The wisdom of 'selling' our public parks to private companies aside, DC is going to have some difficulty in pulling this off in that many of our parks aren't actually owned outright by the District but sometimes just maintained by it. (They're owned by the feds.) Dupont Circle Park is an example of where not only do the feds own it but also administer it ... though not in its entirety. Mitchell Park, for example, is partially owned by the District and partially owned by the feds, but entirely administered by the District. (The original parcel was donated to the City over a hundred years ago, and then an additional parcel was added to the park by the feds when they expropriated the Germans of their embassy during WWII and razed it ... adding the land to the adjacent City owned land.) This means that while the District can maintain it (i.e. has responsibility for maintainance) and can pay for its redevelopment (as it did for Mitchell Park) federal rules for the federal land still underly it. For example, an archeological study had to be performed on the federal part of Mitchel Park because it contained the ruins of one of the original house that was on that land back in colonial times up through the early 20th century. It also means that if the community holds fund raising events there, they must hold the money-raising parts of it on the District owned parcel since you can't collect money on federal park land. Incidentally, a similar situation exists in Dupont Circle Park where a little piece of it at its western edge is actually District owned ... and where whenver the neighborhood holds fund raising events, all monies must be collected.

by Lance on Mar 17, 2011 8:54 am • link • report

I say scrap the completion to Dulles.

Instead, use the 6.5 billion to create an extensive DEDICATED TRANSITWAY NETWORK and coordinate this with new "TIF" financing for smart growth along each corridor (bus or rail, either way...just in dedicated lanes) throughout northern VA.

Route 1: Ft. Bevoir to Alexandria
Route 236 Annandale to Alexandria
Route 7: Alexandria to Tysons
Gallows Rd: Burke and Annandale to Tysons/Merrifield("Y")
Dulles Airport Road: Airport/Loudoun to Tysons
Route 123: Fairfax City to Tysons
Route 50/29: Fairfax Corner Metro through Fairfax City to Merrifield Metro

....and extend heavy rail metro only one stop...past Vienna to Fair Oaks/Fairfax Corner.

Count me among the citizens not wanting to pay 6.5 billion for a glamor station (heck, if I travel with my kids there is ZERO chance I'd take metro with the luggage) I'd only use once a year or so.

by stevek_fairfax on Mar 17, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

As long as it doesn't take a shuttle ride to get to Dulles from the new metro stop, I'm not sure what the big deal is about an above-the-ground station. 600 feet really ain't that far. Maybe get Gov. McDonnell a cappucino machine with some of the leftover funds so he'll have something to keep himself occupied with.

by aaa on Mar 17, 2011 9:44 am • link • report

The Silver Line should extend into Reston Town Center. The rest of the line should be Bus Rapid Transit since they already have the road capacity.

I agree the Orange Line should be extended to at least Fair Oaks/Fairfax Corner. This would help reduce the I-66 bottleneck from Route 50 to the Nutley where no additional road capacity is available.

by mcs on Mar 17, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

Color me shocked about the streetcar.

I can tell the truth as to why, but Alpert will delete my comment, as usual.

by MPC on Mar 17, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

RE: BRAC and the Mark Center

From the Transportation Reserach Board Report:

"It is not possible to accurately predict how the situation will play out during 2011 as the additional employees arrive. But it seems likely that conditions may be severe enough, especially around the Mark Center, that not only will commuters be subject to substantial new delays but
also that mission accomplishment of some military units may be compromised and economic competitiveness of local businesses negatively affected."

Oscar: Ok, Mr. Truman, let's say that we actually do land on this. What's it gonna be like up there?
Truman: 200 degrees in the sunlight, minus 200 in the shade, canyons of razor-sharp rock, unpredictable gravitational conditions, unexpected eruptions, things like that.
Oscar: Okay, so the scariest environment imaginable. Thanks. That's all you gotta say, scariest environment imaginable.

by Armageddon on Mar 17, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

@ stevek_fairfax; I love it!

Kill the Silver Line! Have it end at Reston, and not the airport.

Save 6 billion dollars.

Properly done BRT from Reston to the airport would fill the need for airport travel. Actually I'd just do BRT from Tysons to the airport as well.

by charlie on Mar 17, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

Steve/MCS: as I've said in the past, strong arguments could be made for extending the Yellow Line to Fort Belvoir.

by Froggie on Mar 17, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

@charlie

Does properly done BRT fulfill the transit needs of people coming into Tysons to work?

The Silver Line will not primarily be for Dulles travel.

by MLD on Mar 17, 2011 10:53 am • link • report

@MLD; if it isn't for airport use, why is the MWAA having to spend $6 billion?

I agree that for people living past Reston, BRT would not work well for commuting to Tysons.

However, that was always going to be a minority part of the travel. The important part of the Silver Line (Reston-Tysons-Arlington) is what is already being built; the rest isn't worth it.

by charlie on Mar 17, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

Actually, I think the 600 ft distance between the Dulles station options does make a significant difference. If the route from the outdoor station by the north garage is covered (not indoor, just covered against rain, snow, and sweltering summer sun) and rolling-bag friendly (no curbs or stairs to climb, etc), then I think its not too bad. But if they just stick the station out there and make everyone trek with their bags unprotected across a big parking lot, its going to discourage people from using metro to the airport when buses and taxis can take you right to the front door.

