July 30, 2007
Reduced Metro Fare for New Stadium Considered
Via this morning's Examiner, the city is focusing on strategies to reduce the traffic impact of the new baseball stadium when it opens next April. One of the considered options is a reduced "ballpark fare" to try and entice more people to take transit. While reducing the amount of cars and congestion on game days is a certainly a crucial goal, the reduced fare doesn't necessarily seem like it would make much of a difference.
The concern is that the stadium's location, which is less accessible by vehicle (compared to RFK) and larger crowds (thanks to the draw of the new facility) will cause crippling congestion. The city anticipates that an average 27,000+ crowd at the new stadium will get to the stadium mostly via transit (almost 50%). Another 40%, though, is expected to drive, which translates to almost 11,000 fans needing to navigate neighborhood streets and find parking more than 80 times a year. Would reducing the Metro fare get more people out of their cars and onto transit? We're not so sure.
First of all, the benefit of saving $1 or so on Metro fare would hardly seem to register with someone who's paying nearly $50 for a ticket, a dog and a couple of drinks. In fact, reducing the fare might even have the opposite effect, making Metro seem like the inferior option, where customers need to be guilt tripped into riding (a strategy that has failed transit systems for decades). The better focus for the city's efforts would be to more fully promote the variety of transit options the new stadium will offer, as well as spreading the arrivals and departures out in time.
At RFK, we herd like lemmings for the Stadium/Armory stop as soon as the final out is recorded -- the city should discourage the same practice at Navy Yard, the closest station to Nationals Field. Capitol South and L'Enfant Plaza present walkable options to get directly onto a Yellow, Orange or Blue line from the game, so we should make sure the easiest routes to those stations are clear, safe, and well lit. Bus options for taking people to Southwest, to Capitol Hill, and downtown should be clear and obvious for those who don't normally use that option, but who would if it got them home 20 minutes faster. It's also great to see the city investigating water taxis to Alexandria, Rosslyn and Georgetown; though they won't move tons of people, many will take that option just for the novelty.
An even more effective strategy for avoiding gridlock, however, is developing the ballpark district itself. The City should ensure that the team will open the stadium early for batting practice to entice fans to get there early. More importantly, the sooner that neighborhood bars, restaurants and other options are created in the area, the more fans will spread out their arrival and departure times and reduce peak demand. Unfortunately, while the stadium construction is currently on time, the rest of the neighborhood lags sorely behind. This problem will be most apparent early next year, when crowds will be 40,000+ for most games and there won't be anything open near the stadium, so everyone will show up and leave at the same time.
|
An "other" poll option would be useful to those who don't need to drive or metro to get to the stadium. Lot's downtowners could bike, for example.
See, here's where those relocated male stripclubs could come in handy. Have those underemployed guys offer complimentary shows at the Navy Yard Metro during gametime. Imagine the look on Grandma's face when she gets a glimpse of Senior Schlong swining his junk at the top of the escalator. Worth the price of admission.
Barring that, glory holes are always a crowd pleaser.
I hope that the group of Barracks Row bars that has provided a free shuttle to and from RFK for their customers in the past is considering the same sort of thing for the new ballpark, which is really very close by. And Metrobus already has a line that runs down 8th Street and across M Street toward the Navy Yard (the N22), but it doesn't run past 7 PM or so. Hopefully they'll consider not only running those buses later, but publicizing the line's existence. Taking the Orange Line out to Eastern Market and enjoying dinner and a few beers before the game would seem to be a much more pleasant experience than getting on the Green Line with 20,000 other people trying to get to the game.
or even carpool........
Why not just charge a s**tload for parking instead?
How about expanding the Circulator lines on game days? That could provide direct links with Gallery Place and Georgetown.
Why not just charge a s**tload for parking instead?
I think they'll have that covered. Parking at RFK is already $15, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it go up to $25 at the new place. And none of it will be as convenient as it is at RFK, unless you're one of the luxury suite leaseholders with a spot in one of the parking garages north of the stadium.
