Greater Greater Washington

Links


Breakfast links: Real-time news

by David Alpert   •   March 25, 2010 9:10 am


Paper real-time bus clock. Image via MBTA.
Mass. bus predictions on the phone or paper: The MBTA has chosen winners for its developer contest around using real-time bus data. The winners are Catch the Bus, an iPhone app, and a paper real-time clock mounted in a bar that shows the time to the next bus. (Michael P)

MERV on over there: WMATA has new electric carts, called MERVs, that emergency responders can assemble by hand, then drive on unpowered tracks. They should let personnel get to an emergency more quickly. (WMATA)

Bus changes: Not many people are riding ART route 61 on Saturdays, so it will be discontinued after this Saturday. (Gavin) ... Buses in SW DC will be rerouted, along with some other minor changes (and no, these aren't the nasty service cuts that will happen in July without governmental intervention) (DCist)

Cycle confidently: WABA's Confident City Cycling classes are a great way to learn to cycle safely in the city. WABA is offering three levels from a short 2-hour intro to advanced maneuvers and even on-bike evaluations. There's also an intro class for adults who've never ridden a bicycle. (TheWashCycle)

I can't believe DC won't give me something: Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber expressed annoyance that DC won't subsidize a soccer stadium work out a deal for a soccer stadium. (WTOP) Mike DeBonis and DCist are annoyed back, pointing out the sense of entitlement in Garber's attitude and DC's tight budget.

Get off the phone in Maryland: By a one-vote margin, the Maryland State Senate passed a handheld cell phone ban for drivers, though it still allows hands-free operation. It will now go to the House which is expected to pass the bill or a similar version. (Get There)

The delicate balance of stormwater: Stormwater regulations are a tricky issue in the smart growth community: strict stormwater requirements for development protect vital waterways, but sometimes end up favoring low-density development in distant areas over urban infill. Groups are split over an extension to developers on complying with a 2007 Maryland law: Anacostia Watershed Society rallied against the recent deal, while 1000 Friends of Maryland says "it could have been worse."

Not the way to build a client base: The owner of the new Du Vin Osteria on U Street threatened legal action against a blogger for a user comment which wasn't even so terrible and definitely not illegal. Will the ensuing bad press from numerous blogs sink the new place before it gets going? (U Street Girl, DCist, 14th and You)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

Update: I've edited the soccer stadium link to clarify that DC United hasn't been asking for a free stadium, but they have been asking for land and infrastructure improvements which will cost taxpayers money.

37 comments
Tags: links
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

That Next Bus clock is awesome.

by Mike on Mar 25, 2010 9:48 am • link • report

I think everyone has mis-read Don Garber's comments about the DC United stadium situation by immediately assuming that they are looking for a free stadium, Natinals style. Each of DCU's stadium proposals has involved the team paying significant portions of the cost.

That, however, is not really what Garber is talking about. Garber is talking specifically about the rather unfortunate (and recurring) problem of DCU negotiating with local governments to reach deals, only to have the rug pulled out from under their feet at the last moment. It's happened in DC and in PG County.

That's not to say the team and the league have had the best approach in these stadium discussions. But make no mistake - Garber's annoyance isn't that the local jurisdictions won't pony up - it's that the local jurisdictions haven't been communicating openly and honestly with the team.

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2010 9:52 am • link • report

Where in any of Don Garber's comments does he ask for D.C. to build a publicly-funded soccer stadium? His comments were ill-conceived but they are being misrepresented. My understanding is that DC United owners have never asked for a publicly funded stadium. I could be wrong, but the team wants DC to provide land and infrastructure improvements. Maybe that still constitutes an inappropriate public give-away to a sports team but let's have a discussion based on what is actually being proposed.

by Dan on Mar 25, 2010 9:54 am • link • report

Want to echo what Dan is saying: reasonable people can disagree on what is an appropriate subsidy for a soccer stadium, but nobody is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars for DC United's future home.

by Sam on Mar 25, 2010 10:06 am • link • report

I don't want taxpayers money going to DC United, nor did I want it going to any of the other sports teams.

That said, after the hundreds of millions given to a bottom of the league baseball team, you gotta feel sorry for DC United, who are asking for far less, for a team with a long winning streak.

by SJE on Mar 25, 2010 10:23 am • link • report

Great part about that real-time clock is that every 15 seconds or so the hands move to show the time to the next bus in the other direction.

I would have done it (assuming I could do it at all!) with two hands that count down to zero in the middle, one hand for each direction. I like how the display is pseudo-analog but also logarithmic, allowing the low range of 7-minute countdown to be fine grained, but the 30 minute range not to be off-scale.

