Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Yup. OP, that was a bad decision made years and years ago. A station actually at the terminal would have cost another $330 million, and evidently that was too much to pay for a station that was actually convenient for travelers.

Hah. No. The airport metro is for staff and commuters to use. Actual travelers are not taking a 70 minute train ride from DC with luggage.

The original problem was where Dulles was built.

That's absurd. Of course actual travelers will do that. Maybe not you, but there are plenty of people who aren't you.

I definitely plan to - especially for long international flights.

Walking to the metro from my DC house and then getting on a flight to Paris or Hong Kong after sitting on a train (for just $3!) is going to be so sweet.

Reagan is nice but international flights need a bigger airport.

This is going to change how I see Dulles for regular flights. DCA is my first choice; BWI my second. But as soon as the metro opens up to Dulles, it will be my second choice. I can take the silver line all the way out there without changing. Beats the "metro to MARC/Amtrak to a bus" slog to BWI.

About the 70-minute time: at some times of day, driving in via 66 would be slower.

Ill totally use it for travel and think the distance to the terminal is no big deal assuming that the walkway is covered, well-maintained (smooth) and wide enough. Walking distances within most airport terminals are also considerable anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Yup. OP, that was a bad decision made years and years ago. A station actually at the terminal would have cost another $330 million, and evidently that was too much to pay for a station that was actually convenient for travelers.

Hah. No. The airport metro is for staff and commuters to use. Actual travelers are not taking a 70 minute train ride from DC with luggage.

The original problem was where Dulles was built.

That's absurd. Of course actual travelers will do that. Maybe not you, but there are plenty of people who aren't you.

I definitely plan to - especially for long international flights.

Walking to the metro from my DC house and then getting on a flight to Paris or Hong Kong after sitting on a train (for just $3!) is going to be so sweet.

Reagan is nice but international flights need a bigger airport.

Anonymous wrote:And this is why Americans are so fat.

+1000

I was thinking the opposite the last time I was at Dulles, that the station is impressively close.

OP, you're rolling your luggage, no? What's the issue?

I've .75 miles from the metro, and roll my luggage to the station. And from the station, at National Airport. It's not a big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Yup. OP, that was a bad decision made years and years ago. A station actually at the terminal would have cost another $330 million, and evidently that was too much to pay for a station that was actually convenient for travelers.

Hah. No. The airport metro is for staff and commuters to use. Actual travelers are not taking a 70 minute train ride from DC with luggage.

The original problem was where Dulles was built.

That's absurd. Of course actual travelers will do that. Maybe not you, but there are plenty of people who aren't you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Yup. OP, that was a bad decision made years and years ago. A station actually at the terminal would have cost another $330 million, and evidently that was too much to pay for a station that was actually convenient for travelers.

Hah. No. The airport metro is for staff and commuters to use. Actual travelers are not taking a 70 minute train ride from DC with luggage.

The original problem was where Dulles was built.

I would totally take the metro from DC. It's a big enough price savings that it's worth it if you don't have much luggage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Yup. OP, that was a bad decision made years and years ago. A station actually at the terminal would have cost another $330 million, and evidently that was too much to pay for a station that was actually convenient for travelers.

Hah. No. The airport metro is for staff and commuters to use. Actual travelers are not taking a 70 minute train ride from DC with luggage.

The original problem was where Dulles was built.

And this is why Americans are so fat.

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Yup. OP, that was a bad decision made years and years ago. A station actually at the terminal would have cost another $330 million, and evidently that was too much to pay for a station that was actually convenient for travelers.

Because Americans are too cheap to build functioning infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:It would have cost hundred of millions of dollars to move the station closer, and would have endangered the whole project, which barely got approved.

It doesn’t seem that bad to me. It’s about 1000 feet, I assume will have moving walkways, so maybe a 5-10 minute walk from baggage claim?

Yes, the existing tunnel it connects into has moving walkways.

It would have cost hundred of millions of dollars to move the station closer, and would have endangered the whole project, which barely got approved.

It doesn’t seem that bad to me. It’s about 1000 feet, I assume will have moving walkways, so maybe a 5-10 minute walk from baggage claim?

It’s going to connect to the pedestrian walkway between the terminal and partaking garage one (which is why that tunnel was closed for so long, they were reconfiguring it for metro access). They couldn’t put it any closer without putting it underground, and putting it underground would have been prohibitively expensive).

So I've been away for many years and just flew into Dulles on a business trip back to DC for the first time in nearly a decade. I saw the new construction for the Metro station, but was utterly shocked to see the location.

Why the heck is it so far from the terminal? That's an absolutely ridiculous hike with luggage. I'm shocked it's not on top of the hourly parking or even directly linked into the terminal. Was there any controversy when they build this?

Just makes no sense.