Infrastructure We Can Believe In
It seems WMATA thinks that it needs $11 billion over ten years “to maintain, expand and improve train, bus and paratransit service.” That’s a very large number. But as Ryan Avent explains it’s money worth spending and doesn’t actually come out to all that staggering a cost:
But look, Metro is critically important to this metropolitan area, so it’s worth the spending of some of our money. And if you think about it, the amount required here isn’t that daunting. Some 3.8 million people live in jurisdictions served by Metro. Do the math and that comes out to about $300 per person per year. If you use the entire metropolitan area, which includes people who use the system but don’t live in a county that contributes to Metro, then we’re only talking about $250 per person per year.
The key to getting this done is to explore smart sources of revenue. As Ryan says, performance parking (where on street parking costs more during peak demand periods) and congestion pricing (where space on roads costs more during peak demand periods) could raise a lot of the necessary money in ways that would improve the overall functioning of our transportation system. Beyond that, a functioning Metro continues to be the key to infill development that, among other things, grows the tax base. The areas around the Navy Yard, Stadium/Armory, New York Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, and Brookland Metro stations are all plausibly poised for dense, transit-oriented development but that’s premised on the Metro system continuing to operate at a high level.
32 Responses to “Infrastructure We Can Believe In”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
You should review the WAshingotn Post article about the Washingotn nationals. In their first year in a new stadium, they attendence was well below expectations and the revenues were bad. Riding the Metro to the ballgame is good for 20 something single yuppies but for a family of four, it is a deal breaker. Of course, having metro gave the stadium a reason to make parking impossible for the casual fan and now those spaces are empty too.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
superdestroyer, attendance and revenue aren’t bad at the new stadium because of the metro. They’re bad because the market for baseball in DC is rather limited.
It bears noting that for all the money that the metro needs for upgrades, it was considered comparably less controversial to secure the public funding for the stadium. And unlike the metro, I don’t use it and unlike the metro, I don’t even accrue any second-order benefits when I’m not using it.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Re superdestroyer
Attendance at Nationals games is less then projected because they are a lousy team. Field a competitive team and attendance will improve. No reason in the world why the punters should support a lousy team. Gives the owners an incentive to improve next year.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
So, Metro wants $300 a year from me (indirectly) on top of the $250 I already spend on fares with them?
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
As someone who actually took a family of four via Metro to a Nationals game (at RFK), I can assure you it’s most definitely NOT a dealbreaker. We spent less than 16 bucks on the trip itself, that’s dwarfed by the cost of tickets, food etc.
I haven’t looked into it recently, but is it even possible to park for less than $16 at a big league stadium these days??
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Driving to and parking in the area around Fenway Park in Boston is pretty awful.
That doesn’t keep the Red Sox from filling the stands. I see lotsa folks on the subway heading to games, including families of four.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
“is it even possible to park for less than $16 at a big league stadium these days??”
Yes, but not in any city with a worthwhile downtown. Vide Phoenix.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Superdestroyer: I live near the new stadium and am often on the metro at the same time people are going to/coming from the games. Trust me, families with kids are certainly capable of taking the metro to games. As far as I can tell, little kids from the suburbs seem to really like riding the metro–especially standing up holding onto the bar.
Given the location of the new stadium, it’s pretty essential to create strong incentives for people to metro rather than drive to games. The highways that go to the Stadium, SE/SW freeway, whatever 395 is called when it goes under the mall at S. Cap, etc. are very, very congested already–SE/SW freeway where it turns into 395 in particular is like a parking lot during rush hour. Having a ton more people driving on those roads at rush hour during evening game days would be completely untenable. People driving to games is a lose-lose because it makes commutes longer for everyone else trying to get home on those roads, whereas putting those people on the Metro is a win-win, since the extra trains make commutes home shorter for Green Line riders on game days. Metro has done a good job running extra green line trains on game days to make it easier for people to get to the stadium that way.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Let me to continue to beat up on superdestroyer. The nationals largest parking lot was never more then 10% full for any game, including the rare sell out. So if your family with kids could drive if they wanted to and park. The real problem was the traffic. The single biggest thing alleviateing traffic in Washington, the Metro.
