4th DC Area Airport

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Airport authorities issue bonds for capital improvements and collect passenger user fees to cover operational costs. TSA collects $5.60 per departure. Airports collect rent from retail operators. And get a piece of on-site parking and car rental. There are federal funds in the form of grants provided by FAA excise taxes because air travel is vital infrastructure and integral to the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dulles has domestic flights as well, and is woefully otherwise underutilized.

Where exactly would this 4th airport be located?

Manassas where the current regional airport is located.

The metro doesn't go to Manassas.

Doesn’t go to BWI either. What’s the point?

Both Amtrak and Marc go to BWI.

Ride metro to Union Station and Amtrak to BWI. Some who live in MD hve ridden metro to get to DCA and VA points to get to IAD but drive to BWI. Purple line will open up access for metro to eventually arrive at BWI without going to Union Station.

I prefer IAD to DCA for the actual flight- take off and landing. LA metropolitan area is huge in square miles and has 5 airports. LAX is almost 60 miles from Ontario. Rockville is 28 miles from IAD and 36 from BWI. A family would likely drive [self or uber] from Rockville.

Take offs and landings are the best from DCA. Love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dulles has domestic flights as well, and is woefully otherwise underutilized.

Where exactly would this 4th airport be located?

Manassas where the current regional airport is located.

The metro doesn't go to Manassas.

Doesn’t go to BWI either. What’s the point?

Yeah. BWI sucks. Such a PITA. We don’t need another inaccessible airport in BFE.

How is BWI inaccessible? Are you just talking about public transportation?

NP, to most of Virginia BWI is pretty inaccessible because the beltway is such a disaster. And our public transport is build with a hub and spokes, so you have to go to DC then transfer usually. BWI was somewhat doable when I lived in DC, but now that I'm in VA? No way.

If you’re in VA there’s no reason to go to BWI anyway.

The flights are a lot cheaper!

Because no one wants to make the long-a$$ drive up there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a 4th airport can be put in Frederick. That would probably require an expansion of that crossing from Loudoun.

The only rational for a Frederick airport would be if they don’t build another bridge. A more likely airport location would be either Bolling conversion to civilian use or something in the Dumfries/Fredericksburg area.

Bolling? Really? There’s no business case for competing airports on either side of the Potomac, even if severely restricted airspace over DC and Andrews wasn’t a consideration. There’s no viable northern, western or eastern approach. It would also conflict with the secondary 15/33 and 4/22 runways at DCA. This whole topic is absurd. DC isn’t LA or NY. Our airports aren’t at capacity.

Oh, and the Marine One flight operations are based at JBAB, as are Secret Service, WH Commincations, DIA HQ and naval support. The only “runway” is a 100x100 foot helipad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

We need a national rail service. It is the most sustainable way of traveling. Imagine how much worse the highways would be if there were no Amtrak on the east coast. Amtrak, like the Postal Service and the US Military, are government services. They don't need to turn a profit because we as taxpayers understand their societal cvalue, even if they lose money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

We need a national rail service. It is the most sustainable way of traveling. Imagine how much worse the highways would be if there were no Amtrak on the east coast. Amtrak, like the Postal Service and the US Military, are government services. They don't need to turn a profit because we as taxpayers understand their societal cvalue, even if they lose money.

The UK privatized their passenger rail service. SNCF breaks even and can even make a modest profit some years. The idea that *what we need* is plow more good money after bad at Amtrak in the form of subsidies is ridiculously naive and contrary to the European model that you so desperately crave.

BTW, loss of Amtrak service along the eastern corridor would only have a negligible impact on I-95 traffic because people that have decided to take the train already made the decision not to drive. As a result, the mode share would shift to either flights or the multitudes of bus options.

Your train fetish is childish and boring.

[Anonymous]

DeutscheBahn — which is government owned and operated —is profitable, as is the Amtrak NE Corridor, which has over 12,000,000 riders annually. Driving to Philadelphia or NY from DC (or even New Carrollton, BWI or Baltimore) with traffic, construction, tolls, fuel and parking is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

I know how airports and airlines operate. They don't pay for the airports. They don't pay for the security. And they don't be for the air traffic controllers.
And if they did, none of them would generate a profit and be in the same boat as Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

I know how airports and airlines operate. They don't pay for the airports. They don't pay for the security. And they don't be for the air traffic controllers.
And if they did, none of them would generate a profit and be in the same boat as Amtrak.

Airlines don’t directly pay for airports because the construction and operating costs are passed through to passengers, either directly through surcharges or indirectly through fees levied on airlines. You seem to not understand this.

As for security, airports (and therefore passengers) used to pay for that as well, but post-911 the Federal government decided that it needed to be standardized and professionalized and created the TSA. It is not a subsidy to airlines because there is no equivalent security requirements for Amtrak.

You don’t seem to know what you are talking about and are pulling at straws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dulles has domestic flights as well, and is woefully otherwise underutilized.

Where exactly would this 4th airport be located?

Perhaps OP’s backyard?

NIMBY!

[Anonymous]

Build it in Downtown DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dulles has domestic flights as well, and is woefully otherwise underutilized.

Where exactly would this 4th airport be located?

Perhaps OP’s backyard?

NIMBY!

Np who genuinely wants to understand these issues more. Why is Dulles underutilized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dulles has domestic flights as well, and is woefully otherwise underutilized.

Where exactly would this 4th airport be located?

Perhaps OP’s backyard?

NIMBY!

Np who genuinely wants to understand these issues more. Why is Dulles underutilized?

It is huge. Multiple long runways that are well separated. Plenty of space for good terminals.

It's not utilized to its potential because DCA exists and people prefer its location over IAD. Also car (or metro) to gate at DCA is so much faster than at IAD.