This looks like a job for Tom Lee.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 25, 2010 10:29 am • link • report

I saw the signs about the ART 61 this morning. Sad, although I never use it. I didn't even know about the extension to Clarendon on Saturdays. That would have more utility in the evenings to catch a bar crowd coming home, rather than the shopping crowd.

IN general, the ART is under-advertised and under-utilized.

by charlie on Mar 25, 2010 10:32 am • link • report

This DC United stadium saga is really appalling. If IKEA wanted to build a new store (which would have the same sort of footprint and need for infrastructure improvements), local officials would be falling all over themselves to help out. And a new IKEA would reinforce suburban-style, car dependent development.

Meanwhile DC United has been rejected by pretty much every local jurisdiction, even though a soccer stadium has a lot of potential for transit-oriented development.

by Phil on Mar 25, 2010 10:35 am • link • report

I can't help but echo the statement about the DC United stadium situation. They have been seeking to do what the Wizards did with the Verizon Center for over a decade. The city paid for a few street changes and upgraded some facilities at the Chinatown Metro. United seeks to also pay for all construction costs on the stadium. The city would just pay for street issues. They'd more than get that back from taxes on concessions and tickets at the new stadium.

Commissioner Garber is frustrated because of all the backslapping and political grandstanding only to get politically grandstanded against in the end. This has nothing to do with wanting any handout.

No one can build a facility like a stadium without the local government's blessing, even with their own funds. Otherwise, the local government will find some way to change the zoning of your land, levy some sort of prohibitive tax that's written to only include your stadium, or find some other way to get you.

DC United has just been asking for the local government's blessing so they can pay to build their own stadium. I can't begin to express how frustrating it is that United has been here since 1996, the Nats came in for 2005, the city built them a stadium using public bonds, and now so many non-sports fans think that United is asking for the same thing. While I think it's good that the facts were corrected in the links here, the fact that David even thought what he first wrote is indicative of a larger misunderstanding.

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 10:36 am • link • report

@MLS: It seems that the MLS is getting stuck in the swamp of different jurisdictions here. The obvious solution would for all jurisdictions to merge into a structure like NYC has. I would love to see a regional transporation authority like the NYNJ Port autority. But unfortunately, that will never happen due to the cluelessness of DC politics, and the short-sightedness of Nova and MoCo/PG.

How for Marylanders refer to their equivalent of NoVa? Is there a name for the outer DC burbs in MD?

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2010 10:55 am • link • report

Well, the our phone book says "Suburban Maryland."

Within Maryland it's very common to refer to where you're from by county. If you tell someone from the rest of the state that you're from Prince George's or Montgomery they'll know where that is. Similarly, when people ask where I grew up, I say "Cecil County."

To answer your question, Jasper, we just refer to ourselves by county. That's most common througout Maryland.

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 10:59 am • link • report

We have a regional transportation authority. It's called the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

by David Alpert on Mar 25, 2010 11:01 am • link • report

"My understanding is that DC United owners have never asked for a publicly funded stadium."

It's a matter of semantics. Yes they have offered to pay for the actual stadium, but it has always come at some significant price. At Poplar Point, they wanted the city to hand over land for free so that McFarlane could develop it. That's not what Abe Pollin did. And I doubt the city would do a deal like that for Ikea. But even if it did, at least Ikea is open daily, and contributes a hell of a lot more tax revenue than a soccer stadium.

by Reid on Mar 25, 2010 11:06 am • link • report

I just want to say that I love the music for the MERV assembly video on WMATA's site.

by Teo on Mar 25, 2010 11:09 am • link • report

The city first approached the team about Poplar Point. It was the city's idea. They just rolled with it until the Fenty Administration opened up Poplar Point for competitive bidding without telling them team first. The Fenty Administration then barred Victor McFarlane, United's then-owner from entering the bidding.

Now do you see what Commissioner Garber meant by "backslapping?" No reason was ever given by the Fenty Administration why the long-standing agreement with the city had just been dissolved without telling the team and subsequently prohibiting their owner from bidding.

Garber's frustrations also have a lot to do with the cheap political grandstanding against a United stadium after the COUNTY EXECUTIVE COURTED THEM. When he said "DC" he was referring to the region. Much to my frustration, the rest of the country has taken the term "DC" to mean the region, not the District of Columbia like in our regional vernacular. I never tell people I live in "DC" since I live in Wheaton. But in the minds of people outside the region, Wheaton is in "DC" even thought it's not both literally and in our vernacular.

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 11:14 am • link • report

and by "County Executive" I meant Prince George's County Executive Johnson. Small typo there.

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 11:15 am • link • report

@Reid,

Abe Pollin definitely built the Verizon Center with his own cash, but that doesn't mean he didn't get a lot of public assistance for it as well. DC pitched in $60 million for infrastructure around the Verizon Center, as well as providing public land leased to Washington Sports and Entertainment.