The idea that kids and metro are incompatible is silly. please try it. most kids love the metro. I have taken a two year old grocery shopping using it before, it was not a big deal.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Jesus, this is incredibly stupid. Maybe the dumbest thing I’ve seen on a political site that wasn’t at RedState. There’s so many layers of stupidity here that it’s hard to even count. It’s like a dispatch from some alternate dimension where Fenway and Wrigley don’t exist. Hell, even in Atlanta a good number of “families of four” get to baseball games via public transit.
“Deal breaker?” Give me a break. What an idiot.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I have to agree. The first comment seems to be going for some record as the stupidest post on a political blog.
Dont the Nationals have the worst record in baseball? And arent subways packed, with families, for games with teams in other cities where its worth going to the game? I remember the one line (at a time) St Louis light rail crowded right before and after St Louis Blues games, its hard to get more red state than that.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I’m just back from a visit to Tokyo, a transit freak’s wet dream. Trains everywhere (fares very reasonable), thousands of grannies bike to work. Incentives to leave the car at home? It’s just devilishly hard to park downtown. On the other hand, you can park your bike in a very cool high-tech garage. And if you do want to pay to park a car, you can charge your electric vehicle at a convenient charging station.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
That’s a very large number. But as Ryan Avent explains it’s money worth spending and doesn’t actually come out to all that staggering a cost
Good luck pushing that line to all the people you’re trying to bilk another $300/year from. That’s another $1,200/year for a family of four. I think this means you can kiss goodbye to the Dulles airport extension. You’ll be lucky to get the $7 billion needed just for maintenance/repair of the current system.
A good thing about the $700 billion financial bailout is that it’ll make it much harder for transit authorities to get government subsidies. Meaning the actual users of transit will have to pay a much larger share of the costs of building and operating the systems.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
While I love dense, multi-use living spaces conducive to “transit,” I’m not sure the “infill” (a great euphemism)proposed is of the sort beneficial to communities served. If pursued without regard to the existing communities’ ultimate interests, “infill” is nothing more than population transfer, or as it is often referred, ethnic cleansing.
Not sure what your interests are, but if they involve building a just and sustainable transit based DC, it ought to respect the needs of all people, and the most disadvantaged specifically.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
nathaniel,
If you look at the map for parking at nationals park, you will see that all the lots are reserved. The parking lots are for the seaon ticket holders who have control over when they come and go.
I can understand driving Monday through Friday but the park is in a place that discourages going on the Weekends. In other cities like St Louis, there are a large number of cash parking lots within walking distance. The Nationals want suburbanites to ride the metro on Sunday afternoon and that does not work. Also, the sales taxes for purchases at the park at off.
The Nationals are having the same problem that Matthew wants for Tysons Corner. Do you really think that people will pay to ride metro to the mall when they can drive and park for free at other malls?
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
superdestroyer, you are 100% wrong. Some of the lots are controlled by season ticket holders, but there are plenty of parking passes to be bought by those going to individual games. these often are not bought because most families find it easier to go by metro.
I am not sure how the park discourages people from going on weekends. Further metro runs extra trains, weekends included, for nationals games. Basically you have no clue what you are talking about.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Nathaniel,
that people did not go to the games is a given. That there are only three cash parking lots is a fact. http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/was/ballpark/parking.jsp
That most of the parking lots are for season picket holders is a fact. The cheapest lot requires a shuttle bus and once gain takes up time and adds hassles.
Also, the Nationals have inflated their gate by counting seaon ticket holders even if they are not there. I looked at the game on television (I guess I am one of the few who look at the games of television) and the stadium has been empty for a month.
The Nationals need to make the games more kid friendly on the weekend which should include opening up more parking lots for suburban fans and try to attract kids.
The Washingotn Post also reported how the office buildings being built are empty and overpriced.
