Not defending the Nats, I am a huge fan (former season ticket holder), but if the Nats make the playoffs won't that mean additional revenue for the City? Not sure what that amount would be, but there may be a positive ROI if the City were to pay to keep the Metro open longer. Approximately $29k/hour is what the Post has been quoting.

by ckstevenson on Aug 24, 2012 8:44 am • link • report

Nats want taxpayer bonanza for playoffs

Look, the Lerners didn't become rich by spending money. That's for "little people."

by Tyro on Aug 24, 2012 8:48 am • link • report

This Nationals thing is driving me nuts. Why the heck should DC pay? Sure, they will get some extra revenue from the extra games/concessions etc, but surely when the stadium was built on the taxpayer dime, the city was expecting some playoff games at least every now and then.

I see absolutely no reason to help them with any of these things. They should be paying for security, much like Adams Morgan does. It appears that in picking an owner/management group, we now have another Synder. What a joke.

by Kyle-w on Aug 24, 2012 8:51 am • link • report

@ckstevenson

Yes, it would be additional revenue for the city, but it's also way more additional revenue for the Nationals franchise. They city already built a new stadium for the team. The Verizon Center was built with private funds and the Caps have a standing agreement in place with Metro to stay open in the event of a late game. Why shouldn't the Nats be able to do the same?

by Adam L on Aug 24, 2012 8:53 am • link • report

There is probably no business benefit for anyone paying to keep the Metro open later. People do not keep buying much late into the game and into extra innings because they are watching the game. Afterwards they are likely just to go home since it's a weeknight.

That's why the team doesn't want to pay for it - they don't see the business benefit. They should still pay for it, for PR's sake. It's a drop in the bucket compared to each game's player salaries at $500k, and the fact that this would only be an issue probably 3 or 4 games a year, if that.

There is absolutely zero reason why the city should pay for it. The team saves money when they encourage people to take Metro - they don't have to build as much parking, they will be able to use that land for more valuable uses, and they don't have to deal with as much traffic hassle. If they want people to take advantage of Metro then they should pay to keep it open in the case that a game goes late.

by MLD on Aug 24, 2012 8:56 am • link • report

@midcounty
I live off Mid County and while part of me would love it to connect better to other roads in the county its not worth $260 million.

I would rather see that money put into the Watkins Mill Road I270 interchange which I think is needed.

by Matt R on Aug 24, 2012 9:13 am • link • report

There's little reason for the Nats not to ask DC to pay for extra security and extended hours for Metro.

by selxic on Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am • link • report

Glad to see Gray taking a strong stance on the streetcar barn. The arguments against it didn't have much logical value. For all of the negative aspects of Gray, I applaud him for not caving into the demands of a few residents trying to disrupt progress and improved transportation.

by Mike on Aug 24, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

Re: Nats & Metro late hours
I think the Nats should post the bond. But I'd have Metro introduce a special "extended operation" fare on the customers. The purpose of this fare is to cover most if not all of Metro's expenses. Nats would make good on any shortfall.

I know if I were a suburban baseball fan double or triple a Metro fare home is probably still cheaper than parking and certainly cheaper than cab fare.

by JeffB on Aug 24, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

Re: Extended Metro service during the playoffs.

I guess from the Nats point of view it doesn't hurt to ask, but DC should definitely tell them to sit on it and rotate. There's absolutely no reason why DC should pay for extra Metro service especially when precedent has been set with other sports team in the city.

Plus this should really only a concern if they end up playing the Yankees in the World Series, since that pretty much guarantees an exhausting 4 hour game.

by Fitz on Aug 24, 2012 9:44 am • link • report

From a business perspective, I totally understand why the Nats would ask the city to pay for keeping Metro open later - if you can get somebody else to foot the bill, why wouldn't you?

That said, as a DC taxpayer, I don't want the city taking on the expense, which essentially provides no benefit the city's not already enjoying. I know why the Nats are asking, and the city should turn them down, flat. If the team wants their customers to get home, they should be the ones paying for it, just like every other professional team in the region with late-running games.

by The AMT on Aug 24, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

If the city picked up this cost until just two years ago, why did they stop? And despite the incendiary language in this headline, how would the city's cost directly impact taxpayers? What type of general funds does DC (or other regional partners) have at their disposal to facilitate better service?