If they could come up with a compromise option, one on the southern half of that parking lot which was a lot closer than the north garage, I would vote for that. I would think it could be done without building a either hyper-expensive underground station or some massive elevated structure that would detract from the architecture of the terminal.

by Nick on Mar 17, 2011 11:03 am • link • report

If we're going add any trackage, we should decouple the orange and blue lines. Making the Orange line (or silver line) longer is only going to add to the Orange crush.

by David C on Mar 17, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

@Nick

Any above-ground station would connect below-ground to the already existing tunnel between the terminal and the parking garage. It's climate controlled, complete with moving walkways.

by Alex B. on Mar 17, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

MPC,
Couldn't be because your comments don't add anything and are just a way for you to vent your pet hatred of the streetcar project. Nahhh... :)

by Reji T. on Mar 17, 2011 11:27 am • link • report

Criticizing streetcars isn't forbidden here, but it's been a long time since MPC posted anything that contributed constructively or usefully to any of the debates here.

by David Alpert on Mar 17, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

@Nick

I would think that putting the station by the Daily Garage would allow a direct connection to the already-existing underground tunnel between the garage and the main terminal.

by Mark P. on Mar 17, 2011 11:37 am • link • report

Re: streetcar.

Lydia Phillips needs to figure out that there are more things in our community we would fall in line behind than new streetcars.

This seems to bother her (and those who think like her) as much as those of us EOTR who are force-fed the notion that streetcars EOTR are the next best thing since homemade banana pudding.

by HogWash on Mar 17, 2011 11:37 am • link • report

dang...Alex B. beat me to it!

by Mark P. on Mar 17, 2011 11:37 am • link • report

RE: youth on metro.

Although not likely, the Mayor should announce that pending future happenings, the city will be forced to implement a summer curfew.

by HogWash on Mar 17, 2011 11:39 am • link • report

I used to be a HUGE fan of the Silver line, but at this rate I think it may be best to invest those funds elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of public transit, but that's precisely why I think the Silver line should be nixed and not extended past where it is right now. MWAA should invest the money to improve Dulles Airport (if that's possible). WMATA should spend money on reducing congestion along the Orange Line before we increase the number of metro riders coming into the city. For now, there is adequate service to Dulles. If additional service is necessary, it can be done on a much cheaper scale than heavy rail.

I am BTW, a typical tax and spend liberal, so even I'm shocked to be writing this paragraph.

by Max on Mar 17, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

HogWash,

As far as transit, what would you support for your community other than streetcars?

For instance, would you support rapid-rail transit expansion (ie. light rail, heavy rail) east of the river?

by otavio on Mar 17, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report

On the Sponsorships in parks:
I am not totally opposed to it, but if this is for healthy living encouragement besides excluding "tobacco, alcohol, and political campaign advertisements" they should also exclude fast food, snacks and any sugar as well.

"This Public park sponsored by Doritos and Coke" is worse - to me - than "Park sponsored by Miller lite" because most kids can't readily get miller lite (right away).

by greent on Mar 17, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report

@Otavio, Thanks.

Currently, there is a rather large network of buses that travel w/in the same area proposed for streetcars. So other than "hey this is neat - a streetcar," I don't think it will draw enough people from outside the community to warrant the financial investment required.

Those same funds can be used to support things like walking trails and maybe some sort of redesign to support better walkability(is that a word) and in appropriate places, cycle paths for cyclists. Honestly, for the same space, I would much better support the installation of bike lanes than streetcars.

I'm sorta learning about transit as I continue to read about it here and other places. Truthfully, as long as I've lived EOTR, I never even thought "hmmm, there really is no sidewalk here" or "this is a dangerous intersection" until recently. There are things that can be done to improve accessibility for the areas mentioned. But, streetcars EOTR (or at least the proposed areas in Ward 8) seems like a waste of the city's already-drained financial resources.

But we're all learning as we go. Sooner than later, the people who drive along Alabama avenue near the IHOP will realize that flashing YELLOW LIGHTS

means that you should stop and allow pedestrians to cross w/o running them over.

Yet, they are oblivious to them and there have been many times where I've had to play traffic police.

by HogWash on Mar 17, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report

oh wow! that actually worked.

by HogWash on Mar 17, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report

"Does properly done BRT fulfill the transit needs of people coming into Tysons to work?"

The Silver Line will only provide 17% of the trips into and out of Tysons Corner by the year 2030, according to Fairfax County DOT. VDOT's analysis of the Fairfax study suggests 17% might be overly optimistic. The original plan was to build rail in the median of the Dulles Toll Road to the Airport. Had that plan been retained, rail would be built already at much less cost and be operating. The rail project was hijacked by the Tysons landowners who figured out they could get more density with rail. They have their density, but need to finance at least $1.7 billion in new road improvements by 2030, at which point, all of the major roads will reach failure during the evening commute.