The problem with the Nationals is that from the owners point of view, it is a real estate deal with a baseball team attached.
Not having any parking and being located on commuter routes means no weekday day games.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
superdestroyer: the counter example would be the old stadium and the old washington senators, in which many of these concerns were addressed (there was no expectation of depending on the metro, since it didn’t exist, and I believe that parking wasn’t a problem in those days). The result? Baseball still failed in DC.
The Nationals aren’t popular in DC because there’s no real market for baseball in DC at the levels that could support it. All the parking in the world isn’t going to fix that.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
In Chicago, at Wrigley Field, there are maybe 50 parking spaces. The rest of the (not free) parking is located about 2 miles west of the field, so parkers need to take (free?) shuttle buses anyway. Therefore, most people use the train station directly outside of the stadium or one of the many nearby bus routes. Sure it may be crowded, but it is faster and cheaper than parking. Of course, this only really works because the CTA is prepped liked heck for the end of any home Cubs games. They open 5 more card reading lanes using portable card readers that also take cash. They also run way more trains during the hour that the game ends.
I have seen tons of kids on the train who are amazed and thrilled to have a new/different experience.
Also, this may not need mentioning, but the Cubs have never seen decreased attendence for lack of parking.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Just wanted to add that I know Chicago’s system is not the same as D.C.’s. I was just providing an example of how making parking difficult/expensive and public transit easy/cheap can actually work in a city.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Superdestroyer, you seem to be trying to be deliberatly obtuse. There is plenty of parking. There has not been a single game this year where a fan could not park at a lot within walking distance of the stadium if they so choose. If fans are not filling the stadium, and your view from TV does not give you an accurate view as all your primary view is of the 300 dollar seats, it is because of some reason other than transportation.
What lots do you want open to suburban fans on the weekend? All stadiums reserve their closest lots for season ticket holder. I don’t think a five minute walk dissuades many people from coming to games. Basically you are arguing in searach fo a problem that no one other than yourself thinks exists.
may I remind everyone the nationals are in the middle of the league for attendance even though they have an awful team. I don’t wouldn’t say thhey ahve an attendance problem.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
The real story on the Nationals is that the ownership has not yet paid the rent on the stadium that was owed back in the spring and continues to refuse to do so because the ownership says the stadium is not yet ’substantially complete’.
That Mr Lerner, hard to see how he walks carrying around those big brass balls of his.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The jury’s still out on whether there’s a market for baseball in DC because DC has never had a good team. Back in the mid-90’s when the O’s were contenders, thousands of Washingtonians (including me) drove up to Baltimore on a regular basis, so I know there are lots of baseball fans in DC. The bums who currently inhabit Nationals Park can barely lure me onto the Metro to use my season tickets, but if the Lerners ever manage to field a decent team I think they’ll have no trouble drawing fans.
I’m a big transit fan and make my living in part by promoting transit use but to be honest it’s ridiculously fast and easy for me to drive to the stadium when I have the use of my boss’s parking space. Much faster than taking the train, and my house is only 2 blocks from the Metro. But I’m a good liberal and I hate paying for parking, so I usually take the Metro, and it’s usually a pleasant enough experience.
I guess $300 per person per year doesn’t seem like a lot of money to a trust fund baby like Matt. For the rest of us it’s real money, even if it’s money well spent. The alternatives — building more roads and/or suffering through further deterioration in transit service — seem pretty unthinkable. I do wish they would give up on the Dulles rail boondoggle and put the money to better use in the urban core, but i guess that ship done sailed.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Again with superdestroyer’s idiocy. Dude, you’ve been given other examples of cities that do just fine while depending on public transit to get people to the game. As it turns out, these teams also play games on Sundays!
Maybe if the Nationals didn’t suck rocks, people would want to see them play? Has this idea even crossed your dysfunctional brain?
Also, ALL teams use the number of tickets sold as their official attendance, and not the number of people who actually show up. Not that I doubt your ability to get an accurate count by watching TV.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 am
levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 13th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:40 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra