Bike lanes are great. And cycle tracks are greater. But you know what would be even more greatergreater than more new cycle tracks? Making the southbound lane of the 15th St cycle track less awful. As it is now, bikers have the option of using the wrong lane, or jackhammering their junk on cracked, wrinkled, and poorly laid asphalt.

Even more greatergreatergreater - replace all the bike lanes with bus stop tarmac.

by Ronald on Apr 5, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

The Beltway widening proposal is nuts...some sections should be widened, but not all of the Maryland segment needs it. In my experience (in part because I commute on it), the southeast segment...roughly Landover to Oxon Hill...flows fine as-is. The only time it's an issue is when there's a major crash.

by Froggie on Apr 5, 2012 9:47 am • link • report

WMATA's Metrorail car doors do not close fast... they should watch the doors on the T trains in Boston to see fast closing doors.

by Transport. on Apr 5, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

The disabilities problems identified are on on rail, and seem mostly to apply to personal mobility devices.

by Charlie on Apr 5, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

Yates, your blurb on the Loudoun county board story is incorrect.

"They then called the sheriff, and Deputy Dale Gardner came on down. Gardner testified that Littner instructed him to seize the camera and destroy the photos. Gardner told Littner he couldn’t do that, but he did agree to speak with Bradford. . . . The deputy asked Bradford if she would destroy the offending photo, and she politely declined. "

by IsoTopor on Apr 5, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

@Transport

The T being worse relative to Metro does not mean that Metro is good. Just that the T is worse. Also go Yankees.

by Ronald on Apr 5, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

Huh... Gaps between trains and the platform are an issue on many rail systems, with the very notable exception of Metro. The sidewalks outside of the stations often have bigger cracks.

What's their recommended course of action? Is it even possible to reduce the gap any further?

The anecdote about the Dupont elevator also makes the article suspicious. I've used that elevator pretty recently, and the quote from the station manager just defies belief.

I know that metro could do more to accommodate riders in wheelchairs, but let's not kid ourselves that they do a pretty good job compared to other transit agencies and businesses.

by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

@IsoTopor: I wrote that one, so it's my mistake. I've corrected it. Do you think it appropriately summarizes the situation now?

by David Alpert on Apr 5, 2012 10:13 am • link • report

If Baltimore really wants DC United to play there then why not invite them to use M&T Bank Stadium?

by Fitz on Apr 5, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

@Fitz

Because that doesn't solve United's issue. They don't want a new stadium just because RFK is old, they want a new stadium where they can a) specialize for soccer, and b) control revenues that support the team.

United would gain little by going to Baltimore just to play at M&T.

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

Study recommendation: "Don't use the elevators as restrooms" -- that is just asking too much, ergonomics consultants.

by CBGB on Apr 5, 2012 11:30 am • link • report

@Ronald

IMO 15th St should serve on how NOT to implement a cycle track. Sure half of the south bound lane is gutter pan and the remaining portion an endless cycle of frost heave torture that leaves you checking for loose fillings.

But my biggest grip is that you shouldn't ask cyclists to play games of chicken with each other in such a confined space. I've given up using for commuting.

Hopefully L St will be implemented with lessons learned.

by JeffB on Apr 5, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

@ JeffB

I agree. The 15th street lane is far too narrow for two way traffic. I was very pleased to see that the L street plan calls for a much wider one way lane.

What I would really like to see is grade separated infrastructure. Just put a curb instead of those bollards...

by Sam on Apr 5, 2012 11:55 am • link • report

"Making the southbound lane of the 15th St cycle track less awful. As it is now, bikers have the option of using the wrong lane, or jackhammering their junk on cracked, wrinkled, and poorly laid asphalt."

I'll second this - the southbound lane of the 15th Street cycletrack is practically unusable unless you have front and rear suspension on your bike. The bikeshare bikes do not and the ride is jarring all the way. Something happened when cars were parking along the currb there resulting in a washboard surface. Northbound lane is much better. I wish DDOT would repave those lanes, or even just the southbound lane!

by MrTinDC on Apr 5, 2012 11:57 am • link • report

I don't think the 15th St track is terrible for its width. It's a bit narrow, but is still pretty usable.

