Author: Veronica Miniello

Metro Considers Eliminating SmarTrip Loading Aboard Buses

When the No. 37 bus arrived at Wisconsin Avenue and Porter Street N.W. on Wednesday morning, 10 passengers quickly formed a line to board the bus. The first three entered, tapped the farebox and moved on to their seats. The fourth stopped, SmarTrip and cash in hand. The rider tried to figure out how to add value to his card while those behind him grew impatient in the frigid 20-degree morning.

Reloading SmarTrip cards has in a way become one of the greatest sins aboard a Metrobus– riders and transportation officials blame such transactions for bus delays and unreliability.

At Thursday’s Metro board meeting, officials discussed an idea the transit agency has been flirting with for years:  should Metro eliminate the SmarTrip loading option aboard Metrobuses?

“Each individual transaction may be relatively short, but over the course of an entire bus route the load transactions can lead to increased dwell times and slower average speeds,” Metro’s written presentation to the board says.

Taking the reloading option away could lead to faster bus trips, Metro officials have said. It happened in Alexandria, where the “add value” option was eliminated in April.

“People are getting on the bus quicker, buses are staying on schedule and the riders are happy because they are making their connections and getting to their destination faster,” said Sandy Modell, chief executive and general manager of DASH, the Alexandria transit system. “It’s been an amazing success.”

The change has been so positive, she said, that DASH is revamping some schedules this spring to adjust the time savings. On one route, the AT6 bus connecting the King Street Metro station to Northern Virginia Community College, DASH will eliminate one bus because the buses are making their rounds more quickly and the same service can be provided with one less bus, Modell said.

Metro is looking at the Alexandria experience, but such a change would have larger implications for a system that serves about 465,000 weekday passengers. Taking away the “add value” option could have a significant impact on travel time, especially in speeding travel for buses that are often stuck in traffic and in some of the region’s busy corridors traveling at speeds of under 10 miles per hour. However, it also could impact lower-income riders who only travel by bus and never go through a Metrorail station equipped with fare machines. For them, it would be hard to access locations to load their cards, Metro says.

“In particular, there are sections of the region (primarily in Southeastern DC and Prince George’s County) that are not close to Metrorail stations and that have few retail locations available. While these passengers could still pay their bus fare directly with cash, they would not able to make a bus-to-bus transfer, which is only available with a SmarTrip® card,” Metro’s report said.

Unless Metro adds additional retail availability or other options, including off-board loading kiosks, the change could be a civil right violation.

At Thursday’s meeting, Metro board members said more discussion is needed to make a decision, but some raised concerns.

Board member Malcolm Augustine highlighted the issue of limited locations for riders to reload their SmarTrip cards. In his Prince George’s neighborhood, he said, there is only one retail store where people can add value to their cards and it isn’t an easy process. Widening the network of options would benefit riders even if reloading on board buses continues to be available, he said.

One board member suggested public libraries as possible places where people could reload their cards.

Metro’s chief financial officer, Dennis Anosike, told the board that staff will spend the next few months exploring alternatives and will come back with more details about benefits and impacts.

Some transit advocates think investment in such solutions more off-board loading locations would pay off, if it means it would minimize boarding delays. Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said Metro ought to look at other practices such as moving the reloading machine away from the front of the bus.

“I imagine the answer is cost, but it’s worth considering,” she said. “European systems place machines to validate transit payment in locations other than at the doors.”

Metro may have already found a testing ground for a system that could expedite fare payment. The District is studying an off-board payment system in the 16th Street corridor, one of Metro’s busiest.  The question remains how soon this or any other payment system that keeps buses running instead of parked at the bus stop could be implemented.

At Thursday’s meeting, the idea was up for discussion as part of a budget work session.

Metro officials made the case to the board that “with bus speeds across the region continuing to decline, Metro is looking for ways to improve the customer experience, increase ridership, and reduce costs.”

Eventually the board will need to decide whether to eliminate SmarTrip loading on all routes, test it only on some routes or defer the idea for future consideration.

Meantime, Alexandria doesn’t mind if Metro looks at it as a case study. Modell said the success is clear: buses are spending less time at bus stops and staying on schedule; and the city is spending less on cash handling services. Although riders can’t add money to their SmarTrip card they still have the option to pay cash.

Prior to the change, Alexandria began an aggressive campaign to inform its 14,000 riders what was coming, letting them know about the places where they can load their SmarTrip cards. The plan, said Modell, was to change the habits of about 1,000 riders in the system that used to make those transactions.

By making the change, she said, DASH was trying to fulfill the mission of the SmarTrip, which was supposed to be revolutionary in the industry by significantly reducing the time buses spent at the bus stop while people paid fares with cash. SmarTrip was supposed to improve overall bus performance and reduce the amount of cash fares.

“But the result of allowing people to add money increased that dwell time and added delays that we did not anticipate as part of the program,” she said. “It inconvenienced riders who tap and go.”

It also increased DASH’s operating costs, she said.  More time at the bus stop means more time that the bus needs in the route, so it forced the system to adjust schedules and add buses to do the same amount of work.

If the concern is where to add value, she said, there are multiple ways of doing it: online, at retail stores like Giant and CVS–  and Alexandria is working with 7-Eleven as a future option. If Metro wants to do it, she said, the key is to educate riders about the change, give them plenty of notice, and make sure they have plenty of places where to add value.

“We talked about it as a region for years and finally we got to the point where we said ‘we have to do this.’ We thought it was time to make a change for the system as a whole and for all of the riders,” she said. “There was a lot of concern that once we did it that the sky was going to fall in Alexandria and on April 1st the sky did not fall and in fact we started running a more efficient and on-time bus system.”