Playoff games tend to run longer than regular season games. They also might start later because of TV network commitments. On the other hand, you usually get a day game or two during division series. Any World Series games would be at night, barring some extraordinary circumstances.

Lastly, does DC have the ability to create a special tax district on property around the stadium and use the extra revenue from all the new development to fund things like extra payments to Metro?

by frax on Aug 24, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

Nats should totally be paying for this. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the ticket revenue and concessions the team will be making with each game. Even in the regular season, they should be paying for it - after all, the PR has been pushing fans to take the metro to the games. The least they can do is pony up the $29k to ensure folks can get home. Otherwise, you have a half empty stadium at games end. Is that what they want?

On the car barn, I hope the Chevy Chase turnaround is the future home of a Ward 3 car barn. That would mean a Connecticut Avenue line.

The alternative would be the WMATA facility in Friendship Heights. That would mean a Wisconsin Avenue line (and potentially a Military Road line cutting across town).

Either or all three would be fantastic in terms of long range plans.

by Andrew on Aug 24, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

"Lastly, does DC have the ability to create a special tax district on property around the stadium and use the extra revenue from all the new development to fund things like extra payments to Metro?"

There is a Riverfront Business Improvement District, which IIUC has funded the waterfront park, and is funding canal park. Im not sure why they would fund the metro payments, when the folks who live down there are the one group of people who will NOT be riding the metro after a game.

If any govts should pay for it, it should be the suburban ones, eh? Since most riders will be suburbanites.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 24, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

Funding park construction is a one-time expense. What about the continued revenues from commercial development that owes so much to the stadium? Does the tax district expire after the capital expenses are not needed?

by frax on Aug 24, 2012 10:18 am • link • report

I'd have Metro introduce a special "extended operation" fare on the customers. The purpose of this fare is to cover most if not all of Metro's expenses. Nats would make good on any shortfall.

Using the rush hour rates for any extra hours service should be a no brainer, regardless of the reason for the extra hours (Independence Day, baseball game, etc.). In fact it probably should be in effect for late night weekends too.

by movement on Aug 24, 2012 10:22 am • link • report

They also do park maintenance, park programming (concerts, films) general area clean up, etc. Their annual report is online if you want to check their finances. How much of the development is due to the ball park is a matter of debate (see another thread on this site).

I do not see why they should pay for the metro opening, which will carry mostly sububurbanites (and DC residents from other parts of DC) and which the Nats could easily pay for.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 24, 2012 10:23 am • link • report

In fact it probably should be in effect for late night weekends too.

Peak fares are in effect on weekends after midnight.

by Ron on Aug 24, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

@jeffB
That is how it works now, any money collected during the extended hours is subtracted from the 29,000 bond and returned to the entity that palced the bond. Increasing fares is bad becuase the nationals make it a point to tell everyone to buy their return fare before the game, so if you increased prices it woudl cause problems. Plus from metro's point of view they don't care as they are guaranteed the 29,000 an hur it costs them to operate the system.

The nationals should have no problem with this during the play offs becuase literally I doubt it would cost them any moeny. During the regular season lots of people leave early especially for games that run late, therefore very few are actually taking the metro during the extended hours. For a playoff games, I would imagine most would stay, and thus metro would make more than 29,000 and the Nats would get their entire deposit returned.

by nathaniel on Aug 24, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

You guys also should realize that it is not 100% extra profit for the Nats in the playoffs. They will incur all kinds of extra staff, broadcast, advertising and other operational expenses with the extended season. It is purely subjective and possibly wrong to just say "they can easily afford it".

Not to mention, isn't DC skimming something like 10% sales tax off of everything spent down there. Good windfall for the government, wonder what programs or problems that money gets designated to alleviate.

by WayZing on Aug 24, 2012 10:43 am • link • report

"You guys also should realize that it is not 100% extra profit for the Nats in the playoffs. They will incur all kinds of extra staff, broadcast, advertising and other operational expenses with the extended season. It is purely subjective and possibly wrong to just say "they can easily afford it".

They get ticket sales, concession sales, TV revenues - and getting into the playoffs should help their revenues in succeeding years. I doubt there are any team owners who dread the costs of making the playoffs.

"Not to mention, isn't DC skimming something like 10% sales tax off of everything spent down there."

as they do from EVERY business, as most states do.

" Good windfall for the government, wonder what programs or problems that money gets designated to alleviate."