It could do with a repave though, and there still isn't a great path for cyclists to travel south from Columbia heights. 14th St is a bit hairy, and the 15th St lanes are one-way north of V St.

by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 12:29 pm • link • report

@Alex B.,

I understand what you're saying. I don't know if I agree that they would gain little by moving to Baltimore to play at M&T. They would gain a huge upgrade in terms of facilities with a field that works very well for a soccer pitch. They would also be sharing with a tenant who has a huge incentive to keep the stadium modern and upgrade when necessary.

It seems that the city of Baltimore would have an easier time helping arrange for a favorable lease for United than they would be in arranging for procuring land and subsequently financing a new soccer-specific stadium.

by Fitz on Apr 5, 2012 1:21 pm • link • report

They would gain a huge upgrade in terms of facilities with a field that works very well for a soccer pitch.

RFK's pitch isn't the problem.

They would also be sharing with a tenant who has a huge incentive to keep the stadium modern and upgrade when necessary.

Keeping things nice isn't the main problem, either - it's the ability to bring in revenue and to control that revenue. Unless the team were to get all the revenue from soccer events there (which is unlikely) then they gain little financially from doing so.

It seems that the city of Baltimore would have an easier time helping arrange for a favorable lease for United than they would be in arranging for procuring land and subsequently financing a new soccer-specific stadium.

Even the most favorable lease in M&T won't be as favorable as a new soccer specific stadium. So, sure, that would be easier for Baltimore but it offers very little value to United. Why would they want to move away from their existing fanbase for a half-baked deal?

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report

There is no chance and even less reason for DC United to move to M&T, except maybe for a year when and if a new stadium is being built in Westport.

As for the Maryland road transportation report -- one might argue about whether there are more significant spending priorities, but it's hard to argue with any of the proposals themselves. They are all needed...badly. Traffic on Maryland's highways is horrible. It is impairing economic activity throughout the state and it is really hurting the quality of life.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 6, 2012 10:41 am • link • report

Even the most favorable lease in M&T won't be as favorable as a new soccer specific stadium.

I guess I don't see why this is so. It seems like M&T has a huge competitive advantage over an unbuilt soccer-specific facility in the form of economies of scale. It's already fully built.

I don't see a reason to believe that total revenue won't be the same at M&T and at a soccer-specific stadium located next door. So yes, M&T will take a cut of that revenue. But at a soccer stadium, a cut of the revenue will have to pay for all the overhead of the stadium and soccer will have to cover almost all of the construction and upkeep. It seems that M&T should be able to charge them less than DC United would spend on their own place.

If not, that is a massive failure in the market. The only way that building a second stadium is cheaper than using an otherwise empty, extant stadium is because of some sort of distortion in the price or a failure of M&T to properly price access.

by David C on Apr 10, 2012 10:38 am • link • report

@David C.

It's all about control.

The only NFL stadiums that work financially for MLS teams are the ones where the MLS team is owned by the same group as the NFL team and stadium. Those would be Seattle and New England. Seattle has been able to produce a good atmosphere for games (and therefore earn more revenue) there despite the mismatch in stadium capacity, New England has not.

So, yes - there are economies of scale strictly in terms of facility upkeep, but that is irrelevant without some consideration of governance.

There's a reason why many NHL and NBA teams do not share their arenas - but when they do, they usually share ownership.

Some cases (like Chicago) where the teams (Bulls and Blackhawks) have separate ownership, the arena is a truly joint venture. That wouldn't likely be the case for a team like DC United in M&T, they would be a tenant and therefore the stadium would not be as financially beneficial to them. They would not be able to take advantage of that economy of scale in operations.

It seems that M&T should be able to charge them less than DC United would spend on their own place.

This could be true, but it's also irrelevant to the larger value proposition of a new stadium. A new stadium that DCU controls will increase the value of the franchise - which is why DCU would be willing to pay more for a stadium they control, as opposed to spending that same amount on a stadium they're just renting space in.

Plus, there's the atmosphere component. MLS crowds are, at best (in Seattle) half of an NFL stadium's capacity. A smaller stadium helps a) improve the atmosphere of games, which adds value to tickets, b) creates scarcity for said tickets, also adding value, and c) allows for a stadium infrastructure tailored to soccer. Football and soccer use similar but not the same field dimensions. Soccer fields are shorter and wider, the places where you find the 'best' seats in the house are different, etc.

by Alex B. on Apr 10, 2012 11:05 am • link • report