Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > America - USA > Mid-Atlantic
Reload this Page >

Sunday commuting time between DCA and RFK

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Sunday commuting time between DCA and RFK

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 16, 2006 | 10:24 pm
  #16  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,856
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Today's Post said that there would be shuttle buses from RFK to Union Station after each game's 8th inning this weekend.
DeafFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 19, 2006 | 8:12 am
  #17  
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,213
Originally Posted by DeafFlyer
Today's Post said that there would be shuttle buses from RFK to Union Station after each game's 8th inning this weekend.
I saw the shuttle buses; they were there at the end of the game.

Thanks to everybody for their help. We took the blue from DCA and just stayed there until the Stadium/Armory stop. Wow, it was hot. But we were VERY LUCKY. Our seats were not only great, 5 row in the pink upper tier right behind home plate, but they were in the shade the entire game. I don't know how those in the sun handled it. We discovered there was a "Red, Hot, and Blue" which I remembered from my time living in Maryland. So we had pulled pork sandwiches (VERY EXPENSIVE btw) and two large diet cokes each. At around 3:30, we moved to the 300 level seats by the Main Entrance as we wanted to see as much of the game as we could and then dart out to the metro. While our pitcher pitched a GREAT GAME, there was nobody to relieve him in the 9th thanks to the horrible pitching the day before and the Yankees ended up losing. But we really enjoyed the game. Our pitcher did a solid job regardless. RFK is a cookie cutter stadium. Not impressed. While it's great the Nationals are getting their own stadium, it's a pity that the people of DC will be footing the bill.

We got on the blue train back to DCA. We followed the advice to just stay in the train for the entire ride instead of getting off at L'Enfant Plaza to catch the Yellow. It was funny; on the train were 3 drunken Yankee fans yelling their heads off that the Yankees rule (hard to do after you've lost) but anyway, there were people on the Metro car who clearly had never experienced a loud subway ride on the 4 train and thus were completely shocked by these guys screaming what sounded like beer songs. We were just giggling to ourselves. We had a little bit of 4 train with us until they got off at Foggy Bottom.

We got to DCA around 4:40pm and there was a long line at security. But it moved. They made me take off my shoes (they didn't make me do that at LGA in the morning) but they had what looked like foot covers doctors wear in surgery for us to put on so we didn't have to go barefoot. I was impressed. ^ We caught the 5:30 shuttle and came into LGA an hour later.

I have to say, I loved landing and taking off from DCA because of the great views of the monuments and the Capitol building. I've never flown to DCA before so it was a great treat to see the sights from the plane.

Thanks again everybody.
Analise is offline  
Old Jun 19, 2006 | 10:01 am
  #18  
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: IAD
Posts: 6,452
Originally Posted by Analise
RFK is a cookie cutter stadium. Not impressed. While it's great the Nationals are getting their own stadium, it's a pity that the people of DC will be footing the bill.
What do you mean by cookie cutter? It is 45 years old. I don't think the stadium impresses anyone. It was impressively loud when the Redskins played there, but that is about all that is impressive.

DC should foot the bill for the new stadium, after they stupidly ran the Redskins out of town. FedEx Field would have been built in DC, paid for by Jack Kent Cooke, but DC couldn't get their act together.
whlinder is offline  
Old Jun 19, 2006 | 10:42 am
  #19  
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,213
Originally Posted by whlinder
What do you mean by cookie cutter? It is 45 years old. I don't think the stadium impresses anyone. It was impressively loud when the Redskins played there, but that is about all that is impressive.
Do cookie cutters impress fans? It is part of the crew of stadiums like Shea with nothing special about it. Even dimensions, nothing of interest, it's hot and boring. Unlike Shea, it has no escalators either.