Er, schools, streets, police, fire, social services? Not to mention the regular DC contribution to running metro.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 24, 2012 10:51 am • link • report

@frax: AWalker has it right. As someone who lives right by the stadium, I fail to see why I should be paying a tax to help metro stay open later when no one who lives in the neighborhood needs to use metro to get home after games. In what way does that make any sense?

I'm a huge fan, but this is somewhat ridiculous; Lerner needs to pony up and pay for this. If he can give Jayson Werth 127 million dollars, then he can throw metro a couple bones too.

by JES on Aug 24, 2012 10:54 am • link • report

" Good windfall for the government, wonder what programs or problems that money gets designated to alleviate."

Er, schools, streets, police, fire, social services? Not to mention the regular DC contribution to running metro.

But the point being, this will be unbudgeted money. The City could not have included projections of that in the budget. Just wondering what they will end up doing with that nice new gift from the Nats.

by WayZing on Aug 24, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

Glad to see Gray taking a strong stance on the streetcar barn. The arguments against it didn't have much logical value. For all of the negative aspects of Gray, I applaud him for not caving into the demands of a few residents trying to disrupt progress and improved transportation.
by Mike on Aug 24, 2012 9:27 am

Sorry to break this to you, Mike, but it's exactly the opposite.

If Gray were to agree that the car barn shouldn't go there, that would force DDOT to start working on alternatives (since DDOT reports to him). That would have the overall effect of moving the project forward. By saying that he supports locating the car barn next to Spingarn, he sets up a protracted showdown involving the Council, one or more ANCs, the Spingarn PTA, the Committee of 100, and God knows who else. Protests will be staged, lawsuits will be threatened and filed. No progress on the streetcar will be made.

The safest place for Gray to be, politically, is to be both for and against the streetcar simultaneously. He's for it when addressing the GGW/myopic little twit cohort and against it when addressing the Long Term Resident cohort. He's running a Yasser Arafat on the issue, basically.

by Dizzy on Aug 24, 2012 11:01 am • link • report

What about buses? WMATA trip planner says there are no buses after midnight on a Thursday to take me to Silver Spring. But during the daytime there are two buses, the 74 and 70, that will get me to Silver Spring. When I look at the schedules of the 74 and 70, they are running until 3 am. I do not understand why they do not show up on trip planner. Not saying it would be fast, but it is at least an option.

by Dan on Aug 24, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

It sounds like the Nationals wanted to see if the city would pay for the extra costs, rather than needing the city to pay. I think the city paid for the first two years of late night metro to help get the team off the ground, and now that they are successful they don't need outside help.

by DC Denizen on Aug 24, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

The team saves money when they encourage people to take Metro - they don't have to build as much parking, they will be able to use that land for more valuable uses

What parking has the team built? Where is this land the team owns?

by Marian Berry on Aug 24, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

@Dizzy
If Gray were to agree that the car barn shouldn't go there, that would force DDOT to start working on alternatives (since DDOT reports to him). That would have the overall effect of moving the project forward. By saying that he supports locating the car barn next to Spingarn, he sets up a protracted showdown involving the Council, one or more ANCs, the Spingarn PTA, the Committee of 100, and God knows who else. Protests will be staged, lawsuits will be threatened and filed. No progress on the streetcar will be made.

If you read the Mayor's letter, and have looked at the stuff DDOT has presented, DDOT already looked at the alternatives and found them seriously lacking compared to the Spingarn site.

@Dan
What about buses? WMATA trip planner says there are no buses after midnight on a Thursday to take me to Silver Spring. But during the daytime there are two buses, the 74 and 70, that will get me to Silver Spring. When I look at the schedules of the 74 and 70, they are running until 3 am. I do not understand why they do not show up on trip planner. Not saying it would be fast, but it is at least an option.

Not sure why it didn't show up on the trip planner for you, but I got this trip to show up for me. The problem is that there are probably some bus alternatives for some people, but each Metro train can carry far more (10X) people than a bus.

by MLD on Aug 24, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

"But the point being, this will be unbudgeted money. The City could not have included projections of that in the budget. Just wondering what they will end up doing with that nice new gift from the Nats."

