In terms of the bus, they do mention in the article the value of system like nextbus.

I find in Europe underground system are meant for the poor, bus for for the middle class. Probably the area served, but having a sense of light and more frequent stops really helps.

Biggest problem on the bus: homeless people who transfer every hour in the summer to enjoy the AC.

by charlie on Mar 5, 2012 9:14 am • link • report

I am seriously confused about all the Skins nay-saying. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

I heard Evans on Kojo Friday (doesn't look like David did after reading the Post piece) and thought that he, Kojo, and Tom Sherwood made several good points. Mainly:

1) Mixed use development and a stadium or practice facility are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you want the two together.

2) There is no District $$$ or tax breaks available for this deal. Yes, the Skins would get a valuable piece of land, but there is nothing else from the District available. David either ignored this fact for his own argument or is really out of the loop.

3) RFK, by federal law, cannot be anything but a stadium. It cannot be shops, apartments, or anything else.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by DC4Life on Mar 5, 2012 9:15 am • link • report

Oy, I've been saying it for years: in the end the CCT will just become a local bus route with fancy livery.

by Bossi on Mar 5, 2012 9:20 am • link • report

Gehry's design for the Ike memorial is beyond awful and not even worth salvaging. It's not just the tapestries but there's a statue of Ike...as a 10 year old boy in Kansas. WTF!

Memorials should be for celebrating a historical figure's greatness, not the artist who designed it.

by Fitz on Mar 5, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by DC4Life on Mar 5, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

@DC4Life

Getting 33 acres of DC land is a gigantic District subsidy. At market rate that would go for millions of dollars. And we're not talking about the RFK site, we're talking about the Reservation 13 site. This has been painfully and painstakingly turned over from the Feds to DC for development.

The problem with the training facility is that it would displace the mixed use development already planned for the site. As I live about 3 football fields from the site in question, I don't want to have to walk five more blocks out of my way to go AROUND a closed practice facility to get to a mixed use development that has shrunk from 60 acres to 25.

Football displaces development, not spurs it.

by Tim Krepp on Mar 5, 2012 9:45 am • link • report

Sure, reliability, speed, and aesthetics matter, but the reason why most people who drive themselves avoid buses is other bus riders. I ride a couple of express commuter bus routes regularly and the demographics are completely different from typical city buses - it looks a lot like the Orange Line - and they don't seem to have any problem running at capacity (lack of space at the park-and-ride facility seems to be what caps ridership). If you want drivers to choose buses, you have to do more than improve service. Arguably this runs counter to the concept of public transit, but if you really want to change people's hearts and minds about bus service, you really have to change bus riders.

by reformed bus avoider on Mar 5, 2012 9:47 am • link • report

@DC4Life

1) Mixed use development and a stadium or practice facility are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you want the two together.

If we were talking about a practice facility on the old RFK parking lots, then this would be true. But we're not - we're talking about a finite amount of DC controlled land. You can put development on it, or you can put a practice facility. They are indeed mutually exclusive when you're talking about the same piece of land.

2) There is no District $$$ or tax breaks available for this deal. Yes, the Skins would get a valuable piece of land, but there is nothing else from the District available. David either ignored this fact for his own argument or is really out of the loop.

But there is the opportunity cost. 30 acres of dense, mixed use development will yield more tax revenue than a practice facility. No question.

3) RFK, by federal law, cannot be anything but a stadium. It cannot be shops, apartments, or anything else.

Sounds like a perfect reason (if they really do want it and think it's a good idea) for DC to pursue this practice facility on the RFK grounds instead of Reservation 13 then, doesn't it?

The reality is that there's a reason why the Redskins moved their practices to Ashburn in the first place. That hasn't changed.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

if you really want to change people's hearts and minds about bus service, you really have to change bus riders.

Why is the bus riders who need to change? Why not the people who are intolerant of them for no apparent, rational reason? The only reason you cited was bus rider "demographics". Not sure if you're referring to race or socioeconomic status but either way, if anything needs to change, it's the intolerance.

by Falls Church on Mar 5, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

These debates about Reservation 13 usage would be a lot more constructive if they stuck to debating Reservation 13 usage.