DC should foot the bill for the new stadium, after they stupidly ran the Redskins out of town. FedEx Field would have been built in DC, paid for by Jack Kent Cooke, but DC couldn't get their act together.
So how did the DC government get rid of a free stadium paid for by Jack Kent Cooke?
Analise is offline  
Old Jun 19, 2006 | 1:18 pm
  #20  
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: IAD
Posts: 6,452
Originally Posted by Analise
Do cookie cutters impress fans? It is part of the crew of stadiums like Shea with nothing special about it. Even dimensions, nothing of interest, it's hot and boring. Unlike Shea, it has no escalators either.
Ok I understand. I usually only hear the 'cookie cutter' phrase wrt something built recently (be it a house or a stadium).


So how did the DC government get rid of a free stadium paid for by Jack Kent Cooke?
The generally accepted reason by the media is that the DC government was simply difficult to do business with and Mr. Cooke took his money elsewhere. This was constantly re-hashed with the baseball stadium negotiations, like in this article.

"It speaks volumes to what we can't do," said D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), opining for many who view the loss of the team as a metaphor for a diminished city. "We dropped the ball, and now we're trying to blame everyone else, which is the common theme."

[snip]

Which raises another question: Why are the Redskins leaving? Or, to better capture the aggrieved tone of the debate in the District: Who lost the Redskins?

Some might view their move as inevitable, another scrap of urban America yanked loose by the migration to the suburbs. In 1961, the District was ringed by a loose collection of small towns. Today, the region is a vast megalopolis, peopled in part by the children of former D.C. residents.

"It symbolizes the suburbanization of the D.C. metropolitan area," said Jamin Raskin, a professor and dean at American University. The loss of the team "comes as a blow to municipal self-esteem, but this is really just a move to another part of the Redskins territory."

Still, District officials often thought they were on the cusp of retaining the Super Bowl champions. In late 1987, Cooke began lobbying for a larger, more modern home, with 78,000 seats and a raft of lucrative luxury boxes. His first choice, he said repeatedly, was to erect a new stadium alongside the old one. And he set the first of many deadlines for D.C. officials to get him a deal.

Mayor Barry embraced the challenge. "The Redskins are ours," he proclaimed in 1988. "We're going to keep them."

Barry's optimism appeared justified. Prince George's and Montgomery County officials expressed no interest in the team, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments said the team should remain in the District. In September 1988, Barry told business leaders that he and Cooke had "reached an agreement."

Weeks later, the deal evaporated, establishing a years-long pattern. Cooke would flirt with Virginia and Baltimore and suburban Maryland -- and each time return to the District. In August 1990, The Washington Post reported that the District and Cooke had "all but finalized an agreement." A year later, Cooke was quoted as saying a deal with the District was "almost a given."

It never happened. From Cooke's point of view, the negotiations presented a never-ending series of hurdles. The land he desired belonged to the federal government, and acquiring it required time-consuming permits, approvals and environmental impact statements. Discussions over easements, roads and new highway ramps inevitably turned on the availability of federal highway dollars because the fiscally besieged District had little wiggle room.

In the middle of it all came Barry's political sabbatical, when he was arrested, convicted and replaced by Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly.

The District, too, has reason to doubt Cooke's true intent. The city put more than $100 million on the table. And time and again, negotiators for Barry and Kelly found themselves within inches of an agreement, only to hear Cooke raise another seemingly insignificant objection, from the timing of an announcement to what publications he would use to advertise for building contractors.

"We kept asking ourselves, `If Mr. Cooke really wants this deal, why is it sitting there after all these years without a spade of dirt turned?' " recalled lawyer Langley Shook, who represented Kelly in stadium negotiations. "We thought we were moving closer, but it was always halfway to the goal line."

Then there was the infamous, alleged grope, where the billionaire entrepreneur (whose $40 million divorce settlement once graced the Guiness Book of World Records) is supposed to have ended a negotiating session by patting Kelly's rear. True or false, reports of the incident did nothing for the atmospherics of stadium talks.

"A billionaire bully," Kelly called Cooke months later, after negotiations broke down completely.