In any given year there are ups and downs - businesses that do better and give more sales tax revenue, ones that do worse and give less, expenses that prove higher than expected, and ones that prove less. This can result in a given year ending up better or worse than budgeted - if they do better this, they can put that into rainy day funds, or they can fund unmet needs (of which I think there is no shortage) or they can cut taxes. I think its a bit unrealistic to think that the DC sales tax revenue associated with nats playoffs will be enought in insure an unexpected surolus

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 24, 2012 11:29 am • link • report

I don't really have an opinion on Midcounty Highway, but I was surprised by Councilmember Floreen saying it's "unrealistic" to think that people in the Upcounty would use transit. After all, Shady Grove is the most-used Red Line station in Montgomery County.

And this is purely anecdotal, but I was in Clarksburg and Germantown earlier this week and was blown away by how many people I saw out walking/biking/skateboarding (for transportation, not just recreation) and using Ride On buses. Maybe I was just surprised to see people not driving, but there are sections of both communities that are pretty amenable to transit - fairly dense, sidewalks, stuff you can walk to, so perhaps I shouldn't be.

We don't have to get "everyone" on the bus like Councilmember Floreen says, but there's probably more potential transit ridership in the Upcounty than she anticipates.

by dan reed! on Aug 24, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

Playoff games will run much later than the normal season Mon-Thurs night game, no question. The Nats should put up the $29.5K deposit for each home game on Sunday through Thursday nights. Since these will be sold out playoff games, they should get pretty good farebox recovery.

The broader question I have is why does the DC Metro have the earliest Sun-Thurs night closing times of all the major metro systems in the US?

Last train out Sunday through Thursday nights:
Navy Yard: 11:39 PM to Greenbelt but no Red Line connection; ~11:20 PM for connections to Red Line.

Which station in the system has the earliest last train which provides connections to all lines and other stations?

Looking at the last train times, the Metro could help connections from Navy Yard with an additional last Red Line departing Shady Grove and Glenmont 10-20 minutes later. Or better, add one additional train to each line, starting from the end station closer to 12 AM so the system schedule really does mean that the Metro is open until midnight. Not 11:20 PM at the Navy Yard for connections to Red Line stops.

Monday to Thursday night Metro service in other cities:
NYC: MTA, PATH - open 24/7 of course.
Chicago L: Blue, Red lines open all night; others to 12:45 AM or later.
Boston T: Last trains starts at end of line at 12:15 AM and later
SF BART: nominally open to 12 AM, but last train starts from end of each line after 12 AM
Philly: SEPTA - last train starts from end of line just after 12 AM for the 2 subway lines; then run buses post 12 AM to 5 AM; PATCO - open 24/7
Atlanta MARTA: open until 1 AM
LA Metro: heavy rail transit lines last runs starts just before 12 AM, also starts at 4:30 AM.

How much ridership does the Metro get after 10 PM on a normal weeknight over the course of the year? How much has the late evening ridership grown over the past 5-10 years? If the Metro wants to be regarded as a major city transit system, it really should allow people to get trains through midnight from all stations and get home.

by AlanF on Aug 24, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

@AlanF

It has to do mostly with the requirement that all the stations and lines be open. Most other services can shut down portions of the system. Unlike other systems that serve large urban populations that rely on (and use) transit much more during off-hours, non-peak ridership has always been much lower on Metro. That's evidence by the fact that the system being the country's second-busiest in terms of peak passenger volumes, but it's in the middle of the pack when it comes to passengers per route mile. That makes a system this large very expensive to run (and is part of the reason the Metro has comparatively high fares).

Anyway, the point is that there's a very easy solution to providing late-night service; the Nats can pay for it.

by Adam L on Aug 24, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

From the TBD Spingarm article: Gray said the alternatives would be too expensive—the Hop Scotch Bridge site would add $15 million to the estimated $50 million price tag for the facility—or aren't properly zoned for a car barn.

The problem with this is that the Spingarm site is also not zoned for a carbarn. Spingarm is zoned R-5-B -- "moderate development of general residential uses, including single-family dwellings, flats, and apartment buildings, to a maximum lot occupancy of 60%."

Putting up the car barn there will violate DC zoning.

by goldfish on Aug 24, 2012 12:29 pm • link • report

@MLD

If you read the Mayor's letter, and have looked at the stuff DDOT has presented, DDOT already looked at the alternatives and found them seriously lacking compared to the Spingarn site.

