Posts about GGW Debates

Yesterday, Federal Transit Administration Peter Rogoff discussed the issue. He noted that 3 times as many people will use the Tysons stations than Dulles', and that the majority of passengers at Dulles itself will probably be airport workers, based on other airport stations elsewhere. Those are some of the facts that led him and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to push the region to accept the aerial station in order to keep the project moving.

Here's what our contributors have to say about the issue:

Dan Malouff
Anyone else feeling deja vu? Remember when we had to put the Tysons Corner stations above ground in order to secure federal support for the project?

Unfortunately it's looking more and more like the same thing is going on here. If Virginia pulls its support for the project, that's the end of Phase II no matter what MWAA wants. The choice therefore may not be between an above or below ground station, but rather between an above ground station or nothing at all.

As much as I agree that a below ground station would be ideal, we may have to accept that a less ideal station is better than no station at all. The above ground option is simply the best compromise for the greater good. Again.

Jamie Scott
I think the above ground station is a mistake. While 5 minutes of walking doesn't seem like that much time, it could be burdensome for tired travelers coming from longer international flights, disabled and elderly travelers, or travelers with kids.

Anything that makes it easier to use Metro is good. If the Silver Line is the success we all hope it will be, it could drive more flyers out to Dulles. If that indeed happens, the station should be as convenient for folks as possible.

On the other hand, $330 million is a lot. But I am worried that in several years, we'll regret not having a station underground.

Geoff Hatchard
Am I the only person who says, "Sure, let's play brinkmanship, what the hell?"

I mean, I know that if the extension out to Dulles was nixed tomorrow, that money wouldn't suddenly be magically available to build a separated Blue Line in the city the next day. But that's what should happen, if you ask me. Building more and more capacity farther and farther from the center, without bolstering capacity in the core, is just going to lead to problems in the long run.

We have the extension to Tysons Corner. Construction on that leg isn't going to stop now. But if the extension to Reston, Herndon, and Dulles doesn't happen, I'm not going to cry about it.

Alex Block
What I want to know is why this particular underground station is so expensive. I get the desire to keep it out of the sightlines of the Saarinen terminal, but the plan calls for a lot of tunneling that seems excessive.

I'd love to see MWAA develop another alternative that involves bringing rail in along one of the existing roadbeds and changing the auto circulation to fit around that, perhaps like the design John Cambron proposed last year. But I fear that's too much of a change at this stage.

I won't cry for Reston and Herndon, either. However, serving Dulles is and should be a major priority. That airport is one of the region's key links to the outside world, and making that connection as seamless as possible is of vital importance to the region.

Cities have always been built around transportation infrastructure hubs, whether that was a great natural port or the confluence of two rivers, or the convergence of several rail lines or highways. Dulles offers a great opportunity, and it's important that the region use this asset well. Dulles might have been a white elephant when first built, but now it has the luxury of spacious runways, excess capacity, and room to grow that other airports do not have.

Ideally, I think we'd also have a direct rail link to downtown as well, but those kinds of improvements can be added later. Metro has considered some options and discussed them on their blog.

Eric Hallstrom
If we were really interested in making the connection to Dulles as seamless as possible, we'd have a direct express rail link to the city.

A ride on the Silver Line isn't terribly long for a simple, direct ride to downtown, leaving regularly. It will be appealing for travelers and tourists. I still think the trip will be too long for many who would otherwise need to change trains. Even those of us that would have to ride from some parts of Arlington would still need to change, and that creates a much longer trip.

When I think of a true airport rail link, I think of the CAT in Vienna. That being said, I still use the blue line in Chicago to get from the airport to town. And that can be a very long ride (the website says it is 45 minutes to downtown, but that seems optimistic).

Cassidy Mullen
I don't see an underground station being a necessity. So long as it is easily accessible, I am all on board. Especially if it gets the desired savings and keeps the project moving forward.

Also, speaking of timing, a friend of mine was recently in Paris and I asked him to time the trip from the airport to Châtelet. Approximate travel time was 50 minutes, which is about the time projected for the trip from Dulles to Metro Center.

According to PlanItMetro, the trip from Metro Center to Dulles will be 52 minutes. I guess my point is not that the extension to Dulles will not be the best it can be, but will be equivalent to other large airport extensions, though some cities have direct connections, like the express line to London's Heathrow Airport.

However, I think since the Dulles connection will be "good" at best, is that more reason to have a less expensive above ground station if none of that money is going to go to making the metro trip any faster? I'm not 100% sure myself.

David Cranor
I'm split in regard to this debate.

On the one hand, I think $300 million is too much for the underground station. What is the interest payment on that each year, like $9M? And how many people will use it per year? It winds up costing like $2-4 per person per trip. Ask people, would you pay $3 to be teleported 5 minutes closer to the gate and I doubt many people would take your offer. So, I'd be against it on that point.

On the other hand, if the choice is between raising the toll on the toll road to build the underground station and not raising the toll and building an above ground station, I'd choose the aerial option. The road, while very expensive, is still probably underpriced and so let's at least put that money to good use - even if not ideal use.

If there was an option to raise the toll on the toll road and use the money to meet some other, highly rated transit need, I would choose that option. But that option is not on the table.

Neil Flanagan
Passenger convenience and comfort should take priority, because we want people to use the mass-transit option.

But from the perspective of aesthetics, the an aboveground station is better. The below ground station would not be one of metro's dramatic vaults, but instead a lower, split-tube station akin to the ones at Wheaton and Forest Glen. From there, passengers still have to go up an escalator, into the basement. The transit riders won't get the sense of arrival and departure that can distract from the drudgeries of air travel.