The Eisenhower Memorial is a mess. I hate that it is becoming more common for people to refer to it as the Gehry Eisenhower Memorial .

by selxic on Mar 5, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

DC4Life:

1: Not all mixed uses are made equal. A practice field for an NFL team takes up a huge amount of land while creating very, very little economic activity. There are much better options: theaters, public accessible sporting complexes, supermarkets, you name it. Giving 33 acres over to the Redskins for no other purpose than to tempt them to build a stadium here is a gigantic waste of an opportunity and valuable land.
2: Giving free land is hugely wasteful! It's not just the foregone money we could get selling it, it's all the inevitable tax abatements that Evans will throw at the Redskins just so he doesn't have to drive so far to use season tickets his constituency fund paid for. It's not just about what the city would spend to bring this project, it's the opportunity costs of pursuing such a terrible use of the land.
3. Now you're mixing up RFK and Reservation 13. Getting a practice field doesn't mean we're garaunteed a new stadium, nor does getting a stadium require that we get the practice fields first. The only argument I can see is that if we can prove to Snyder that we'll do anything no matter how self defeating and stupid, we'll be easy marks to squeeze whatever he can from us for a new stadium. Doesn't make us look so good.

And finally, I'd rather just turn the land back to the Feds before we spend so much as a dime for a new stadium. I suspect the Feds would just turn around and sell the property to the highest bidder (DC could make sure the property was properly zoned to ensure a mixed use project). And before that, I suspect the Feds would negotiate a new lease. Either way, anything's better than prostrating ourselves to Snyder and throwing away much better opportunities for the gauze of sentimentality.

by TM on Mar 5, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

Sounds like a perfect reason (if they really do want it and think it's a good idea) for DC to pursue this practice facility on the RFK grounds instead of Reservation 13 then, doesn't it?

As a lifelong Redskins fan, I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. No one is saying we don't want a Redskins practice facility. We're just saying don't put one on a piece of land that could have a much more productive use. The RFK grounds or the decommissioned PEPCO plant would be great alternatives. Let's use our time and energy coming up with a plan that works for everyone and makes economic sense.

by Falls Church on Mar 5, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

Why is the bus riders who need to change? Why not the people who are intolerant of them for no apparent, rational reason? The only reason you cited was bus rider "demographics". Not sure if you're referring to race or socioeconomic status but either way, if anything needs to change, it's the intolerance.

My point is that you can't change people's intolerance, and I'm not sure it's entirely irrational to prefer the comfort of one's own car to sitting next to smelly homeless people who talk to themselves. If you want to increase ridership by those who avoid buses due to other passengers, your only true choices are to change the passengers or to give up.

by reformed bus avoider on Mar 5, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

@TM

And finally, I'd rather just turn the land back to the Feds before we spend so much as a dime for a new stadium. I suspect the Feds would just turn around and sell the property to the highest bidder (DC could make sure the property was properly zoned to ensure a mixed use project). And before that, I suspect the Feds would negotiate a new lease. Either way, anything's better than prostrating ourselves to Snyder and throwing away much better opportunities for the gauze of sentimentality.

You mean the Res 13 land, or the RFK land?

If you're talking RFK, the Feds would likely rather erect a bunch of monuments with dubious value to the local community rather than, you know, build more city.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2012 10:09 am • link • report

@ reformed bus avoider; I can think of two choices.

1. fares: raise fares and you'll get rid of certain demographics

2. connections: where you are going is important

But as I said, the homless people taking the bus all day (if you change buses within a two hour window you can ride on one fare) really drive a lot of people away.

by charlie on Mar 5, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

If you want to increase ridership by those who avoid buses due to other passengers,

Personally, I'd much rather sit next to a smelly homeless person than someone who is intolerant (possibly of my race). Just like I'd rather pay more for gas than buy oil from Iran. If that means that buses will never work for the intolerant people, so be it. We can survive without them.

by Falls Church on Mar 5, 2012 10:13 am • link • report

@Alex B.