Jeez, Monkey. Again with the glory holes.
given that I have to pay my share of this absurd $400 million price tag on this stadium I never wanted, I think the $1 should go into a fund to pay for the damn thing.
I live close enough that I could walk to the damn thing if I wanted, so I don't give a fig about the fare.
This problem will be most apparent early next year, when crowds will be 40,000+ for most games and there won't be anything open near the stadium, so everyone will show up and leave at the same time.
How is that going to work out for 40,000 people? Probably pretty poorly.
I like #6's idea with expanding Ciruclator. Plus keep reminding suburbanites how much they do not want to drive: Red lights that "hide" from you on the sides of the street, complete with their red light cameras, DC loooves to write parking tickets and you know that with so much to do here you're gonna wanna go somewhere after the game, Metrorail is friendly for you and the kids (plus it keeps the kids quiet with something amusing to them - the train, try that in gridlock), horrible horrible gridlock, plus all the streets turn one way into DC/NoVa only anyway - you'll never find your way back to MD, Metro gives you an about additional __(insert time here)__ to sober up while getting you closer to home before you have to drive.
Everett, I would have thought you'd advocate putting the $1 toward a fund to help area kids buy weapons and fireworks to "defend their neighborhood" against the suburban, ballpark-going intruders.
As someone who lives a block from the new stadium and hates baseball, I think they should give me free metro fare on game days so I can get the hell out of there when the rowdy crowds descend on my neighborhood.
guest [11]
Kids are naturally kept quiet on the Metro? What Metro do you ride?
Everett, I would have thought you'd advocate putting the $1 toward a fund to help area kids buy weapons and fireworks to "defend their neighborhood" against the suburban, ballpark-going intruders.
-Best comment ever!
If I were you I'd just move. If you're a homeowner, your property is probably worth about 100x what it was a few years ago, thanks to the new ballpark.
The whole thing promises to be one colossal clusterf***. Let's not kid ourselves here. Our best bet is steadily decreasing quality of play coupled with declining interest until it's more or less a nuissance on par with game days at RFK.
A while back I heard something about water taxis/shuttles from Georgetown. Is that idea still afloat (pun intended)?
Why not do what they do in some European cities and require that the Nationals package Metro fares (or another transit fare) along with the tickets to the game? If people have already paid for the transit, they are more inclined to actually use transit to get to the games.
given that I have to pay my share of this absurd $400 million price tag on this stadium I never wanted, I think the $1 should go into a fund to pay for the damn thing.
First of all Everett, I think it's a $611 million price tag, but that notwithstanding, are you a district-based business with gross receipts of more than $3 million a year? Because if you're not, then I doubt you've actually paid any share. Yeah, yeah, I know - if businesses have to pay, then the customer pays...but then you're talking fractions of pennies.
The rest is coming from sales tax on stadium receipts (tickets, concessions) and lease payments from the Nationals so if you end up going to the games, then maybe you'd pay your share.
Let's clean it up a tad, folks (regarding some deleted comments). Thanks.
Foggy Magoo: I think the answer is, "not much." Steve Pearlstein wrote this in the Post in May about the difficulties of an inter-jurisdictional water taxi. It does sound like the National Harbor developers are really the biggest backers these days.
Jon2131: That's interesting... you have a link?
Metro should also add additional buses or shuttles after every game, perhaps especially to Red, Orange, Blue, and Yellow Line stations.
For example, the D6 bus is a great way to get from RFK to the Red Line, but only if the regularly scheduled bus happens to be along at the right time. Why not line up a bunch of extra buses as they do with trains.
Metro has added free shuttles to Union Station after a handful of games; why only rarely, though?
Am I the only one who thinks this is all overblown? Has no one else here been to Fenway Park? Next to no dedicated parking, a mass transit system only capable of handling a much smaller crowd, and crowds of 34,000 every night. It's a mess before and after, but everyone manages to get in and out just fine.
fartynonsense,
I think Fenway's situation is dramatically alleviated by the presence of Boylston Street. A big chunk of BoSox regulars aren't in a hurry to leave the neighborhood after the games. I think the ballpark district in SE will do the same eventually, but for '08, I don't think a lot of folks are going to stick around to hang out in the construction sites.