Sports teams are also cultural assets to the community that have a positive impact well beyond tax revenues.

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2010 11:18 am • link • report

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the Poplar Point debacle. Yet another reason why Fenty needs to go.

Given what we know now about Fenty's contracting practices, I strongly suspect that his about-face on the Poplar Point deal was an effort to install one of his cronies as the lead developer under the guise of "competitive bidding."

Thankfully, the financial crisis meant that the city dodged that bullet, but now there is no prospect in sight for a soccer stadium OR a developed Poplar Point..

by Phil on Mar 25, 2010 11:30 am • link • report

Seems to me that Poplar Point as well as the RFK site remain as two viable locations for DC United. I doubt that DC United was actually offering the kind of money required to move the project. The City seems to be pretty good at requiring the proposed developers to provide substantial equity investment in return for tax incentives. My recollection is that the either the Federal Government or DC had some provisions about the property that changed the economics of the proposal at PP. Public funding of stadiums is not good use of public funds.

by Interested on Mar 25, 2010 11:40 am • link • report

Victor McFarlane is a billionaire real estate developer with a long track record of successful urban redevelopment projects. He definitely had the resources to proceed at the time the Popular Point project was in process. The current owner is also a successful developer. The capacity of the team's ownership is not at issue here. The only reason the original Poplar Point proposal did not go forward is that McFarlane did not have the right "connections" with the Fenty administration.

Also, once again, nobody was asking for public funding for the stadium. The request was for infrastructure improvement to support the increased traffic and utility needs. If the proposal were for a Target, an IKEA, or a corporate HQ, the city would provide these no questions asked and probably throw in tax breaks to sweeten the deal.

by Phil on Mar 25, 2010 11:49 am • link • report

I thought the reason the poplar point deal didn't happen is b/c the plan was on NPS land and it would have resulted in significant degredation of that environment with regards to wildlife habitat.

by Bianchi on Mar 25, 2010 12:15 pm • link • report

It didn't go down b/c Fenty wanted to see what other developers could bring to the table for a large amount of land like Poplar Point. I understand it, but unfortunately, the city seemed so committed to the soccer stadium that it felt like an 11th hour kind of deal and just really set the whole process back. And then, there was the debacle in PG County. If the team stays in DC and can get something done near a metro stop, I will be happy.

Even if they are infrastructure improvements only, we could be talking $100 million, so I can understand the problem DC has. The timing of this w/ respect to the market all made things very difficult as well, that can be vented about but DC can't be blamed for that. I think a soccer specific stadium w/o a bunch of mixed use development w/ no public financing except some infrastructure could have gotten done a 3 or 4 years ago.

by Vik on Mar 25, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

Wildlife habitat? It's an empty field with used condoms and other garbage strewn about!

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report

@ David Alpert: We have a regional transportation authority.

Well, WMATA a nearly bankrupt authority with very limited authority.

I kinda was more aiming for a decently funded regional DOT. One that can build roads; bridges; metro, street car and bus lines; bike lanes; and walkways across the area and more importantly across jurisdictional lines.

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report

@ Phil There's no way DC would (or should, for that matter) pick up the tab for $200M-$350M in infrastructure improvements for an Ikea.

by jcm on Mar 25, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report

Jasper: OK. The Port Authority is not that. The Port Authority just runs the bridges and tunnels over the Hudson, the airports, and one subway line (PATH). They don't run the subways and commuter trains; that's MTA, which is also a nearly bankrupt authority with limited authority. In fact, all regional transportation authorities generally go around being nearly bankrupt since local governments underfund transit.

The authorities that control airports do better, since they can charge a lot to airlines and don't have to pay for air traffic control services.

by David Alpert on Mar 25, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

Vik, that's what Mr. Garber was talking about when he was venting his frustration. They could've done that. DC United would have been happy to do that. However, the city led them down the Poplar Point path for a decade then the Fenty Administration double-crossed them because he wanted someone else to develop it.

Meanwhile, the window of opportunity to do the soccer specific stadium closed as the economy tanked. You don't sell one plan to someone for 10 years then back out and expect them not to be frustrated. 10 years is a lot of time and effort and lost money for all involved.

I hope that the context of Mr. Garber's comments are surfacing better. I'm sick of hearing the knee-jerk "public subsidy for sports teams" whine when it's just not that simple with DC United. The costs are much lower and a soccer stadium has enough events where it can be used as a Bright Shiny Object for a good urban place.

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

@Cavan Where exactly do you think DC is going to get the money to finance the infrastructure? Gandhi has said that new bonds are out.