I was talking about RFK. I see GSA getting properties off its hands all over the District. I don't see why RFK would be different. Maybe they'd build an agency building there instead, but that wouldn't be a bad outcome, as long as it weren't a fortress-style building.

by TM on Mar 5, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

Rail captures a lot of lower income people whom you don't find on express buses, while express buses AND rail both capture higher income people. I think thats pretty easily explained mostly without recourse to snobbery, bigotry, etc, etc.

People use transit mostly to save time and money. Express buses and metro rail, esp at congested hours, save time (or at least dont dont lose time) vs auto. And the money they save is not just gas, but if they are going to a dense employment area, parking (and the hassle of parking). Hence they are often chosen by people who have car access for the trip.

Local buses (not BRT) sit in the same traffic as autos. Hence no line haul time savings - but stops add time, so they are usually slower than cars - and if the bus doesnt offer a perfect door to door route, often a much longer trip. So the only savings are money, which has to offset lost time - and so are less appealing to those which choice. If they are going to (suburban) places where parking is free, the savings are even less.

The answer, as Salon says, is to add BRT features that save time. For other routes, which really do exist to offer accessibility to the captive market, just accept that thats what they do.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

@TM: The feds wouldn't want to deal with the costly cleanup of the RFK site anymore than a private developer would.

by selxic on Mar 5, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

The bus routes that go through areas with choice riders are not the ones with smelly homeless people. I take the 16th Street buses constantly and rarely do I see a smelly homeless person.

Potential choice riders don't take bus transit either because they are unfamiliar with it (confusing bus routes), it doesn't go where they are going, or it doesn't save them time or money (time savings includes inconvenience due to headways).

Getting rid of homeless people isn't going to magically make people start riding the bus in most places.

by MLD on Mar 5, 2012 10:48 am • link • report

@Falls Church
Personally, I'd much rather sit next to a smelly homeless person than someone who is intolerant (possibly of my race).

I was going to let this go last time, but first let me be clear that when I mentioned demographics I was talking of effect, not cause, and certainly apparent socio-economic status, not race.

@AWalkerInTheCity
The driving factor is often not cost and lost time. When I mention that I ride the bus to work, I am often met with a sneer or a sentiment of pity. I have spent lots of time trying to talk someone who lives in northern Old Town into taking a bus to work near the Smithsonian Metro Station rather than walking a long way to the metro, taking a yellow line to L'Enfant Plaza, and then walking to work. The bus would save at least 15 minutes, involves less walking, and is more convenient. The friend has a deep-seated aversion to riding a MetroBus. Eventually I may prevail with this one, but there's a lot more that goes into bus avoidance than just convenience.

@charlie
Yes, fare increases would certainly help get rid of homeless people, but it also harms others who would rely on buses to get from their homes to their jobs. Changing routing to do more to directly connect higher-income neighborhoods to higher-income job centers would also help, but would have a similar negative effect on lower income riders. This already exists to some extent in the form of express service from farther suburbs to metro stations, but it would be hard to implement in the close-in suburbs or certainly within the city in any kind of equitable way. Increased police presence on buses might help passengers feel safer, but would almost certainly not be cost effective. I really can't think of a solution that can be generalized to the region.

@MLD
Potential choice riders don't take bus transit either because they are unfamiliar with it (confusing bus routes), it doesn't go where they are going, or it doesn't save them time or money (time savings includes inconvenience due to headways).

I will agree with you on confusing routes, indirect routes, and headways during peak commute times - and I would add availability of late commute options. Many of the bus routes that might work for these potential riders stop running around 6PM. Many of the people I work with regularly get stuck at work substantially past 6, and would be stuck with a much longer, less convenient route at that hour. While ridership may be low on the late buses, the availability of late buses as an option would make bus ridership a much more attractive option for these potential riders.

by reformed bus avoider on Mar 5, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

Progressives in DC need to think differently and not oppose something prior to a real dialogue and conversation. It is a detriment to the party.

by DC4Life on Mar 5, 2012 11:09 am • link • report

selxic, why would removing the RFK parking lots be more costly than clearing Reservation 13?

by David C on Mar 5, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

Getting 33 acres of DC land is a gigantic District subsidy.