Train riders can only see a vista from the side of the railcar. An aboveground station would expose those arriving to a broadside of architectural drama that isn't always easy to get. Once off the train, an architecturally interesting station could frame the terminal better, like a smaller echo in a sympathetic style. You'd be able to see the terminal from the platform, and those in the terminal would be able to see the trains arriving and departing.

But there's no guarantee. In the rush to save costs, aesthetics could be a casualty like convenience. Or it could compensate for the longer walk. But you have to be willing to pay for either.

Nolan Treadaway
After believing initially that the few hundred feet length of tunnel was a huge mistake, I've now come around to the fact that probably won't deter many riders.

But I still have big concerns about above ground vs. below ground. I'm sure that waiting outside, exposed to the elements is going to discourage use. Passengers won't want to wait in the DC humid heat or cold winters, as opposed to being underground, in relative comfort.

But seems like consensus is building around above ground. I do really like the approach to Dulles by car and look forward to being able to take in via train.

David Alpert
Above versus below ground is one of the most significant decisions, but there are many other design elements that can at least make an aboveground station more or less pleasant. For example, the moving walkway that passengers would use exists today, in a tunnel.

If the station's escalators lead directly to that tunnel, where their bottom ends open right to the corridor, it could mean less work than if riders have to navigate a warren of twisty corridors to get from one to the other.

Similarly, yesterday Rogoff expressed support for walls or other elements that could make the aboveground station less weather-beaten. If MWAA is going to save a lot of money by building the station outdoors, they should at least use a small fraction of that money to make it a good quality aboveground station.

You should only sacrifice immediate or short-term revenue if you can guarantee that sacrifice will generate revenue in the medium to long term. By allowing current users who already find value in the program to renew their memberships at an enormous discount—CaBi is probalby lucky if they're getting 60% of each $37 voucher—they are simply forfeiting future revenue.

There is no doubt in my mind that CaBi should have restricted this to new members only, or made the coupons expire within a month. Living Social is used as a promotional tool to bring new people into your restaurant, your office or your system. This will certainly accomplish that.

But the existing members already are in the system. They have enough personal and contact information on each member that I don't think it would be difficult to determine whether or not someone is an existing member. The exclusionary concept is not new, I've seen plenty of LivingSocial/Groupon deals that have "*new patients only" type caveats in the deal terms.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done the Living Social deal. They will get huge exposure and new customers from it. But, I think CaBi should have made the Living Social promotion available to new users only and simultaneously offered a renewal discount through their own website to current members so that they at least didn't throw away half of the voucher revenue by forfeiting it to Living Social.

Increasing ridership and usage is the ultimate goal. But if we've learned nothing else in recent budget and funding debates, things need not only to be used, but also to be financially sustainable. So, why should we just shrug our shoulders at revenue lost unnecessarily? CaBi could have offered renewals directly to current members at a price cheaper than the Living Social deal and still have made more revenue than they will from those existing members through this promotion.

Rob Pitingolo

I purchased a voucher for a new annual membership, after waffling for months over whether it was worth it, and questioning whether the promise of Bikeshare along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor would become a reality anytime soon.

This could have been a great opportunity to use price discrimination to sign up "light users" like myself, who might not have otherwise become a member, while still generating full revenue from "power users" who put a lot more strain on the system.

From everything I've read about deal sites, it's likely that CaBi isn't receiving the full $37. I've heard that commissions for these deals range from 30%-50%. Worst case, CaBi is only bringing in $18.50 for what would have inevitably been many $75 renewals.

The deal was great for generating excitement and buzz, but as far as a strategic tool for economic pricing discrimination, I think it may have missed the mark.

Vincent Flament

If this deal pushes up demand to the point that Cabi will exceed its capacity, then indeed it is probably not such a good idea. But if the level of demand increases existing ridership without creating abnormal capacity problems, then the economic loss is compensated by the social gain.

I think they may well get new users like me that can not justify $75 given that have little opportunity to ride it other than the weekend. Either way the buzz created may well be worth it. What if the deal is picked up by TV, newsprint and internet? That may get a lot of new people signing up!

One of the issues is whether Living Social terms and conditions allow discrimination as Erik suggests. Also how can you discriminate between current and new customers? at a dentist it is very easy to do this given that there is usually a person in charge of a limited amount of existing patients. Cabi has already 1000's of member. Would you really be able to check each one of them?

Alex Baca

I wonder if the loss of revenue is secondary to the goal of bringing a lot of new users. Many new users might not have previously joined because there wasn't a close enough station to them to justify a full-price membership. If you bring those people in, you may being to see more requests for new stations.

This is also a good way to reach out to people who might find the full price unaffordable. We've talked about as an issue in Wards 7 and 8, though that sort of cancels itself out, given the digital divide issues that are also present in those wards.

I've also found that when I've bought LivingSocial/Groupon deals to restaurants I've never been to, I've become a return customer. No doubt they're hoping to hook people, so that they continue to renew their membership over the years.

Alex Block

If they lose revenue through this, so what? The point of this promotion is to get members and generate buzz, not to bring in huge revenue through the sale. You do a promotion like this as a loss leader, not as a big moneymaker.

You have to be careful about devaluing your product, however. Ted Leonsis talks about that with Wizards tickets - give too many away and people won't pay for them, and you risk alienating your season ticket base. However, since they've allowed this deal to work for renewals, you eliminate that alientation problem.

CaBi is in the startup phase still. Having users is far more important than having revenue at this point. That's why this is a good deal for CaBi. You do a deal like this to increase your user base, not to generate revenue.

Yes, doing renewals instead of only new memberships is losing money - that's true of any sale - but I do doubt that forgoing that revenue is a bad thing at CaBi's stage of development. Build a robust system first, then worry about the operating margins.