The context of Mr. Garber's comment are that he's asking a city with a $200M deficit and a maxed out credit limit give him hundreds of millions of dollars in development for free, or he's going to take his team to Baltimore. If nothing else, it's terrible timing.

And I say all of this as someone who would love to see a soccer stadium anchoring development at Poplar Point, if the city weren't in the middle of a financial crunch.

by jcm on Mar 25, 2010 1:58 pm • link • report

Right. Mr. Garber lives in New York and doesn't understand the prism that we'd view things. His comments are from someone who has viewed the proceedings of the last 12 years from afar. Understandably, he's baffled how the Red Bulls could open up a brand new world-class facility after all the drama they had to go through in New Jersey just outside of New York yet we're still in a quagmire. NEW JERSEY. Known for corrupt politics.

His comments aren't about us. They're about the dishonest business climate here that makes NEW JERSEY look transparent.

Once again, it's about Fenty double-crossing United after had paid costs to lobby Congress for 10 YEARS to get Poplar Point turned over to the city. Fenty saw it as an opportunity to give the contract to one of his "well-connected" friends. United does the dirty-work, Fenty's crony gets the money. Except it didn't happen because the financial markets tanked.

Once again, this isn't about us or the city's budget deficit. This is about the outright dishonesty the District and Prince George's goverments have put the team and the league through. How would you feel if you spent 12 years lobbying Congress to have someone double-cross you in the end?

by Cavan on Mar 25, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report

@jcm

Garber's comments do indeed come at a bad time for the city or any other government jurisdiction. But that's not his main concern - he works for a league that's battled hard to be in a position to survive this recession. MLS isn't like the NFL, MLB, the NBA, or even the NHL - financially, it's a lot more similar to arena football. For it to be on as robust of a financial footing as it is right now, given the state of the economy, is a testament to the owners and investors in MLS.

That said, just about every other team in the league is now in or will soon be in a stadium that is financially sustainable for the league - except DC United.

Is the timing good? No, it's not. But you can't complain about how the timing stinks for the city thanks to the recession without also considering what the recession has done for Mr. Garber and the owners he represents. Remember that MLS is a single-entity league. Team owners are actually investors in the league as a whole. DC's stadium problems are the problems of the league as a whole.

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2010 3:36 pm • link • report

"It is my hope that your fans will soon be coming to your brand new soccer stadium at Poplar Point in Anacostia. World class fans, and a world class team like D.C. United, deserve a world class stadium. And I am going to make it a priority to help you build that stadium."

--Adrian Fenty

Also, keep in mind that it's Garber's job to be the asshole in situations like this, while the owner plays the nice guy and doesn't burn bridges.

by alexandrian on Mar 25, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report

"There's no way DC would (or should, for that matter) pick up the tab for $200M-$350M in infrastructure improvements for an Ikea."

The $200-$350M was for the entire Poplar Point project, and the stadium was 1/5 of that at most. $200-350M doesn't seem too far out of line for building infrastructure from the ground up for a completely new neighborhood. The buildings would probably cost twice that.

by Phil on Mar 25, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

@Cavan Real estate deals fall apart all the time. There doesn't need to be any nefarious reason for it.

@Alex B. I'm somewhat sympathetic to MLS's plight, because I enjoy going to the games. But they're similar to Arena football in another way. They have very little leverage. DC United has been trying to play the local jurisdictions off each other for years, and it hasn't been effective. Now they're bringing Baltimore into it. Good luck trying to get any money out of Annapolis, or Baltimore for that matter.

@Phil Got a cite for your cost? The Post claims DC United wanted $200M in this story.

But the negotiations stalled over the financial terms. Although United offered to pay for the $150 million stadium, it asked for about $200 million in city subsidies, including roads, tax incentives and the right to develop additional land, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were private.

I suppose you could just stick the stadium in the middle of the parcel with a single road, single water line, single power line, etc, but that doesn't seem like a particularly good plan to me.

by jcm on Mar 25, 2010 5:32 pm • link • report

Oops. The second paragraph in italics is my comment, not the Post's.

by jcm on Mar 25, 2010 5:42 pm • link • report

The deal the Williams administration did with McFarlane/DC United was for all of Poplar Point, not just the stadium; that's the "right to develop additional land" that the story refers to. At least that's my understanding.

by Phil on Mar 25, 2010 7:06 pm • link • report

Right - those subsidies were for the entirety of the Poplar Point development. DC was going to pay out that kind of money for Poplar Point infrastructure one way or another, regardless of the stadium situation.

Also, Baltimore is pursuing United, not the other way around. MLS will think long and hard before moving DCU to Baltimore, because that means that they'll likely never again be able to fully take advantage of the lucrative DC market.

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2010 10:26 pm • link • report

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or