Oh, sure, I guess if you call giving away 33 acres of prime waterfront real estate in the heart of the nation's capital "a subsidy" then anything's a subsidy.

by oboe on Mar 5, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

@reformed

lots of Fairfaxians ride the express buses (via the HOV)to the pentagon, I am aware of no sneering.

I am curious what buses run from north old town to the vicinitiy of the smithsonian, with no metro rail transfer? They would be stuck in the auto traffic on rte 1 or gw parkway, and within DC, no? I suspect the walk to the metro is probably a reasonable alt, esp if someone likes walking.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

When 2.3m people lived in Manhattan, Jacob Riis was photographing the slums of the Lower East Side.

by Phil on Mar 5, 2012 11:21 am • link • report

It's funny, if Gray suggested building a monster truck track on Reservation 13, he'd be laughed out of office. Since it's "TEH REDSKINS!!1!1" we're required to take the suggestion seriously. This is the public policy equivalent of the child who inherits $10k from an aunt, and decides to spend every penny on bubble gum.

It's interesting to see that in some ways, we are still a city of 5 year olds.

by oboe on Mar 5, 2012 11:25 am • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity

11Y - it is a route that suffers from a very short schedule, but with MetroRail as the fallback it isn't quite as bad as some of the other short schedule options I'm thinking of (including some of the I-395 routes). Yes, lots of people ride the Pentagon Express Bus routes or one of the FFX connector routes that take the Dulles Access Rd and/or I-66, but it doesn't change the sneering/pity I get from (some, not all) others when I tell them I do that.

by reformed bus avoider on Mar 5, 2012 11:27 am • link • report

@ reformed Checking the schedule, at its very peak, thats only a bus every thirteen minutes - so less frequent than the Yellow Line at peak. And it goes via GWparkway to 14th street bridge, to 14th street, so subject to unpredictable congestion delays. I'd probably pick the walk to the Yellow line over that myself, especially since the walk then becomes part of my daily exercise.

Im not saying there is no sneering. But I suspect that particular case is driven as much by the frequency (and congestion avoidance) benefits of metrorail, as it is by bus avoidance.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

@Falls Church: "No one is saying we don't want a Redskins practice facility."

Ok, I'll give you one. I'm saying I don't want a professional football practice facility anywhere in the District's borders. Keep 'em in Ashburn and PGCounty.

by Shipsa01 on Mar 5, 2012 11:39 am • link • report

DC4Life,

What do you think is required for a "real dialogue". Dialogue has been happening over and over again and I fail to see any pro-practice facility argument that says more than "it's good for the city" without actually qualifying or quantifying what that means. While within these comments there are already plenty of arguments that do both.

by Canaan on Mar 5, 2012 11:45 am • link • report

I'm not sure we're talking about the same issues, David C, but RFK is a toxic wasteland and that is one of the primary reasons it hasn't been looked at for serious development and a land transfer. Whoever develops there will have to do a lot of soil studies and take care of even more expensive clean-up. The Reservation 13 site already has infrastructure.

by selxic on Mar 5, 2012 11:48 am • link • report

selxic, a toxic wasteland? according to whom?

by David C on Mar 5, 2012 11:56 am • link • report

@David C.
Dallas fans, probably.

by Matt Johnson on Mar 5, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

And if the RFK site requires clean up the Feds don't want to do, that's all the more reason they'd simply sell the land. The cost of remediation and demolition of RFK will simply result in the bid price being a lot lower than it would be for clean and clear waterfront land. Look at the West Heating Plant process in Georgetown. GSA is selling it off, and developers are crawling over eachother to get the property, despite the fact it likely has environmental hazards (although GSA denies this) and the building will require hugely expensive renovations to convert it to condos or a hotel.

The bottom line is that I don't trust Gray and Evans to get the best deal for this land because they view the mere presence of the Redskins as a valuable asset worth throwing money and opportunity costs at.