I know they've looked at alternatives, but if Gray said Spingarn was out, they would have to start pursuing them - and ultimately selecting one - for real, however lacking they are. The real goal here is to maintain the appearance of progress while actually achieving very minute and incremental progress. Somewhat similar to how the RNC uses abortion.

by Dizzy on Aug 24, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report

@Dizzy
Is your position that Gray is trying to drag this thing out as long as possible by going with the selected site and then letting the ANC/PTA/C100FC/etc battle it out in the courts?

Seems to me he could accomplish the same thing more easily by ordering endless reviews of "alternative" sites and then selecting each one, only to have the neighbors create an uproar and demand they "look at the alternatives" yet again.

Seems to me he's actually trying to move things along by allowing the experts (DDOT) to look at a series of sites ("alternatives" if you will), and select what is in their opinion the best site (Spingarn) for a whole host of reasons so that the barn can actually be built and the project can move forward.

There's no reason for Gray to decide that Spingarn is out: his experts picked a site they think works best, and Gray apparently feels the complainers' arguments are not valid enough to warrant him bringing the whole thing to a halt.

by MLD on Aug 24, 2012 1:13 pm • link • report

Is your position that Gray is trying to drag this thing out as long as possible by going with the selected site and then letting the ANC/PTA/C100FC/etc battle it out in the courts?

Correct.

Seems to me he could accomplish the same thing more easily by ordering endless reviews of "alternative" sites and then selecting each one, only to have the neighbors create an uproar and demand they "look at the alternatives" yet again.

That's kind of what this is. We've gone through one set of alternatives analysis, resulting in the Spingarn site being selected as the preferred site. He will back that until the opposition to it forces them to withdraw it. They will then go back and look at the alternatives again and select a new preferred site. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Seems to me he's actually trying to move things along by allowing the experts (DDOT) to look at a series of sites ("alternatives" if you will), and select what is in their opinion the best site (Spingarn) for a whole host of reasons so that the barn can actually be built and the project can move forward.

But the barn cannot actually be build and the project cannot actually move forward, because "the experts" selected a site that is not acceptable to a certain highly determined set of residents. This was predictable.

There's no reason for Gray to decide that Spingarn is out: his experts picked a site they think works best, and Gray apparently feels the complainers' arguments are not valid enough to warrant him bringing the whole thing to a halt.

Gray doesn't want to be seen as bringing the whole thing to a halt; he wants others to bring it to a halt for him. Playing both sides. Backing the Spingarn site now allows the issue to be dragged out further. They will eventually withdraw this proposal, but only after the conflict over it has run its course and run plenty of time off the clock. That is the goal, killing time, but specifically doing so in such a way that it doesn't seem like that is what Gray is doing.

by Dizzy on Aug 24, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report

Cool, so where else should they put it? Because all the other sites have major hurdles in comparison to the one that was selected.

And personally, I don't think the "dumping ground" complainers are going to be satisfied no matter where they put it.

by MLD on Aug 24, 2012 2:42 pm • link • report

I would be more than happy to have a car barn, as described, in my neighborhood, if it also meant having a streetcar to downtown.

Scrap the Ward 5 plan give build it in neighborhoods and corridors that want to connectivity.

by Andrew on Aug 24, 2012 3:46 pm • link • report

The Nats should pay, ESP. Now that ey have a decent record and. Any more fans attending.

No surprise about tech jobs. Subsidy or incentives might help at he beginning, but any kindofskiledemployment tends to go whe skilled people are and he DC area is enough to lift e District, even if it will always lag some suburbs.

by Rich on Aug 24, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

@Dizzy: interesting theory you have about this. But what makes you think Mr Gray has that much guile?

by goldfish on Aug 24, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

@AlanF: Metro Guarantees transfers between all lines on the last train of the night.

Unless you want to hold some Orange/Blue line trains at Metro Center and L'Enfant for close to an hour, you'll need to add at least one extra train on every line (and also pay to keep the corresponding stations open longer).

There are occasionally nights where it actually makes more sense to have one *fewer* Red Line train. If things are backed up, the Orange/Blue/Green trains are already waiting for the last Shady Grove train when the second-to-last one arrives.

I *really* wish I was less familiar with Metro's last-train-of-the-night procedures. It's never a pleasant experience to endure.

by andrew on Aug 24, 2012 4:38 pm • link • report

@Adam L, when I look around the DC region, I see a lot of residential development projects recently opened or going up around Metro stations. Writing as someone who lives in the suburbs, there has been a pronounced shift in new construction since 2007-2008 from the outer suburban edges to inside the Beltway and along Metro lines. That has to be changing the ridership distribution ratios of the Metro system for peak commuter hours versus off-peak on evening & weekends.

