Dulles Metro Station (Fairfax: neighborhood, living, shop)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Caladium

You guys don't want to walk, and that's the only issue IMO. All the other rationalizations sound bogus to me.

We build parks and trails and sidewalks for people who want to walk. Not airports.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by jcnycarch

By the way....It's not fair to say this is an underground vs. above ground debate. That's just a result of the main issue, how close can the station get to the terminal. The real question is, do you want the station to be close to the terminal or farther away?

No, the real question is whether a unnecessary luxury is worth spending over $300 million dollars (and probably twice that by the time its done). Many of the pro-tunnel people moved here from states that once had lavish spending habits. Those states are now raising taxes, driving away businesses and residents, and otherwise paying a steep price for throwing money around, but has a lesson been learned? Maybe not. I don't want to see VA eventually end up facing the same troubles. Fiscal restraint is something to be proud of.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Caladium

No, the real question is whether a unnecessary luxury is worth spending over $300 million dollars (and probably twice that by the time its done).

The Silver Line itself is an unnecessary luxury. We have already built a perfectly good access road for those going to Dulles and a toll road and Greenway for everybody else. Sheesh, some people are never satisfied.

Originally Posted by Caladium

Many of the pro-tunnel people moved here from states that once had lavish spending habits. Those states are now raising taxes, driving away businesses and residents, and otherwise paying a steep price for throwing money around, but has a lesson been learned? Maybe not. I don't want to see VA eventually end up facing the same troubles. Fiscal restraint is something to be proud of.

How many pro-tunnel people have moved here from states that once had lavish spending habits? 5? 50? 500? Is there a source for the claim? What are these lavish spending habits, anyway? Does it amount to providing through the public sector needed goods and services that the private sector either won't produce or can't except at higher cost?

According to a Reuters tally, 31 states have raised some sort of tax or other since the beginning of 2009. Neither businesses nor individuals have mobility functions that allow them to hop, skip, and jump around the country on the basis of changes in local tax laws. The steep price we are ALL paying for the credit crisis and resulting Great Recession has nothing whatsoever to do with state and local tax regimes.

Fiscal restraint is often just a nicer way of saying too cheap to pay the piper. It is also often just a cardboard cutout standing in a place where an actual argument ought to be. There is nothing at all laudable about fiscal restraint for the simple sake of fiscal restraint.

[Caladium]

Well, I think we've reached the point where we've discussed all the arguments. Since neither side has convinced the other, this is usually when it descends into bickering. That's not my thing, and I've had the opportunity to explain my POV, which is all I wanted. So, thanks for the conversation, but I'm moving on to a new topic.

As a final observation, I think this internet debate is a good mirror for where we are in the real world debate. In other words, it's time to stop debating and make a decision, for better or for worse. Both sides have had their chance to present their POV. People have made up their minds, and both sides think that the people who don't agree with them are fiscally foolish. When you reach that point, continuing a public debate won't lead to anything but name calling.

Therefore, it's time to move forward. We must accept the fact that you can't always please everyone. Whichever decision gets made, the time for debate has passed and we need to get going on this project, IMO.

[saganista]

The initial decision was made in 2005. The final decision was made in April 2011, Both were for an underground station. It is a relative handful who are trying to hold things up at this point.

Points of view should meanwhile be the product of good information and sound reasoning. Those that are posted in a public forum while lacking in one or the other of those are apt eventually to draw some question, opposition, and hopefully constructive criticism.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by diablo234

I would bet $10 that the Dulles station has more ridership than any station in Loudon County. Besides there are tons of employees at the airport who would use this service as well in addition to air travelers.

Also considering that most of the people in Loudon County commute into either Herndon, Reston, or Tysons Corner and not DC itself why should they get service?

Bottomline if you are too cheap to spend money on a decent transit system then you get a third rate transit system that does not meet anybody's needs.

I dont have the ridership projections handy, but I think lots of projected silver line riders are LoudoUn to DC. As for Loudoun to Tysons commuters, thats an important segment, as putting them on metro relieves congestion on the Toll Rd/Rte7 AND internal congestion in Tysons. There are also, IIUC, folks commuting from LoudoUn to North Arlington/Pentagon who are expected to use the Silver line.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by saganista

By the late 1980's, it had cost $160 million. How did that turn out? Ten years later, $450 million went into renovation and expansion of National Airport. Last year, the last of $1.5 billion was spent to complete the Dulles AeroTrain.

450 for renovating and expanding the entire airport.

Look at National. People come in, and say "what a great airport" Are there really folks who come to National, and say "Oh geez the metro station requires me to get on a moving sidewalk, I'm not going to come to DC as often"????

Cause that is the only benefit I see to justify a $300 million cost. (I won't comment on HOW the issue as was raised, as I am not close enough to the process)

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by saganista

The Silver Line itself is an unnecessary luxury. We have already built a perfectly good access road for those going to Dulles and a toll road and Greenway for everybody else. Sheesh, some people are never satisfied.
.

The silver line itself will transport a very large number of people between a variety of origin-destination pair - reducing the total cost (mostly in time) for those travelers, while also shifting people off some quite congested roadways, and hopefully reducing VMT total with resultant external benefits. And also creating additional locations for TOD. None of which is necessary, but seem to be a mix of fairly tangible benefits, with some less tangible.

The underground metro station seems to be a way of very slightly shortening the total trip for some travelers, while lengthening the trip (vs the aboveground option) for some airport employees. The clincher benefit seems to be entirely the psychic impact on the travelers using the metro (and the accompanying possibility that it will impact their likelihood of visiting again) and the possible impact on the look of the entire airport.

Its impossible for me to judge that last without pictures. I am very dubious that the postive impacts on the air/transit travelers of the underground alt, would offset BOTH the negative impacts on airport employees (whom it is claimed would be better served by the aboveground station) AND $300 million in cash. But, not having seen picture of both alts, Im not frozen in my judgement. Thats my impression from what ive read here though.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by saganista

We build parks and trails and sidewalks for people who want to walk. Not airports.

I don't think theres ever been a time ive flown that I didnt walk in the airport.

Actually at National I wouldnt have any walking from the metro to the terminal. Unless I REALLY wanted to, cause I could stand on the moving sidewalk.

I keep thinking the aboveground option is comparable to what National has. Am I misunderstanding something here?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

450 for renovating and expanding the entire airport.

The Metro station at DCA opened in 1977, and the first word out of everyone's mouth was "What idiot decided to build it so far from the terminal?" It was 20 years before that situation could be corrected, this by moving the main terminal itself so that it would be right next to the Metro station. But that wasn't the point. The point was that $160 million to restore Union Station seemed like a huge amount at the time, $450 million to realign Washington National seemed like a huge amount at the time, and $1.5 billion to build AeroTrain at Dulles seemed like a huge amount at the time. $300 million to put the Dulles Metro where it belongs the first time around may seem to some like a huge amount. It isn't.

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Look at National. People come in, and say "what a great airport" Are there really folks who come to National, and say "Oh geez the metro station requires me to get on a moving sidewalk, I'm not going to come to DC as often"???? Cause that is the only benefit I see to justify a $300 million cost. (I won't comment on HOW the issue as was raised, as I am not close enough to the process)

How often do we see that the first or second reason that people give for National today being a great airport is the ease of its connection with Metro? That ease cost $450 million. In the 1990's.