Frankly I'd much rather have a simple auction than to negotiate with Snyder when our primary representatives are so wrong on this issue.

by TM on Mar 5, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report

@TM

GSA won't sell it off because GSA doesn't own it - NPS does. And NPS isn't selling off much land.

The environmental issues with the RFK site include things like asbestos and lead paint in the stadium itself, plus the fact that the parking lots are all filled-in marsh, and the fill has various soil contamination issues.

Res 13 is not fill, it has always been solid land.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report

Memorials should be for celebrating a historical figure's greatness, not the artist who designed it.

The only reason you hire Frank Gehry to do a design is because you want something that says WE GOT FRANK GEHRY TO MAKE SOMETHING FOR US! Lots of cities want to feel "important" by having a Frank Gehry work there. I suspect more people care about this than care about Eisenhower. "A Memorial Made By Frank Gehry" will be a bigger draw to the District than a memorial to Eisenhower. Doesn't make it right.

by JustMe on Mar 5, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

One thing that is rarely mentioned in the current Redskins debate is that there is some potential for the practice facility to draw significant crowds during training camp.

The Redskins used to have training camp at Dickinson College in PA. Then they singed a long-term deal with Frostburg State University, which Snyder did not renew, opting instead to hold training camp at the practice facility in Ashburn where he could keep all of the money from attendance, parking, and concessions (although they didn't charge for admission or parking this season). Several other NFL teams have since followed suit, although the majority still hold "off-site" camps.

If this deal for the practice complex gets done, DC must insist that training camp be held at the complex and must figure out a way to share in some of the parking revenue (at least).

Its not 75,000 fans x 8 home games per year, plus exhibition games like you get from a stadium, but it could be 20,000 x 12 practices, which could bring some money to DC and some local businesses.

Its still a bad deal, but if it happens, DC should try and get something out of it, other than pride.

by dcdriver on Mar 5, 2012 5:50 pm • link • report

Are the environmental issues with RFK's parking lots documented anywhere? How much are we talking about to work with this? Obviously there will be disposal issues with the stadium, but that is a very small part of the footprint.

by David C on Mar 5, 2012 6:02 pm • link • report

@David C.

http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/RFKStadiumStudy.pdf

The soil located on the RFK site has shown traces of various contaminants,
including lead, chromium, and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons as well
as materials such as ash, cinders, glass, and metal debris.

Again, the parking lots were never originally land, that was all tidal marsh. The land was filled in when the stadium was built. Thus, it was filled with a lot of construction debris from an era that wasn't as discerning with its waste.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2012 6:26 pm • link • report

"Its not 75,000 fans x 8 home games per year, plus exhibition games like you get from a stadium, but it could be 20,000 x 12 practices, which could bring some money to DC and some local businesses.

Its still a bad deal, but if it happens, DC should try and get something out of it, other than pride."
--------------------------------------------------------------

I bet DC United would be thrilled to be offered the same slice of land. They'd have 20 home matches a year (or more), probably averaging over 20k. Plus, their stadium would get used for college tournaments, USA national team matches and exhibitions involving other nations. Women's soccer would be a possibility, too -- and the fans would love to hit local bars if development follows the stadium. THAT'S A LOT MORE THAN JUST PRIDE. Then, they can tear down RFK and build the 'Skins an actual stadium instead.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Mar 5, 2012 7:05 pm • link • report

Traces don't sound very scary or costly to me. The process that made the RFK lots sounds identical to what made East Potomac Park and the west end of the Mall. Not exactly toxic wastelands.

by David C on Mar 5, 2012 7:32 pm • link • report

Scary? No. Costly? Maybe.

I think the bigger concern is disturbing that fill via construction. You'd have to mitigate that, and that would cost money. Point is, it isn't as simple as ripping up asphalt and laying sod.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2012 8:43 pm • link • report

I don't know. I read the NCPC study and it doesn't sound like it would cost any more to develop that area than Reservation 13.

by David C on Mar 5, 2012 9:09 pm • link • report