After our chat with Marcel Acosta, I sent him the questions that we didn’t have time to post, like we did with Chris Zimmerman. Here are Mr. Acosta’s answers.

Eric F: Is there a risk that Federal oversight of WMATA will simply mean a raft of unfunded mandates? We see that the Federal government loves to place jersey barriers all over town to the detriment of city livability. Won’t Federal oversight inappropriately fetishize “safety” over usability of the system?

Marcel Acosta: My answer is no to both questions. As the area’s largest employer with facilities throughout the region—35 of which are located at Metrorail stations—the federal government has a huge stake in improving the quality and infrastructure of the area’s transit system. As more than 40 percent of peak Metro riders are federal employees, the federal government has a critical interest in ensuring that we have an effective and safe transportation system that meets the needs of federal workers, residents, and visitors.

The federal government contributed 65 percent of the system’s capital costs since its inception. I think the $1.5 billion in federal capital investment targeted toward safety improvements demonstrates a strong federal commitment to improving the system and I think continued support and attention from the federal government, including the U.S. Congress, will be of benefit in the long-term.

As for safety versus usability, the entire WMATA board is committed to safety and it is clearly our top priority. But we also understand the need to explore safety related improvements that can also support greater customer access, improve service reliability, and mitigate impacts on the surrounding environment.

Bianchi: Does the NCPC have a relationship with MD-NCPPC? If yes-then please help convince MD-NCPPC to treat bike trails, any bike trails but especially those within 3 miles of metro train stops as the commuter routes they are. Currently these trails are ‘closed’ at dark even within a half mile of a metro stop, i.e. West Hyattsville. This is patently stupid. During winter its dark during ‘peak’ hours.

Marcel Acosta: The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) often requests that NCPC provide comment on its plans, particularly on draft versions of Vicinity Sector Plans (i.e.: Kensington Sector Plan). Additionally, if changes are proposed to the stream valley parks NCPC review may be required, as authorized under the Capper-Cramton Act of 1930.

NCPC’s comments usually focus on consistency with the planning principles and policies outlined in NCPC’s Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The overarching principles in the Comprehensive Plan states: “Reinforce ‘Smart Growth’ and Sustainable Development Planning Principles. NCPC staff views transportation elements as part of this effort and when providing feedback, NCPC strongly encourages the improvement of trail linkages between transit stations and the stream valley park bicycle trail system. I will ask my staff to talk to planners at MD-NCPPC about exploring ways that would allow the bike trails to serve as a more usable commute option.

timfry: If you have some power to coordinate the work of the region, I would like to see more emphasis placed on putting new Federal agency offices near transit. I live near the new DoD building (Seminary and 395). I take the bus from the area to the Pentagon to catch Metro so there are some transit options. But it is currently a one-way trip with the flow of commuting traffic.

Maybe we will get a reverse commute option but my anticipation is a lot more traffic around Seminary and 395. Why are we allowing the federal government and especially DoD to put these offices all over the region that are inaccessible except by car? Please stop it, it will cripple our region.

Marcel Acosta: The federal government has a long history in this region of having facilities located near transit and supporting transit options for its employees. NCPC has policies that we use to encourage federal facilities to make multi-modal, transit accessible location and design choices.

Over the last decade, NCPC has been working closely with numerous federal agencies to find approaches that balance security needs with convenient access to transit. These objectives are important, and solutions that achieve both are not easy. We recognize that many of the BRAC 2005 (Base Realignment and Closure) actions, in particular, have had significant transportation challenge, some of which are still being addressed.

We’re also pleased that President Obama’s Executive Order 13514 requires sustainable location policies for federal facilities nationally, which are currently under development. To help facilitate the Executive Order, NCPC has been working with other federal agencies to develop a national sustainability policy on facility location. We plan to incorporate this policy into our Comprehensive Plan that the Commission uses to guide its review of projects in the National Capital Region.

Lucy: Is it possible for NCPC to educate local officials and promote smarter planning policies? And control smarter development.

Marcel Acosta: As the region’s largest “corporate citizen,” the federal government has a significant impact on regional development patterns and the economy. We have a stake in what happens in the region. It impacts our day to day operations and our ability to recruit and retain great employees. The current Administration has placed a high priority on sustainable, livable communities and coordinated regional action.

NCPC has recently been working to foster discussions between the region’s leadership and federal representatives on opportunities to advance shared objectives. In July 2009, NCPC joined forces with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) to launch Building the Region Together. Our goal is to establish our region as a model of cooperative planning leadership.

Through several planned pilot projects, NCPC and COG aim to improve the built environment surrounding federal facilities, showcase federal sustainable practices, and support the region’s livability goals outlined in COG’s Greater Washington 2050 Initiative. Over the next several months NCPC and COG will continue working with federal and local partners to advance identified projects. Stay tuned.

Omar: Does the NCPC have an opinion on the NPS’ proposal to narrow the Reflecting Pool from an aesthetic point of view?

Marcel Acosta: Omar must be referring to the Capitol Reflecting Pool, which was installed on the Mall in the early 1970s when the freeway was constructed. The draft National Mall Plan proposes the redevelopment of this pool and surrounding area as Union Square, a concept from the McMillan Plan. Staff supports redevelopment of this important site, to connect the Mall and the U.S. Capitol, and to create a place suitable for a range of public activities.

The National Park Service (NPS) envisions providing much-needed visitor amenities, such as restrooms, at this end of the Mall. While the draft Plan proposes uses and general redevelopment ideas for the site, it states that the location will require a comprehensive landscape plan. The size and nature of a future water feature and other features will be the subject of continued planning and public discussion. NPS has suggested that a national design competition would be appropriate for this site, and NCPC staff agrees.

Neil: Outside of the mall, the National Park Service has an even poorer record of managing the other properties it has scattered throughout the city. Maintaining non-historical, non-interpretive city parks is really outside their mission, as we learned over the blizzard. Would you consider spinning off some of the less central parks if it made better park uses available to Washingtonians?

Marcel Acosta: NCPC recognizes the myriad challenges facing management and upkeep of the many of parks and open spaces located throughout the nation’s capital. In past years, jurisdiction over a number of the parks and open spaces within the District of Columbia has been transferred back and forth between the District government and the National Park Service.

That is one of the many reasons why we launched a partnership in 2006 with the National Park Service and the District government to develop a shared plan for Washington’s parks, and particularly those in the city’s neighborhoods. In the final plan, which comes before our Commission for review in April, we focused on a number of strategies for working together to achieve the full potential of our existing park resources, and to effectively balance both national and local demands on the parks. Additionally, since many of our downtown parks are historically and culturally significant; management of these spaces and improved park coordination between NPS and the District has become a key objective of the CapitalSpace effort.

I wish to note that public participation was an extremely important aspect of this planning process—the partners held numerous public meetings to hear what residents wanted—and public feedback has been incorporated into the final draft. I’d encourage you to check out the draft plan at www.capitalspace.gov.