I believe MWAA thinks the airport will receive only about 5-6% of all travelers coming by rail. It might be a better way for lower-paid workers to travel to Dulles though.

by tmtfairfax on Mar 17, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report

I've usually found MPC's comments well thought out and usually right on target. He could be more tactful , but there are other regular posters and commentators who are far less tactful. I think the issue is that if you have a particular point of view , you're less apt to notice when someone with the same point of view is unnecessarily hitting others hot buttons. For example when I hear people being called NIMBYs I think that is tactless ...

by Lance on Mar 17, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

@Lance (or anyone else) what is a NIMBY? I've seen it before and actually thought it was an official term for something.

Dumb me

by HogWash on Mar 17, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report

Not In My Back Yard

by movement on Mar 17, 2011 4:59 pm • link • report

@HogWash: NIMBY = Not In My BackYard. Covers a whole range of people who for various reasons object to this or that project or building anywhere near where they live.

BTW, the $6.5 billion figure is the cost of the entire Silver Line, not just Phase II. Sloppy writing in the Examiner article. So canceling Phase II would save maybe $3.5 billion. What I don't get is why Phase II, most of which runs in a median strip and the rest runs through publicly owned land at Dulles is going to cost that much more than Phase I which has an expensive section & 1500' tunnel through a lot of existing infrastructure in Tysons. Inflation costs adding that much to it? Or is just the Dulles section costing that much?

As for extending the Orange line to Rt. 50 / Fair Oaks, the line probably should have ended there to start with. But when the planning was done in the 60s and early 70s, I guess that was considered too far west. But the median strip in I-66 at around the Rt. 123 intersection is gone now, with all the road widening work on I-66 since the Vienna station opened. Probably would be a billion plus dollar project to shift the I-66 lanes and extend the Orange Line 4 miles west with stations at Rt. 123 and Fair Oaks / Rt 50.

by AlanF on Mar 17, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report

Re: Silver Line

Phase 2 of the Silver Line makes no sense. There's simply not enough capacity at the Rosslyn tunnel to allow for the expansion. Much better to use the $6.5B for a third Potomac crossing or create a new line that runs along Rt.7 from Tysons, through West Falls Church to King Street.

There are already good enough transportation options to Dulles. You've got Metro's 5A (low cost, good for airport workers), Wash Flyer's Express Bus, and of course, the Dulles Airport Road.

by Falls Church on Mar 17, 2011 5:48 pm • link • report

streetcars EOTR: the long term plan is to have a network of streetcars connecting all over the city, (and hopefully up the Aves into MD too). In 40 years when there are streetcars everywhere they won't be an anomaly EOTR. Its just that the first streetcars went there. There is plenty of evidence that permanent transit (tracks laid down) enhances a local economy much more than bus lines that are impermanent. the streetcars EOTR aren't really for EOTR. They're for the whole city, but the project had to start somewhere.

by Tina on Mar 17, 2011 6:42 pm • link • report

@AlanF; the "plan" for Dulles involves tunneling which is why they are blowing the costs up.

Sadly, this has just been a year long exercise in expectation management: first, promise metro-to-dulles, then metro-to-reston, then, oh, it's too expensive to build a real station, and now, yep, it's no longer even the Silver Line.

$6.5 billion wasted. Think what we could have done with that.

by charlie on Mar 17, 2011 6:59 pm • link • report

@Tina, 'There is plenty of evidence that permanent transit (tracks laid down) enhances a local economy much more than bus lines that are impermanent. the streetcars EOTR aren't really for EOTR. They're for the whole city, but the project had to start somewhere.'

The problem is that with the economic development comes displacement ... and this hasn't been lost on the people living EOTR.

They're starting EORTR and other places where the land is relatively cheap because the streetcar system under the last administration was being driven by the interests of the developers. I think streetcars are great, but I think they need to start in places where they can be used to relieve congestion ... as we've seen happening in Europe. Not only is there an increased incentive to use a streetcar when congestion makes driving a less preferable alternative, but these congested areas already have more of the kind of person more apt to be able to use them ... the urban hipster ... The people living EOTR are more mainstream ... and like their neighbors living in the inner suburbs or upper NW, are more apt to need to go further and at different schedules than a streetcar system can provide them.

by Lance on Mar 17, 2011 7:15 pm • link • report

I should have said 'The people living EOTR now are more mainstream ... and like their neighbors living in the inner suburbs or upper NW, are more apt to need to go further and at different schedules than a streetcar system can provide them.

I.e., If the plan is to push these people out, then starting the Streetcar system there is the way to go. If we'd rather instead build a diverse - but bigger - city, then we need to provide the type of services that are already demanded by areas and neighborhoods, and not instead put the kinds of services there for the kind of neighborhood some of us would prefer to see there. That is social engineering. We're building the ballpark because 'if we build it they will come'. Except not everyone plays baseball ... as we found out when we lost a vibrant DC entertainment district ... to put a baseball park ... and a lot of office buildings in its place. Anyone actually ever go there anymore? I mean the people who used to go there?

by Lance on Mar 17, 2011 7:24 pm • link • report