Friday, May 2, 2008

Metro to Dulles

Federal aid for the construction of a metro line to Dulles Airport has finally been approved, years after planning began. Sadly, once completed the metro ride from downtown won’t save much time compared to the existing options, which are generally considered poor. One look at the proposed line and the problem becomes clear: from Metro Center there would be 18 stops to the airport and the ride would take an hour or longer. Is this really the best connection to the airport that DC can devise?

Without a doubt, the proposed line, which will connect Tyson’s Corner to the region’s transit network, will promote substantial economic development along the corridor. However, in terms of moving people to the airport it will be less than optimal. Travelers benefit most from an express service – which the proposed line is certainly not. The plan could be revised to remove some of the planned stops, but that doesn’t appear likely or economically practical, since the extra stops may provide more societal value than an express service would.

The struggle here is the split purpose of the line: on one hand it is intended to support economic development along the corridor, on the other hand it is supposed to move travelers to the airport. The two goals are less than perfect companions.

A third option which got only cursory attention was increased utilization of the existing Dulles Expressway. An express bus service with dedicated rights of way out of downtown and onto the Expressway is one of the ideas that may make more sense purely in terms of the best route to the airport. Such a bus with dedicated rights of way would still require significant infrastructure investment, but considerably less than a metro extension all the way to the airport.

Suffice it to say that if multiple options had been equally and objectively considered in the decision of how to get people to Dulles a metro extension may have not topped the list. That being said, it is high time and economically essential that DC finally connects to Dulles via effective transit. Metro service to the airport may not be a perfect solution, but it will certainly be an improvement over the current choices.

-Daniel Lewis

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Take the billions it will cost, estimate the capital and operating costs as 10% of that cost per year, divide by the expected number of passengers, and you get $10-20 per rider COST.
Is it that important to have rapid transit? Then why not charge all cars on the Airport access road, I66, and US 50 for using the alternatives.
And why not start only with a rapid bus from W Falls Church to Tysons and then on the Access road to dulles. If ridership surpassess 100 000 per day a metro may be in order (Mexico City's Insurgentes BRT is close to 300 000/day for a cost of $140 million for 20 miles!)

In other words, why spend billions for the metro if the average driver pays to drive only a fraction of the real cost of building this alternative. And why spend billions if a much cheaper alternative is available that then could be converted to a more expensive alternative if the load justified.

Steve VB said...

Fair point. With airport access projects, however, there is a trade-off between express service and service that is part of a greater network. While the former can save time, the latter offers many more origination and destinations point, driving additional market share.

Having an IAD connection with part of Metro's existing rail network will be a great advantage especially as congestion continues to take its toll on the road networks.

Steve Van Beek

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I would prefer the billions to be spent on serving the swaths of DC in the urban core that don't have metro access. The long extensions of metro into Maryland and Virginia just seem to perpetuate sprawl. DC is doing great things with TOD; why not do more?

Anonymous said...

schipper: you've left one of the key things out of a benefit/cost analysis ... the benefits.

Don't you think your calculation--take the billions it will cost, plus the capital costs, plus the operating costs--kinda leaves something out?

Anonymous said...

Very interesting read. Not exactly the info I was Googling for. Thanks for sharing your experience.