If CaBi was doing this promotion in year three of operations instead of month 6 (and the first real month of spring), then I'd be concerned about revenue.

Also, it's worth noting how big this could be. CaBi currently has about 6,400 annual members. They've sold more than 8,000 vouchers on Living Social. If we assume most of those sales are annual memberships - even if half are renewals - that's a huge increase in total membership coming online just as we get into the nice Spring weather.

Veronica Davis

One way to look at it is there are going to get a large influx on money in a very short period of time, which bodes well for reinvestment into additional infrastructure. There are some old members who may not plan to renew b/c of cost and the fact they don't use it as expected. At $37 they are more likely to renew. So instead of getting $0 from them, you are at least getting $37.

If the numbers are already at 6000, the gross revenue is around $220,000. Even after Living Social takes a cut, there's still plenty of money for additional bike stations.

The lost revenue from renewals is chump change compared to the influx from people purchasing the deal even with Living Social's cut. They could've run this deal through their own site, but they will probably end up with 3 times the takers using Living Social.

Mark Jordan

Given the way the contract between DC and Alta is structured, I actually don't object to decision. Here's why:

David posted last year that the contract is structured as follows: The stations cost about $35,000 for a small station (7 bikes and 11 docking spaces), up to $52,000 for a large 13-bike, 19-dock station. The operating cost will be $155 per bike not counting memberships; the membership revenue DC and Arlington get will go to offset each jurisdiction's contribution to operating costs.

So it looks to me like it's DC and Arlington who bear the cost of lower revenue, not Alta. So, in essence, the lost revenue is a government subsidy. I presume the contract with DC and Arlington guarantee them sufficient revenue to make it worthwhile for them. I would be concerned if the lower price impacted the viability of the program more directly.

I think the distinction matters because bike shares have substantial externalities. The public at large benefits from less traffic congestion, lower carbon emissions, etc., as people switch from motor vehicles to bikes. So it makes sense for the government to subsidize user costs b/c it benefits all of us indirectly.

Do I think they will be foregoing some revenue from subscribers who would have paid more? Yes, I do. But I also think there will be a net increase in ridership. I got two new people to sign up today, so I know it's at least a start. In my mind, that's the more important public goal.

Gentrification and displacement aren't the same and should not be inextricably linked as frequently as they are, because it is possible for a neighborhood to "gentrify" without substantially displacing its long-term residents. Part of this thought is drawn from the fact that there is little quantitative work or research done on displacement.³

There are no exit surveys when one sells their house or ends their lease, so there is no real way of telling precisely why someone has left, and whether or not they left against their will. Say a son or daughter of a home's original owner, who has since passed away, sells the property because they aren't personally interested in it or, say an apartment complex is bought, developed into condos, and sold at prices far out of the range of the inital residents.

Both scenarios look like displacement once they're said and done, but they are wildly different. So, discussions of displacement, and whatever's causing it, inevitably become based on our personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, because we've got nothing else to work with.

Gentrification has also come to imply long-term, poor African Americans kicked out of their neighborhood by unsympathetic, middle-class whites. If you, as I do, consider gentrification a class-based, rather than race-based, process (it is, after all, about who can afford the mortgage), then this trope loses some of its steam.

Veronica Davis says:

Somehow somewhere, gentrification has become a code for "young, middle-class white people" moving into the a poor, black neighborhoods. In my examination of "Gentrification East of the River, I explored how it is disingenuous to discuss the concept of "gentrification" without acknowledging that people move in and our of a community for many reasons and based on personal preferences.

There have been articles on the influx of white residents in DC and the impact on neighborhood demographics. In my Hillcrest sub-neighborhood of Fairfax Village, most of the new residents are young, professional and black. Neighborhoods in Ward 7's Southeast have seen an increase in young, white families moving into the single family homes. Some of them relocated from other parts of the city in search of a larger house and a lawn.

It's important to point out in these middle class neighborhoods, many white families didn't leave during the era of "white flight" to the suburbs. Is a white middle class family purchasing from a black middle class family "gentrification"? Or is it just a family making a decision to sell and another family making a decision to buy?

Erik Weber says:

The same hackneyed story line pops up in the left-leaning, intellectual press over and over, like this recent story in the Atlantic.

It goes like this: admiration over an old neighborhood's attractive urban form; consternation and lament for its previous neglect; hope at recent glimmers of revival; and subsequent hand-wringing that one's current attention and interest is driving "all those poor people" out of their homes. It's like a '90s pop song formula.

Eric Fidler adds:

This alleged displacement story is not truly one of displacement. The man (or his wife, as the story suggests) wanted a bigger house, and that's fine. If you don't want to spend more money, but want a bigger house, you typically will have to move farther out where the prices per square foot are lower.

This is not unique to Anacostia, and I'm frustrated that NPR portrayed the man as being "displaced" when the real reason that he moved is that he (or his wife) wanted a bigger house and did not want to pay much more money. That's a common story as to why people move farther out, but this anecdote doesn't support Morning Edition's claim that white people are "pricing out" this man.

David Garber says:

First, Kellogg's evidence that black people are being forced out is based entirely on the story of one man who chose to buy a larger and more expensive house in Prince George's County than one he was considering near Anacostia. Second, he claims that Anacostia is becoming "more vanilla" by talking about one white person, me—and I don't even live there anymore.

On a personal note, I was disappointed that he chose to sensationalize my move out of Anacostia, which had absolutely nothing to do with the much-reported-on break-in that occurred at my 2009 holiday party. In fact, I moved eight months later, was very transparent about my reasons for doing so, and am still working (and hosting parties) in the Anacostia neighborhood.

I'd suggest he and other writers step back from the canned story that's been told before about every other neighborhood, look around, and realize a few key points.

