understates the cost, given that these projects almost always come in well over budget.

And I know "pearl-clutching" is the trendy insult among the internet snark set (usually used by anonymous commenters to question a conservative's manhood), but it's lame.

by Nat Greene on Apr 7, 2011 12:43 pm • link • report

I am reprinting part of a comment I wrote last August when this issue was first published here on GGW. I think it is still relevant:
--------
Design and architecture send signals. The signal being sent by this design (SO - referring to the previous decision to build it away from the terminal) will be--for the decades it is in existence--that Metro is the second-class mode people ought to use to travel to the airport. On the other hand, imagine that the station for the Silver Line were actually MORE convenient than being dropped at the curb. Imagine that! A station located and designed so that every airport user says, "Wow! Look how convenient and cool that is." As it is with this new proposal (again, referring to the distant station), it will be essentially completely out of sight, and many people probably won't even know it exists. Then what signal is being sent? That, in my opinion, is the much bigger value.

by Steve O on Apr 7, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

The estimated budget for above-ground option is $582 million. What if that's built and it's underutilized? That's an enormous sum wasted. Worse yet, what if it devolves into a White Elephant held up to ridicule as an example of poor planning?

Scenario: year 2040; mother and young boy arrive at Dulles from Midwestern city

Mother: "Now were going to ride the train to DC."

Boy: "Cool! Where's it at?"

Mother (pointing): "The station's over there. It's a bit of a walk."

Boy: "Why they'd build it so far away?"

Mother: "Dunno. Kinda stupid if you think about it."

Boy: "Yeah, it's dumb."

by Anon on Apr 7, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report

If the US made regular investments in infrastructure like most other developed nations, we might get better at it, and costs might go down. Of course, in Teabagger land, anything that doesn't either explode or subsidize the wealthy is a boondoggle.

I agree 100%. In any case, while I'm all for National Defense, keep in mind that if we don't keep up our infrastructure, soon, there won't be much left worth defending.

by LuvDusty on Apr 7, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report

@goldfish,

@oboe, you did not answer the question.

Sorry, I thought the implication was clear: Between, on the one hand, the US who is bankrupting itself on endlessly superfluous weapons systems and countless foreign engagements, and on the other hand, countries that are engaging in heavy infrastructure development while riding on our coattails--we'll see who took the wiser course.

What I do know is that the world's policeman doesn't get a pension.

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 4:13 pm • link • report

@charlie

Hmm. Let me check -- yes, that's right. We invade one OPEC country, take it over, are bombing another, and, well, that's right -- oil costs 10x what it did before that idiot Bush was elected. So carriers for cheap oil isn't working out quite as planned...

Yes, but in typical Lie-beral fashion, what you refuse to acknowledge is that--had we not set the middle-east afire--oil would cost $1000 / bbl!*

* Reason #1832 why George W Bush is the third-best president in our nation's history.

** Okay, no more gratuitous, off-topic political stuff.

*** See what I just did? I always know how to get the last word in.

by oboe on Apr 7, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report

@oboe: no, the question was, what is the return on investment for infrastructure, and in particular, on this project? You raised this question with your comparison to defense outlays. Where is the analysis?

by goldfish on Apr 7, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report

@ Anon: Scenario: year 2040; mother and young boy arrive at Dulles from Midwestern city

Mother: "Now were going to ride the train to DC."

Boy: "Cool! Where's it at?"

Mother (pointing): "The station's over there. It's a bit of a walk."

Boy: "Why they'd build it so far away?"

Mother: "Because long before you were born, people were worried about America's future, and pretending that they did not want to build the station with your future tax money."

Boy: "That's weird, aren't we paying for our trip now? And didn't the economic troubles that I learned about in school end long ago?"

Mother: "Yes. Kinda short-sighted if you think about it."

Boy: "Yeah, it's dumb."

by Jasper on Apr 8, 2011 9:51 am • link • report

Where is the analysis?

I didn't say *I* was going to do the analysis.

My point was that big infrastructure projects are expensive. They just are. But when you put a price tag on one of these projects, folks come crawling out of the woodwork to say, "This big infrastructure project is expensive!"

But that's not controversial in the least. The question is, compared to what?

DdJ had it right when he said, let's compare the costs with "other developed countries with similar standards of living, e.g., Germany, Netherlands, etc." I don't know if it's a factor or 2, nor do I know how much the regulatory environment in the US impacts this stuff, etc, etc... Either way, it's not an excuse *not* to do them. It's more expensive to build roads in Manhattan, NYC than it is in Goodland, KS, but the value of those roads in Manhattan is also greater, right?

I think DdJ had it wrong (big surprise) when he dismissed my theory "If you mean to assert that the reason our infrastructure projects cost more is that we do less of them, I personally doubt that has anything much to do with it."

It's a bit of an oversimplification to say we just need more practice, but frankly, I wouldn't dismiss the value of institutional knowledge out of hand. Why not get an all German crew in and implement one of these big infrastructure projects? Oh, right. Because the nativists would lose their fracking minds... :)

But my argument was against this kind of knee-jerk, "common sense" approach to evaluating this stuff: that we abandon doing this stuff, or we do it in as shitty a cost-cutting manner as possible because "It cost $xM per yard!!!" It's the sort of thinking that's crippled the US for decades now: need a new church building? Throw up a Quanset Hut! God doesn't care! Is your town erecting a new courthouse? Don't even think about putting columns on it! You'll be run out of town on a rail!

Our built environment has become so degraded in an effort to chisel every last sent in savings that a lot of communities don't have any place left about which one could give a shit.

Anyway, I agree with DdJ that "I would be glad to see a serious study of the subject and what details account for the difference in cost."

If @goldfish will fund it, and David will oversee it, I promise I'll read the final product... :)

by oboe on Apr 8, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

Worth noting that nearly all of this will be enclosed with a moving walkway, making the accessibility argument basically moot. Less than a quarter mile, worth over a quarter billion...hmmm

by Aaron on Apr 8, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

The tysons stations are important, but the Dulles station is the crown jewel of the silver line extension. Why build it 600 ft away by the parking garage instead of at the terminal? It's a no-brainer. The terminal is a more logical location for departures and arrivals alike. The should build the underground station like those in downtown so the extension has some similarity to the rest of the system. Some of those tysons stations are going to stick out like a sore thumb from the looks of them on the "dulles cooridor metrorail project website."

by Spartan on Apr 11, 2011 3:25 am • link • report

That's supposed to be *they* in line 4.

by spartan on Apr 11, 2011 3:28 am • link • report

To be honest, I really don't care about the placement of the station. What I'm really concerned about is the 1 hr+ it's going to take to schlep out there without any express tracks from DC.

Has MWAA made any discussions about building a third track?

by John M on Apr 11, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report

Why not have the express train travel straight down the rt 267 median instead of turning off at tysons corner? It would bypass the four stations there. Also I would remind you that the distance between the Whiele Ave and Tysons West stations is quite far, so there's a good possibility of getting the trains up to high speed there to make up for lost time.

A third track sounds like a good plan to me, but I don't think there is currently enough median space.

by Spartan on Apr 11, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report