As more TOD projects open, ever more people will be taking Metro in the evening and weekends. Although, the weekend numbers are presumably being pulled down by the extensive service disruptions to catch up on track and station repairs. What would be interesting to find out what has been the ridership percentage growth for evening and weekends compared to the peak rush hours in recent years.

What strikes me is that when I look at the stats on the WMATA website, the weekday averages for the system and stations are available. But I don't see averages for Saturdays and Sundays even as basic stat numbers. When I look up the NYC MTA website, the Saturday & Sunday averages for system and station ridership are readily available. The NYC subway in 2011 averaged 5.28 million on weekdays and 3.03 million on Saturdays. DC Metro? No such info. What does the lack of Saturday and Sunday numbers for WMATA say about their mindset? The DC region is changing with all the TOD projects. It is going to be interesting to see how or when Metro adapts in the coming years.

Meanwhile, there is near term dispute of who will pay to keep the Metro open late for baseball playoffs. The Lerner's are not getting good PR in this dispute.

by AlanF on Aug 24, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report

So it turns out that the despite being given a free stadium, the owners of the Nats want more, more, and even more!

What a shock. But, when you open the piggy bank once, this is what happens. Remember, the Nats owners originally claimed that the stadium, which was open for business, wasn't officially "complete" and thus no rent should be paid. You actually think these people care at all about the city?

Of course, we all must remember that DC absolutely needed this to be a "world class city." So we had to go begging Major League Baseball, joining what are apparently our "peer cities," places like Indianapolis, Memphis, and Las Vegas to please just give us some scraps from the table.

So now the Nats want free after-hours Metro, more security on the city's dime, and best of all, more Nats-owned concessions outside of the stadium. So much for all that promised development along Half Street. Who needs actual viable businesses when you can have stadium concessions! Near SE is looking more and more like the area around Wrigley Field or Fenway Park every day...or not.

This entire episode has been sad to watch. The dewy-eyed politicians waxing poetic about the need for the "national pastime" (which hasn't been baseball in at least 20 years) in the nation's capital. George Will and Thomas Boswell rambling on about the Brooklyn Dodgers and the rites of Spring. The construction of a horribly bland stadium due to "value engineering." The shipping containers. And now this. A playoff run made hat in hand.

Next will be the inevitable failure to keep the big free agents. Sorry fans, there's simply no money. We don't have our own TV deal, and the seats just aren't filled in the dog days of Summer. Plus, can you really expect us to match the Yankees' offer without naming rights for the stadium? So if you really want to see Strasburg and Harper perhaps retire as Nationals one day, you might want to start writing your city council members to free up some more money for the Nats.

by dcdriver on Aug 24, 2012 5:05 pm • link • report

I think near SE is doing great, the containers are fine, and baseball is a great addition to the city.

I just think the Nats should pay to keep metro open.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 24, 2012 5:20 pm • link • report

@AlanF

It's true that more urban communities are sprouting up in the suburbs, as is the increasing amount of infill development in DC. The problem is that the Metro is mainly designed for commuting to and from work. As such, TOD is great but as someone who lives in DC I hardly ever use the Metro. It just doesn't take me most places I want to go; I certainly don't use it for my general errands. Instead I walk, bike, or take a bus. I suspect the same holds true for many people who live in these types of communities.

by Adam L on Aug 24, 2012 5:36 pm • link • report

Far from paying for baseball's extra hours - on top of the stadium overruns - DC should close Metro 2 hours *early* on baseball days. Let the baseball magnates pay for that time, too.

by Turnip on Aug 24, 2012 6:44 pm • link • report

Cool, so where else should they put it?

You mean where do *I* think they should put it? Spingarn seems as good a place as any to me.

Because all the other sites have major hurdles in comparison to the one that was selected.

And personally, I don't think the "dumping ground" complainers are going to be satisfied no matter where they put it.

That all the other sites have major hurdles makes you wonder why DDOT selected all these other sites with obvious major hurdles as alternatives... These hurdles and unappeasanble neighbors are, as they say, 'a feature, not a bug."

@Dizzy: interesting theory you have about this. But what makes you think Mr Gray has that much guile?