Anacostia, and the River East community in general, is becoming more and more economically diverse, but mostly at the hands and monthly mortgage payments of black professionals, not white ones.

Check out the Historic Anacostia Block Association or River East Emerging Leaders, and you will see a very impressive mix of people, the majority of whom are black. Patronize Anacostia's newest businesses, Big Chair Coffee and Uniontown Bar & Grill and you will meet the friendly (and black) owners.

Take in a meeting of the Friends of Logan Park/Old Market House Square, a group run out of St. Philip the Evangelist Episcopal Church that is working to rebuild the park at the heart of Historic Anacostia. That will surely add to the look and feel of the neighborhood and make it more attractive. Most of the members involved in this effort, although quite age diverse, are black.

But hold on. Pause. Are we really still getting worked up about skin color?

White people are moving into Anacostia. So are black people. So are Asian people, Middle Eastern people, gay people, straight people, and every other mix. And good for them for believing in a neighborhood in spite of its challenges, and for meeting its hurdles head on and its new amenities with a sense of excitement.

And good for the countless residents who have stayed in the neighborhood through its worst times, many of whom are glad to see signs of progress. A few months after I moved into Anacostia, my next-door neighbor—an amazing woman who raised her family in the house adjoining mine, and for years dealt with heavy drug activity and physical neglect next door—told me "you know, this is the first summer in a long time that I've felt comfortable sitting on my front porch."

If that's the kind of change that's coming to Anacostia, then amen and hallelujah.

Erik Weber continues:

The real story is not about displacement in Anacostia but rather the lack of it. Any other neighborhood so centrally located, with its tight-knit urban fabric, historic properties, proximity to Metro and literally dozens of bus routes would be ripe for displacement were it anywhere in the city other than east of the Anacostia River.

The city has run out of neighborhoods that already possess all these, indicated by the shift of development and real estate speculation to H Street NE in anticipation of a future rail line.

Why has Anacostia been spared the "gentrification" that Logan Circle and Columbia Heights, U Street and Hill East have undergone? In that question lies the real story.

Substitute bus service

Stephen Miller: This whole debate makes me think of Boston's short-lived attempt at running "Night Owl" bus service that paralleled the MBTA subway lines until after the bars closed. Despite its popularity, the T ended up cutting Night Owl service during a budget crunch in 2005.

Eric Hallstrom: London had a night bus schedule that was infrequent and limited. It solved some transportation problems when the Tube wasn't running, but I recall that it was very confusing.

Vincent Flament: Although London's night buses are confusing at first, they actually work very well once you get used to them. Brussels, a city much more akin to Washington than London, launched night bus services in 2007. I support night buses in DC.

It will be slower than the Metro, but the area has a lot of avenues that enable buses to run quite efficiently, such as Wilson Boulevard, Georgia Avenue, Connecticut Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue. It's not convenient but it gets the job done. Although I'd hate seeing Metro night service gone, on a pure cost argument it may make sense to introduce night buses. They might discourage some from travelling, but they are better than nothing.

Michael Perkins: The trains take about an hour to travel the length of a line, and that's with no track traffic and more or less direct routing. Buses would have about half the travel speed of trains. Plus, you have to build in slack for operator breaks and recovery time.

Metrobuses cost about $130 per hour to operate, so let's do a back-of-the-napkin calculation. A Night Owl bus, operating five bi-directional routes with four buses each direction for three hours per weekend night, would cost WMATA approximately $2 million each year. Cost recovery for the Night Owl bus would be on the low end—about 15-20%—meaning that the service would end up costing about $1.7 million each year.

According to Metro, the cost of running the late-night rail service is $5.0 million annually. So for about $1.7 million you can have a relatively slow, low-capacity bus every half hour, or for $5.0 million you can have a relatively fast train about every 20 minutes that has a far greater capacity and runs on well-known routes more likely to attract riders.

Erik Weber: Remember that WMATA already has a shortage of bus drivers and running late night services is only likely to exacerbate that and the overtime crisis. Of course they would need fewer rail operators so perhaps some of them could get bumped back to bus operation. But a bus service that could handle the crush loads that some trains have on Friday and Saturday nights would be so expensive to run that this whole argument would become a moot point.

Also, some people simply will not ride a bus from White Flint or Dunn Loring into DC, especially if it has to detour to stop at each subsequent Metro station. While a night bus system could enhance connectivity within DC, it could never replicate the functionality of the full Metro system.

Veronica Davis: Interestingly enough, a few of us East of the River were talking about how it would be great to have a night bus system that loops from nightlife areas west of the river to areas over here. Another option would to be to have a night bus that circulates people from the Metro stations to the interior neighborhoods East of the River. Despite my utopian vision, I agree that Night Owl bus service is not a substitute for the Metro.

Catching a cab instead

Erik Weber: The only people who win in this situation are the taxi drivers.

Cavan Wilk: It might be cheap to take a cab from Dupont to Court House. However, it's over $30 to take a cab to Silver Spring. It's $50 to take a cab to Wheaton. A taxi is not how most of us get home—most of us take the Metro or carpool.

You only take a cab if you miss the last Metro train. Now, in addition to the cost, try to find a DC cab that will take you outside the L'Enfant City, much less to Fort Totten, Friendship Heights, Takoma Park, or Silver Spring—never mind Glenmont or Shady Grove.

Veronica Davis: You think it's hard getting a cab to Maryland? I've had cabs tell me they don't go East of the River. I now have the passenger Bill of Rights memorized. Nothing's quite as effective as threatening to register a complaint with DCTC! Needless to say taxis are not a viable alternative.

David Alpert: Cab drivers refusing to drive you? You're telling me!

