Above ground station or below ground station at Dulles??

[CitizenJoe]

What would the Chinese do? Because increasingly, that's the thing we ought to do.

[HurricaneDC]

probably put a bunch of guns to some farmers' heads and tell 'em to build it

[jmusmc85]

Originally Posted by CitizenJoe

What would the Chinese do? Because increasingly, that's the thing we ought to do.

You want them to turn it into a Chinese take out joint?

[terrence81]

Originally Posted by jmusmc85

At first glance, I thought I would support a below ground station closer to the airport. But upon reading this article, I think an above ground station would actually work just fine too, and save some money. 600 ft is not that much further than what the below ground station would offer. Plus there will be those fun moving sidewalk things to help you along the way. The only thing I can add is that if they do decide on an above ground station, they should have some sort of building surrounding it, as opposed to having people wait on an exposed walkway.





GGW debates: Build Metro above or below ground at Dulles? - Greater Greater Washington

While I think below ground for entire line would be better, I'd say go for above ground if its sooooo cost prohibitive. I've used the metro to get to DCA in the winter and it was just fine. If the difference is only 600 feet I see no reason to halt progress. People will just have to get used to walking.

I seriously doubt the outside station would be completely exposed. All above ground metro stations have some type of covered area for waiting for a train.

Originally Posted by birdsing

Neither.... end the line at Reston

End it at Reston? Why?

I don't think it'd be the worst thing to extend it out to Leesburg but Ashburn is good too.

All major airports should have rail access. With so many other east coast ariports having some type of rail access its silly for Dulles to be so isolated. Its a pity that it took so long to get the silver line out there since the idea has apparently been on the books since the 1970's.

[14thandYou]

Sure, a below-ground station would be preferable to an above-ground one. And I hate the fact that we're so ready to consistently forgo long term benefits for perceived short term gain.

But if the question comes down to above-ground or no station at all, as it is increasingly looking to be the case, then the answer is a no-brainer: above-ground it is. The above-ground station won't be in the boonies, and it will connect immediately to an existing moving walkway that will shepherd people directly into the terminal. It's not ideal, but it's fine.

[terrence81]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Sure, a below-ground station would be preferable to an above-ground one. And I hate the fact that we're so ready to consistently forgo long term benefits for perceived short term gain.

But if the question comes down to above-ground or no station at all, as it is increasingly looking to be the case, then the answer is a no-brainer: above-ground it is. The above-ground station won't be in the boonies, and it will connect immediately to an existing moving walkway that will shepherd people directly into the terminal. It's not ideal, but it's fine.

Very well put.