I don't think it requires that much guile; it's pretty transparent, really. One just has to be willing to not take everything the mayor does at face value.

Gray is, after all, not a complete political neophyte. He understands the art of the pander (see his crackdown on those 'dirty Asian shops' selling illegal rolling papers for evidence of this in its basest form). This fits in nicely with his general "be all things to all people" triangulation strategy.

by Dizzy on Aug 25, 2012 12:45 am • link • report

The 29K for keeping Metrorail open is probably at least matched by DC footing the security bill.

Both are outcomes of the sweetheart deals Verizon got for extended hours and more importantly DC not being reimbursed for security costs as other cities require.

by Tom Coumaris on Aug 25, 2012 3:10 am • link • report

The post-season night games will certainly end after Metro closes. They start at 8:30 on the East coast (I am required to briefly register my displeasure with this policy...I have a job, and games running until almost or after Midnight LOCAL time - for a short game w/no extra innings - are not cool...attention MLB, I'd be okay with a later/earlier start when the visitor is in a different time zone, but otherwise start the games at the regular time). Even a short game would run past 11, and by the time people got out of the stadium and into Metro, the trains would be all done. The Nats should certainly pay for it. I have a line on some post-season tickets, and I won't be going if they don't keep the Metro open late. Sorry, I'm happy to see the team doing well and October is the bestest time to watch baseball, but I'll be safely tucked into a couch, not stranded miles from home, if I'm even a little unsure that I'll be able to get home on Metro. FWIW, I would have no problem paying the peak fare for this service.

I also agree that truly running service until Midnight (and 3 on weekends) is sorely needed. It annoys me, and can be an unmitigated disaster for people unfamiliar with the system, that the last train is often far before "closing."

by Ms. D on Aug 25, 2012 1:47 pm • link • report

but there may be a positive ROI if the City were to pay to keep the Metro open longer.

Actually, DC would probably make MORE money by letting Metro close. The game will still sell out, but now people will be more likely to park. Since parking taxes are high, and the city makes revenue off of metered parking, that could be an additional windfall. Whereas paying for Metro just means people go home.

The real winners here are Nats fans. So add a $0.35 surcharge onto the cost of tickets and keep Metro open. Or don't and DC will just make money off of suburbanites who choose to park, while DC residetns can bike.

by David C on Aug 26, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report

What about the continued revenues from commercial development that owes so much to the stadium?

What commercial development would that be?

by David C on Aug 26, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report

That all the other sites have major hurdles makes you wonder why DDOT selected all these other sites with obvious major hurdles as alternatives.

Not really. They chose them, because they were the best alternatives. But they weren't as good as Spingarn. There isn't any other good option that they ignored.

by David C on Aug 26, 2012 4:08 pm • link • report

Nats want taxpayer bonanza for playoffs

I'm a bit late to the game [haha :-S], but this is an interesting matter.

1: It is absolutely ridiculous that a public transit system would ask private partners to pay for it to stay open.

2: That said, it is well established that this is how things work in DC, and as long as that is the case, the Nats should just pony up. Metro and the City should come out aggressively to the Nats and ask them why they think a bunch of millionaires should get another tax-paid subsidy.

by Jasper on Aug 27, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report

1: It is absolutely ridiculous that a public transit system would ask private partners to pay for it to stay open.

Why is this ridiculous? The Metro system has hours of operation. If you feel that your customers need the system open beyond those hours, then you should have to pay. Metro is not, has never been, and never will be a 24-hour per day system. That is a reality of running a business (in this case a sports team) in this city, as much as the lack of decent public transit is a reality for the owners of the KC Royals. No one forced the Lerners to buy the Nats and in fact, they were given more than enough freebies as part of the deal, including a FREE STADIUM! If they want to own a team in a city with a 24-7 subway, call Hank Steinbrenner and try to buy the Yankees, or buy the Mets from whomever owns them these days.

As has been pointed out, the city actually loses money when people take Metro to the games vs. driving, due to parking taxes and meter fees. So the only people who benefit from Metro being open late on game days are Nats fans who chose not to drive and the Nats who can then advertise Metro as a way to get to the game. It seems to me like both of those groups should be the ones paying for this extra service.

The Nats should pay the $30 grand to keep the system open and slap a $1 charge on every playoff ticket to more than cover it. There, problem solved.

by dcdriver on Aug 27, 2012 4:41 pm • link • report