Impact on businesses and nightlife

Eric Fidler: I can imagine DC's bar and club owners will be fuming and rightly so. Convincing suburbanites to take a bus into DC for nightlife will be a tough sell for all the same reasons that choice riders dislike buses during daylight hours. I'm sure some might be willing, but good luck.

DC has a lot to lose from this proposal since it is more dependent on transit and many nightlife businesses rely on customers who arrive by transit. We need to encourage more people who don't live here to come spend their money, not fewer.

Erik Weber: There is a serious issue at stake with a loss of economic vitality for late-night businesses as well as lost tax revenue for jurisdictions with late-night economies. Though DC has the most to lose, all three jurisdictions have transit-oriented late-night districts: for example, Bethesda, Silver Spring, and the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.

Topher Mathews: I suspect the vast majority of bar-goers will end up taking cabs instead of Metro. It's not cheap to take a cab back to the suburbs, but it's better if you're splitting the cost with a group. Plus, it's a lot faster than the bus or train.

Bottom line: people won't stay home and hurt late-night businesses. There are other arguments to be made for keeping the service.

Impact on service industry employees

Craig Simpson: Don't neglect the many service workers of those restaurants and bars as well as building cleaning workers who depend on late night service for access to jobs.

WMATA Board Chair Peter Benjamin has also suggested cutting existing late night bus service, which would affect the ability of those making bus/rail transfers to get to their destinations.

Matt Johnson: Service industry employees are an important reason to be concerned about this proposed cut. I'd hate to see mobility cut back, especially for those who need it most.

It wouldn't be the end of the world to cut back the late-night closing times by an hour, but I certainly oppose any move to completely eliminate the late closing on Fridays and Saturdays.

Impact on track maintenance

Michael Perkins: I would be against the night service cuts, except for the fact that Metro has also said that this would improve the ability to perform maintenance. It seems like Metro is barely holding its own on this front. Providing more maintenance time would be a good thing.

Eric Fidler: It's important first to vet the premise that closing early is necessary in order to provide needed upgrades. It might in fact be necessary, but given this is the same agency that takes months to repair escalators, I prefer to trust but verify.

Matt Johnson: Metro already has far more downtime than its peers. Only Baltimore's Metro is closed more. Cleveland, Atlanta, and San Francisco's BART all have significantly less night downtime, and these systems survive.

Now, it's true that Metro is open 3 hours later on Fridays and Saturdays, but it also opens 2 hours later on the following days. In fact, I think that a later closing throughout the week would be helpful.

During the week, Metro begins to shut down earlier than any other heavy rail system in the nation. At 11:24 pm, the last train leaves Branch Avenue. Compare this to Atlanta. During the week, the last northbound train leaves the Airport at 1:00 am. It makes it downtown at around 1:20 and doesn't reach the other end of the line until 1:43. When I lived in Atlanta, I never once worried about missing the last train like I do here.

What else should we shut down?

Eric Fidler: While we're at it, what other transportation infrastructure should we close at midnight? The 14th Street Bridge, maybe? I-66?

Eric Hallstrom: I find this argument to be the least persuasive of all. The cost differential between running Metro and keeping a road open are so massive that there is no comparison. Even if you could demonstrate that there are some comparable cost savings over time, there is no comparable short term cost savings, which is the exact reason Metro is thinking about cutting service.

Matt Johnson: Metro's budget shortfall is a concern. Something has got to give. Eliminating late-night weekend service is a bitter pill but it would certainly be preferable to reducing mid-day headways, or eliminating the Yellow Line to Fort Totten.

Chicago
Aaron Renn is the Urbanophile, a nationally recognized expert on urban issues, who lives and works in Chicago.

Chicago's Soldier Field is a bit unique among US football stadiums. It exists in the urban center, but not as part of the urban fabric. Rather, it is located in the lakefront park, just south of Roosevelt Road where the Grant Park restriction on buildings is lifted. Because of this restriction, the area actually has several buildings, including the so-called Museum Campus of the Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and Adler Planetarium.

Soldier Field has long been cut off from the city by Lake Shore Drive and the Illinois Central Railroad. In fact, the stadium at one point was in the median of the roadway, which split around it. The railroad now provides transit access to the stadium via the Metra Electric line, as do multiple nearby CTA rail and bus lines.

Soldier Field was actually opened in 1924 and while it was used for football games, the Bears actually did not start playing there until 1971. Prior to that they played at Wrigley Field. So whatever the merits or lack thereof of the stadium's location, it has little to do with pro football.

The stadium was extensively reconstructed to be a long term home for the Bears in 2003. As with most teams, they said they could not make enough money in the old stadium. After the typical local debate, it was decided to renovate Soldier Field. But perhaps the term obliterate is more appropriate. The new stadium retained the classical colonnades, but little else.

There is now a completely modern seating bowl that is quite nice. However, the exterior architecture is all modernist glass that presents a jarring contrast with the old stadium, leading some to brand it the "UFO that landed on Soldier Field." This was decried by preservationists but to no avail. Ultimately, the US government stripped Soldier Field of its status as a National Historic Landmark—the highest designation of historic site given by the feds—as a result of this project.

Some might say that a stadium is inappropriate on the lakefront. The classical elegance of the old stadium fit right in gracefully, however. The same cannot be said of the new. However, the lakefront has ample open space, and there's no per se problem with using that land for a stadium. Also, the parking that normally blights stadiums in downtowns is limited to one parking garage used also by the museums, so doesn't go to waste as in so many other cities. Some urbanists might decry it, saying hulking stadiums belong in the suburbs, but Soldier Field has been an integral part of Chicago's lakefront for decades, and few would likely choose to remove it. The new modernist bowl will remain an architectural blight for years to come, however.