This can't be a novel idea, but how about shuttles to/from the RFK parking lots? It is a virtual straight shot, and well, what else are they being used for other that DC United games?
DC Government must require high parking fees at all facilities within staggering distance of the ballpark. Offering bargain train fares to casual Metro users is simply insane. Tinker with the Metro fare structure and you incur the well-deserved wrath of hundreds of thousands of regular commuters, steady Metro clients.
This is the price citizens pay when government allows salesmen to conduct the planning process.
Dear guest 12 and 15 . . . stop double-posting. It's lame.
Make all the fun you want of the "defending the neighborhoods" concept, but it's actually been studied and is considered an actual event in this and other cities. Ev never said anyone should defend their neighborhoods, but it would be good to acknowledge that that's the way some people are responding to the gentrification around here, consciously or not.
San Fran's stadium has a bike check-in for free. I also like the idea of shuttles to the other metros and incorporating the fare into tix.
Personally, if I lived on the Orange line, I would just walk to Capitol South. Its really not that far. Maybe some signage showing that would also help. Overall, they should have very attractive and informative signage explaining the different ways people can get to and from the area.
Everett:
How much of the stadium tax are you paying?
I took Metro to a game only once, and afterwards spent 45 minutes waiting in line in the hot sun just to enter the Metro station, because there were so many people waiting to get on trains that came once every 15 minutes.
After such a miserable experience, I would rather pay the extra money to be able to actually go home right away when the game is over.
I'll let someone else say it better than I seem to have, Hillman: http://www.reason.com/news/show/33008.html
No, I'm not paying the tax per se. I'm paying it indirectly, but let's not pretend that the increase on local businesses doesn't come back to us in the form of higher prices, driving out businesses who were too close to their margins, driving out some kinds of businesses over others, and so on. Plus there's the frustration of basically bending over for the likes of the Orieoles owner and MLB, when both of them could well afford to build a new stadium. Someone else in the comment thread wrote something about there not be any businesses over by the new stadium for people to patronize, and I agree, so where is this economic boom going to happen, exactly? Maybe in 5 or 10 more years . . . in the meantime, it's wait and see.
Everett
P.S.: Someone needs to fix the commenting login app so it works on Safari...
Everett:
The tax is on only large businesses (over $3 million in gross receipts), not your average Mom and Pop shop where most DC residents shop.
Most corporate law firms, lobbying offices, etc. will pay the tax. Your corner bodega will not.
And this was a fairly popular tax in the large business community.
So unless you are a regular user of lobbying firms or corporate law firms, the impact on the tax on you personally will be tiny.
As for no new businesses.... that's fairly ludicrous. An entire new city is taking shape down there. And all those offices, residences, and retail all pay taxes, bigtime, thereby probably reducing your tax bill in the future (of course, we all know tax bills really never go down, but it may slow the increase).
Take a quick gander at http://www.jdland.com to see some of the construction in this area.
Would some have happened without the ballpark? Probably. But not nearly as much, and not nearly as quickly.
Basically, the ballpark gave reason to bulldoze a lot of crap that would have never been bulldozed without the ballpark. And going up in it's stead is boring but very lucrative (from a tax perspective) huge buildings.
This sort of rapid-fire development will create a new neighborhood - a mini city. That would have never happened without a catalyst like this, as the area was high crime and had sat underutilized for, what, forty years?
The defending the neighborhood theory is a good one. Not making a comment on whether I agree with the action, but it is very real. Understanding the fear of change and disenfranchisement is important in such a rapidly changing city. Recognizing that it exists is simply common sense wisdom.
-anon long time DC activist.
Guest 33:
It's a bit of a myth that all of DC is 'rapidly changing'.
I mean, really, how much have the neighborhoods in Far NE and East of the River changed, for most of the residents there?
Not very damn much.
Yes, places like Logan and U Street have changed, rather dramatically. But percentagewise much of DC is still pretty much the way it's always been.
And how about taking a stand. Do you agree with the 'defending the neighborhood' through violence theory or not?