"He's a difficult man," Evans said, "But the bottom line is that our government couldn't make it happen. It's a huge, huge loss."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...cles/rfk22.htm

Here is a timeline:
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/Wa...s/timeline.htm

I'm sure there was much more to the story than was ever made public, and D.C. government probably didn't do all that bad for their taxpayers, since they would have paid for road improvements yet football doesn't bring the economic benefits to the city that baseball and basketball/hockey stadiums bring, but they will forever be labeled as 'forcing' the Redskins to move to P.G. County.
whlinder is offline  
Old Jun 20, 2006 | 8:04 am
  #21  
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,213
They balked over improving the infrastructure of the roads? They put up bureaucratic walls because the land next to RFK is federal property? How very telling.

Now DC residents will be paying for a new stadium (including the road infrastructure). If these residents were smart, they'd move to VA.

Thank you for the information you provided.
Analise is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2006 | 9:18 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: south of WAS DC
Posts: 10,131
I don't understand the value of these stadiums to the general public. RFK has been there for 45 years. no development anywhere around. The two stadiums in balt have no development in the immediate area.

the new dc stadium is actually screwing up the development in the area. there will be a couple big holes in the ground, and lots of traffic on game day in an area that would be high rise high end office and residence by 2010 if the stadium were not there. this development started long before mlb bought montreal.
slawecki is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2006 | 12:51 pm
  #23  
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by slawecki
I don't understand the value of these stadiums to the general public. RFK has been there for 45 years. no development anywhere around. The two stadiums in balt have no development in the immediate area.

The two stadiums in Baltimore are just a couple blocks away from the Inner Harbor and that area continues to be developed. Not to mention being directly across the street from the convention center. Camden Yards is a beautiful stadium.
tazi is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2006 | 8:31 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington DC USA
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by tazi

The two stadiums in Baltimore are just a couple blocks away from the Inner Harbor and that area continues to be developed. Not to mention being directly across the street from the convention center.
True, but those were there BEFORE the stadiums got built. The Convention Center opened in 1979 and Harborplace opened in 1980. The stadiums were built in 1992 and 1998.

Originally Posted by tazi
Camden Yards is a beautiful stadium.
It is. But that doesn't mean it's spurred a lot of development around it.
crhptic is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2006 | 7:23 am
  #25  
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,213
Originally Posted by tazi

The two stadiums in Baltimore are just a couple blocks away from the Inner Harbor and that area continues to be developed. Not to mention being directly across the street from the convention center. Camden Yards is a beautiful stadium.
Camden Yards is a fantastic stadium. Very, very fan friendly plus terrific amenities. I hate the Orioles but I just ADORE their stadium. I've never been to the Ravens stadium (what's its name now? ), but I can only guess that it's as nice as CY.

Like you, I'm confused by that comment too. The Camden Yards train station is right there (and now more popular than ever) so people can not only take a train to the game but they can then walk right to the Inner Harbor for dining, shopping and nice hotels, so the convenience is great for the business. The stadium is also convenient to the Light Rail as well. I think the area around Camden Yards has greatly improved. Real estate values have increased (so says a friend of mine in Federal Hill!) and the area is overall improving.
Analise is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2006 | 3:54 pm
  #26  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,679
Originally Posted by whlinder
DC should foot the bill for the new stadium, after they stupidly ran the Redskins out of town. FedEx Field would have been built in DC, paid for by Jack Kent Cooke, but DC couldn't get their act together.
Lemme get this straight. Because 20 years ago the bankrupt city of Washington led by its crackhead mayor (now council member) couldn't get the job done, the residents of today's Washington should have to pay for a stadium. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. The majority of the poeple who come to the games are from MD and VA. They should be helping to foot the bill. I say raise the ticket prices to pay for the staduim.
El Boocho is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2006 | 6:15 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington DC USA
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by El Boocho
I say raise the ticket prices to pay for the staduim.
I'm quite sure they will. I am enjoying the days of $7 MLB tickets while I can.
crhptic is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.