Cincinnati
Randy A. Simes earned a Bachelor of Urban Planning degree from the University of Cincinnati in 2009. He is a master planner at CH2M HILL and writes about urban public policy and planning issues for the Cincinnati Business Courier and UrbanCincy.

Through its history, Cincinnati has seen a typical evolution of urban sports venues for American cities. The intersection of Findlay and Western, in Cincinnati's West End neighborhood housed the Cincinnati Reds from 1864 through 1970 in three iterations of ballparks—League Park, Palace of the Fans, and Crosley Field—until the team moved with the Cincinnati Bengals football team to Riverfront Stadium.

The Bengals also spent their first two years playing at Nippert Stadium on the University of Cincinnati's campus uptown. But when the two teams moved to Riverfront Stadium, they followed a national trend of cookie cutter stadiums in urban environments meant to serve as economic development generators. The problem was that the promise never came to fruition in the cities that went after the golden egg.

Most of those same cities have rebuilt their professional sports venues, many in the urban core. But the question still remains whether the return on investment is worth the valuable land for these lightly-used behemoths.

In Cincinnati, the Reds host more than 81 games every year drawing tens of thousands of fans to each event. Additional events are held at the ballpark, and its related attractions, throughout the year that also create a draw. Four blocks away, Paul Brown Stadium, home of the Bengals, hosts 10 games each year in addition to the smattering of high school events and concerts held there annually.

The result is a larger football stadium with far fewer events and a ballpark with more events but smaller crowds. The winner in this case is the ballpark, and the new generation of urban ballparks appears to be as successful as the original wave of urban ballparks in the late 19th century.

The problem with urban football stadiums can be both a structural issue and a programmatic issue. In the case of Paul Brown Stadium it is more about the program. The large, tailgating-bound crowds demand available parking for their pre- and post-game festivities.

In Cincinnati, developers are currently constructing The Banks, a mixed-use urban entertainment node wedged between Great American Ball Park and Paul Brown Stadium and will eventually house thousands of new residents. Before each phase of development begins, it must first have two-floors of underground parking built before it even begins to satisfy the parking demands for the new residents and workers to be housed above.

Once complete, The Banks may set the stage for a truly unique urban sports and entertainment area, one that would have no surface parking and force tens of thousands of sports fans, visiting the area, out onto the streets for live music, food, drink, and festivities. This may end up being Paul Brown Stadium's saving grace.
The beautiful thing about professional sports venues is that they can turn what is otherwise worthless land into something economically productive and thus improve land values in nearby areas. But most often franchise owners often want their venues to be located in prime real estate so that they can maximize their visibility. In Cincinnati that meant handing over prime waterfront property to two large concrete masses that only stay active a fraction of the year.

When other cities examine plans for an urban sports venue of their own, they should keep more in mind than the wishes of the franchise ownership and the promise of skyline shots on national television once or twice a year. Less is more. You want the venue to blend in so that it does not detract from its surroundings when it is inevitably non-active. You want the venue to be versatile so that it can serve other functions beyond that of playing baseball or football. And most importantly, get rid of the parking so that venue's support facilities do not kill what you want the venue to create—economic development.

Seattle
Martin H. Duke is the Editor-in-Chief of Seattle Transit Blog. An Electrical Engineer who grew up in the DC area, Martin has lived in Seattle since 1997.

Seattle, a city of 600,000, is somewhat unique in having not one but two big-time football stadiums within its city limits. One is seldom used, but not in an urban neighborhood; the other is on the edge of downtown but is combined into a bustling event district.

Husky Stadium, home of the University of Washington Huskies, is used for only seven major events a year. However, it is bordered by a lake, the University campus, medical center, and the rest of the athletic complex. Opening in 1920, nothing around it could be remotely described as an urban neighborhood.

However, Husky Stadium also sits on a transportation chokepoint. At one end of only two bridges that provide connectivity with the prosperous eastern suburbs, in the peak dozens of buses pass by each hour on their way to campus, and one of Seattle's few light rail stations will open in its parking lot in 2016. There is a strong case that the land should be used more intensively and the Huskies should share a home with the Seahawks. Regardless, many people treasure an emotional and historical connection with Husky stadium, and the Athletic department has zero interest in such a move. They are privately raising $300 million to renovate the stadium after being rebuffed by a broke state legislature.

Qwest Field was only opened in 2002, but lies on the site of the old Kingdome, built in 1977 upon Seattle's entry into the NFL. The densest part of the downtown core is only blocks away; in between lies the historic Pioneer Square district, dense but low-rise. Beyond Qwest is the Mariners' Safeco Field and industrial-zoned land. Qwest also lies amidst the greatest transportation hub in the Pacific Northwest: light rail, Amtrak, commuter rail, ferries, hundreds of local bus routes, and three freeways all converge there.

Because the Mariners also provide 81 home dates, and the MLS Sounders have had freakishly high attendance at Qwest (36,000 a game!), it's difficult to separate the impact of the NFL from everything else going on. Pioneer Square is a particularly active nightlife district, which meshes pretty well with the sports bar scene. There is a pretty large chunk of social services there, which tends to attract transients and drive off the more squeamish among us.

One promising trend is the disappearance of surface parking. When one stadium turned into two, several surface lots were replaced with two stadium garages. The last remaining major surface lot is slated to become 950 condos and apartments, doubling the number of residents in Pioneer Square to join the jobs, shops, and recreational options already there.

It would be difficult to say that Pioneer Square is thriving, but equally difficult to say that having adjacent regional attractions is hurting it. I think the key lesson is that taking away the moat of parking allows the stadium to be properly integrated into the neighborhood.

Bradley Heard

Although I, as a Prince George's resident, would hate to lose this economic engine, I think the 'Skins should be back in DC. More importantly, building a new RFK stadium would be a profound opportunity to revitalize that important part of Ward 7.

A new stadium could be the anchor of new TOD redevelopment of the vast parking lots, creating something more urban. At a minimum, some low-rise mixed use buildings with street-level retail could be added around the perimeter. The project could be coupled with the addition of the oft-talked-about infill Blue/Orange/Silver Line Metro Station at Oklahoma Avenue, which could tie into the Benning Road/H Street Streetcar line and commercial district, and bike and pedestrian improvements along East Capitol (east to Benning Road and beyond) and along the river.

The Redskins say they're not planning to leave FedEx Field until their lease is up in 2027, so that gives the District plenty of time to plan. At the same time, the departure of the Redskins from FedEx Field in Landover would give Prince George's County an opportunity to redevelop that awful site into something a bit more transit-oriented—something that connects more logically (probably via frequent bus routes) to the Morgan Boulevard and Largo stations and the Landover Gateway area.

Alex Block

I've seen some urban stadiums work out well. They can even have nice joint-development opportunities. However, the incentives for all parties are in complete opposition here.

The only way a giant new stadium at RFK makes sense for the city is if it hosts lots of events, and that requires an expensive roof. Likewise, the city's interest is in developing those parking lots to make better use of that space. And if you develop those lots, you take away Dan Snyder's ability to charge $40 per car on game days.

The goals for a successful urban development are often in opposition to those of a profitable NFL team. This isn't necessarily the case for baseball and soccer stadiums, or indoor arenas such as the Verizon Center. As mentioned in this discussion, pro football stadiums are lousy for generating activity because they're very large, very expensive, and host relatively few events.

There's actually an interesting proposal in Los Angeles from Anschutz Entertainment Group to build an NFL stadium near the LA Convention Center in downtown LA (next to the Staples Center as well as the recently developed LA Live entertainment complex). The stadium, like what Jack Evans seems to want, would have a retractable roof, and would essentially be a very large arena.

The challenge is in incorporating any kind of superblock development of that size into an urban context. The very nature of the structure (as well as the events it hosts - and all the usual pomp and circumstance of tailgating, etc) isn't a great fit. It certainly could be accomplished at the RFK site, but would require some significant changes to the current NFL stadium paradigm. You can't just plop a new version FedExField down on East Capitol Street and expect success.

Tim Krepp

As someone who lives about 120 feet from the Stadium-Armory Metro stop, I'm pretty dubious of any development of a football stadium, for several reasons.

A 100,000+ seat stadium gets used, optimistically, 20-25 times a year. When it's being used, it may be a great asset to the area, but otherwise it's a giant blockage to urban connectivity. Furthermore, before the Redskins moved to FedEx field, Stadium-Armory metro had a pretty significant backlog when RFK sold out (40,000 or so), often taking an hour or more to clear all the passengers. An Oklahoma Avenue station could potentially take a little more, as well as streetcar lines, but the overflow would still swamp the neighborhood, both metro access and driving.

Parking is both a giant revenue stream for the Skins and part of the football culture is the tailgating. There will be huge resistance to a new stadium with out acres of surface parking, which, most of us would agree, is not a good use of the site.

Lastly, the District has bigger and better development opportunities to be concerned about. DC has a fairly significant backlog of promising urban in-fill sights (Reservation 13, SW Waterfront, Near Southeast/Capital Riverfront, Popular Point, etc.), which will take 5-10 years to come to fruition.

It's quite sensible to start long term planning for the RFK site, as well as beginning the process of turning it over from the federal government, as that will no doubt take a decade in itself. But why not just develop a TOD plan for the site without a stadium? What does the Redskins being there do that a well thought out TOD plan doesn't? As a close neighbor, I would say yes to a new transit oriented development, but "no thanks" to the 'Skins. And not just because I'm a Giants fan.

Erik Weber

Matt Yglesias says that NFL stadiums belong on the periphery of cities, because of their low-intensity use, and their large need for parking. I agree to some extent with his argument, but I would hardly call FedEx field's location "on the periphery" of DC. While very few people, I think, would argue for a large football stadium in the heart of a downtown, because of their greater size that basketball arenas or even the newer "throw-back" style baseball stadiums, football stadiums can be successfully integrated at the edge of dense urban areas, much like RFK's location.

Still, to be truly successful, a new RFK would have to reject Yglesias' assumption that a large, mostly unused stadium surrounded by parking is somehow a fait-a-complit for NFL stadiums. If the stadium is designed to be flexible and accommodate more than just football games, one of the most compelling arguments against urban stadia can be eliminated by encouraging non-football uses. The Georgia Dome, home to the Atlanta Falcons, sits in downtown Atlanta. It has a variety of problems of its own, but underuse is not one of them: it hosts regular season college football and basketball games, major tournament and bowl games, as well as scores of other events.

With a strong site plan that ensures good access to Stadium-Armory and a new Oklahoma Avenue metro stations, stadium siting that is surrounded by multi-use park/event space to accommodate "tailgating" metro riders, and a reduced amount of structured parking, the Redskins could anchor a revitalized Anacostia riverfront. Redevelopment would offer DC a chance to revisit the pedestrian unfriendliness of of the streets surrounding RFK and create new access points for pedestrians and cyclists to reach the river.

A succesful new RFK stadium hinges on several ifs: excellent transit access, improved walkability of the surrounding, multi-use design, and minimal structured parking. But, after all, the Redskins aren't really moving anytime soon, so perhaps, by the time they do, these ifs won't be so far fetched.

