VETERANS AND

TRANSIT

Last month, when writing about ridership on Norfolk's Tide light rail being twice the projected number, I suggested it might have something to do with the large military population there.

While most light rail systems across the country are successful, the Tide service is the biggest success so far (assuming planners didn't lowball the projections, which is unlikely, since low numbers don't win federal money). So the large number of men and women who have served in Germany and Japan, for example, might be one explanation for the above-average performance.

The reason I think this hypothesis is valid is that these servicemembers have experienced the convenience of the more advanced transit systems found in European and Asian cities. So when they return here, while our systems (with the possible exceptions of cities like New York and Chicago) seem quaint by comparison, they are more likely to give them a chance.

Further proof of my theory was found in yesterday's Core Values column by WTOP commentator Chris Core. He printed a letter from retired Air Force Col. Chris Krisinger, who had high praise for Munich's frankly incredible transit system. Noting the seamless mobility offered by Munich's S-Bahn (think the Purple Line or MTA Light Rail) and U-Bahn (subway), he underscored the need for convenient rail service to Dulles Airport.

Alas, the sensible and world-class layout described by Col. Krisinger ("the 's-bahn' train arrives at the airport in an underground station that brings passengers right up in between the two main terminals") has already been rejected for the Dulles Metro station.

In fact, the so-called airport station was never under the Dulles terminal, and that made the cheaper compromise station the right choice. Had the argument been over an actual underground station at Dulles, I would have written letters to editors and promoted that option here. Nothing would tell visitors that America leads the world more evocatively than rising into the airport itself upon an escalator from the train platform.

Ironically, Core's original column was boosting a Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority board member's idea of a smaller, Aero Train line that would restore the original vision by taking Dulles passengers from an even more affordable station further away directly into the terminal.

Given the fiscal and practical realities of the moment, that idea is a good one, but it seems to have been discarded by the board.

The truth is that Metro to Dulles is all about the Benjamins for wealthy developers. The stations have no parking, which means a massive portion of potential ridership will be lost from the get-go. The Tysons mall station... ...is not in the mall. That says third world, not world class. And the afterthought treatment given to the station theoretically the raison d'etre for the whole Metro line? These three facts speak for themselves.

So we won't have a world-class Dulles Metro system (but the skyline view of already-impressive Tysons Corner from the elevated trestle will be fantastic at night).

But Col. Krisinger's letter does offer proof of my theory - our military population, such as those commuting to BRAC sites like Walter Reed, Fort Belvoir and the Mark Center, are more likely to use transit than the average American worker.

The question is, can our politicians "grow up" and deliver the world's best transit and highway systems for the world's best men and women in uniform?