As it stands, large urban stadia have been successful in other cities around the world, particularly with soccer stadiums in Europe, though these are used far more often than most NFL stadiums. Arsenal's new Emirates Stadium, seating slightly over 60,000 sits on a large block in the middle of central London, without so much as a scrap of surface parking. FC Barcelona's Camp Nou is similarly situated in the middle of the city, and seats nearly 100,000.

Tomorrow, courtesy of some our blogosphere colleagues, we'll take a look at some examples in the US where cities have chosen to keep their NFL stadiums in the city.

Jaime Fearer:

While I understand the arguments on both sides, we have vacant and underutilized land across the city that is ripe for infill and economic development, could be built reasonably high with zoning code adjustments, and would contribute to a tighter, denser fabric across all quadrants.

On the other hand, folks using the Height Act as a preservation measure are misinformed. It is certainly nice that it preserves viewsheds, but that was not the original intent. It isn't written as a preservation law, much like overhead wires, at their core, aren't necessarily a preservation issue. I tried writing about both for the historic preservation class I'm taking this semester, and was unable for that very reason. After looking into it some more, I agree. In fact, perhaps one day when I'm not writing a paper on DC's actual historic preservation law, I could write something up about how the Height Act and overhead wire limits are erroneously trotted out under the guise of preservation.

I understand the height limit is overly restrictive, but we've still got a lot of opportunity focusing on our underutilized areas and working to update zoning regulation. The development taking place in NoMa is a great example of this.

Also, I find bogus the argument that mid-rise architecture is inherently boring—it's a shame Leinberger fell for that in the Times piece. We humans are quite capable of building gorgeous, usable, and not-so-tall buildings if we stop being lazy and start thinking outside the K Street box. Thankfully some of those buildings still exist as examples.

Stephen Miller:

We like to think of the Height Act's impact on our skyline as special, and we think of the congressional process needed to change the Height Act as unique. However, there are parallels to be drawn here with policies in other cities.

For example, Mayor Bloomberg had to get Albany's approval for congestion pricing, another seemingly radical idea. The proposal failed because Bloomberg forged ahead without consensus from stakeholders within the city, most important among them, Sheldon Silver. In that analogy, Albany was the city's Congress-like overlord, but in our circumstance no Bloomberg figure has emerged to become the champion of amending the Height Act.

In the end, New York moved forward with a different model of congestion management by reallocating road space to pedestrians, cyclists and transit. When it comes to increasing density in the city, DC should heed New York's lesson and forgo a drastic policy change outside its control. Instead, we must continue to use the tools at our disposal by developing dense nodes in transit-accessible areas while still operating with the Height Act.

While that solution operates within the political reality, it should be noted that the blanket restriction on tall buildings is absurd outside the L'Enfant City and historic vistas. The highrises of Rosslyn, for example, have a more significant impact on historic viewsheds than taller buildings on the DC side of Friendship Heights ever could.

Eric Fidler:

The highrises of Rosslyn are visible from the Mall, diluting the effectiveness of the Height Act, which only applies to the District. The Height Act looks quaint when it restricts buildings in neighborhoods far and occluded from the monumental core.

I can see both sides of the height argument, but we have plenty of underdeveloped land in this city. Look at NoMa and the Navy Yard. Unlike many other building and zoning codes, modification of the Height Act will require an act of Congress. The public, preservationists, urbanists and statehood activists should expend their political energies on more important matters. The height limit is very far down on my list of things worth fighting over.

Alex Block:

Something's going to have to give. While it may seem that DC has lots of land left, it really doesn't. All those empty lots in the Navy Yard and NoMa are spoken for and have development plans. There are maybe a few other areas to be developed—Poplar Point, RFK Stadium/Hill East—but that's about it. What happens when we hit that limit?

The city will run head-long into an economic conundrum. It could keep the height limit, but at the risk of becoming an unaffordable wealthy enclave. It could upzone historic areas that are currently below the maximum height, but risk losing that charm and design. Or it could modify the height limit to let the natural—and beneficial—urban economic pattern of density and agglomeration unfold.

Some think the low-rise nature of the city is appropriate for a capital, but at what cost to the local economy? Ryan Avent notes that the height limit means property owners must squeeze every bit of value out of their developments, thus encouraging the kind of pressure that eliminates cheap office space for innovative start-ups, art galleries or similar enterprises. There are real economic costs to the limit. If we're going to preserve DC as a low-rise city, that's one choice—but what about the city's finances? Would people accept, say, regional tax base sharing in exchange for DC's height limit remaining in place?

What will need to happen is some sort of broad planning process and consensus, not unlike the McMillan Plan. I'm talking about more than the Comprehensive Plan, and something with more buy-in and a broader scope than NCPC's previous efforts. It will require the involvement of Congress. It will probably have to address the question of what DC's role really is as a capital—and will undoubtedly touch on home rule, self-determination and representation in Congress.

My preferred solution would be to modify the height limit to allow modestly taller buildings across the board, but with setback requirements and other design codes that would continue to preserve DC's aesthetic. A study from the Tony Williams administration found huge benefits for a modest increase in the maximum height. Vancouver's Larry Beasley laid out several principles (MP3) to add height while maintaining character, including building setbacks, creating targeted areas for increased height and use of urban design. I think you can keep the city's aesthetic while still allowing greater density via code.

I'd also designate some development areas for high rise development, but these areas would be limited and must be transit oriented. Three areas that come to mind would be the area near Rhode Island Avenue-Brentwood Metro station, RFK Stadium/Hill East and Poplar Point. These three would present terminal vistas for what's left of Delaware Avenue, New Jersey Avenue, and East Capitol Street. All have relatively underutilized Metro stations right now.

Whether the act is changed or not, there is a need to discuss this in the near future. The status quo of the Height Act will clash even more with economic reality.