Photo courtesy of Linda Davidson. Click here to read the original story.

Va. Lawmakers Differ on Future of I-66 Tolls

RICHMOND, Va. — With several bills on the table that would block tolls for solo drivers on Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway, Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne made his case to some skeptical lawmakers Wednesday morning, just before the 2016 General Assembly session began.

“I know there was a lot of rhetoric during the election, and if I contributed to that, I am here to apologize, I know it got very heated in that regard, but the average toll is $6,” Layne says.

Layne says the expanded hours for HOV rules in conjunction with allowing solo drivers a way to use the road during restricted periods for the first time add capacity to the roadway.

But opponents of the HOV changes and toll plans, such as Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, dispute that.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No. Sorry. That type of doublespeak is not going to work. Again, you can’t just toll an existing facility and take the revenue,” Petersen said in an interview in his Richmond office Wednesday.

“When I was a little boy, we put a man on the moon. We can figure out how to put six lanes through Arlington County,” Petersen says. “I’ve heard the obstacles … we can figure it out.”

Those obstacles include lots of homes and huge retaining walls along I-66 that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars to address.

Under the plan that is moving forward, tolls on I-66 inside the Beltway would only be charged to solo drivers during rush hour. The HOV restrictions would be extended to apply from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. eastbound and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. westbound.

Eventually by the early 2020s, HOV rules for the entire region are scheduled to change to apply only to vehicles with three or more people, rather than the current two or more requirement on I-66.

The money would fund projects selected by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, which is made up of Northern Virginia local and state lawmakers and appointees. Within the next 10 years, some of the money would likely be diverted to fund a new eastbound lane between the Dulles Connector Road and Ballston.

“I think people appreciate the dynamic tolling or congestion-mitigation pricing, and what you’re doing, it’s used around the country, it’s innovative, the concern again is there’s no expansion now,” Del. Tim Hugo, R-Centreville, told Layne at a meeting of the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability Wednesday.

Hugo says the capacity expansion he is looking for is new lanes for drivers.

Petersen and Sen. Jennifer Wexton, D-Leesburg, have proposed a bill that would ban any tolling on I-66 inside the Beltway unless additional lanes are added.

“If they do decide to go to tolls inside the Beltway, they need to at a minimum add at least an additional lane going either direction inside the Beltway,” Petersen says.

Del. Jim LeMunyon, R-Oak Hill, has proposed a similar bill in the House.

“The concerns are still there. The issue is that the administration just is not as ambitious in fixing the problems on 66 inside the Beltway as they are outside the Beltway, and it’s not that they can’t do it, it’s that for some reason they won’t do it,” he tells WTOP.

“If you think it costs too much, or it’s too complicated, or whatever the concerns are, we need to know them in specific terms,” he says.

“When you look at all they’re doing outside the Beltway, this group looks like a good problem-solving group — not to say that everybody’s happy with the plan for outside the Beltway — they can handle big complex things if they want to, and the point I made is inside the Beltway it’s not because they can’t, but because they won’t,” he adds.

But there are supporters of the plan to extend HOV hours and add tolls for solo drivers who see this as the best option to finally do something for I-66.

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, argues that Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s administration’s plan provides commuters with more options.

“They’re trying to save taxpayers money, for one thing, money that we don’t have. It’s about a billion dollars possibly to widen all the way in, and then where do the cars go when we get into Washington, D.C.? You’re not going to widen Constitution [Avenue] past the Washington Monument and the White House,” he says.

“You have limited road space, and it manages it better and moves more people,” he adds.

The plan would not impact Metro service, but would add more commuter buses to get people through the corridor.

Schwartz warns that opponents of the plan who simply want to widen the road will only make traffic worse in the long term.

“They’re trying to undo what we think is the best solution for I-66 … it moves more people — as many as 40,000 more people — faster and more reliably on I-66. It will help everyone. It will end HOV cheating,” he says.

“If you build it, they will come. New roads will fill up in a metro area in as little as five years … so why would you spend a billion dollars, only to have the traffic return.”

Photo courtesy of Mike Murillo. Click here to read the original story.

Numbers Don’t Always Give Us the Bottom Line for Transportation Plans

Dear Dr. Gridlock:

This area will be in gridlock until we use satellite computer technology to analyze, prioritize, subsidize and design our transportation infrastructure. I say this after attending over 100 hours of citizen input sessions on everything from interchanges to tow trucks.

I have worked in road construction on and off for over 40 years. I am also a driver on these same roads. We need a better way to keep people moving.

Gary Nicely,

Sterling, Va.

 The writer wants us to put our money into rational choices, grounded in data. In today’s world, there are more opportunities to do that, but there also are plenty of very rational people who think data-crunching has its limits.

I’m not about to argue for whimsy when investing billions of tax dollars in transportation programs. (Though I am getting a little impatient waiting for my jet pack.)

In fact, I’ve seen the value of aerial photography in tracking congestion hot spots, of computer modeling in anticipating the traffic patterns at new interchanges and of GPS data in creating a world of real-time traffic maps, highway information signs and navigational aids.

I’ve been on the road with a Maryland State Highway Administration crew in a teched-up truck, crammed with cameras and sensors, that gives engineers a data assist in managing infrastructure decisions.

During the fall holiday season, I saw how travelers benefited from traffic data that can predict when and where bottlenecks will develop. That same data can be used to build cases for long-term improvements in the travel system.

Among the region’s governments, Virginia has gone the furthest to tie decisions about the transportation network to measures of greatest need and greatest impact. In response to a law passed by the General Assembly in 2014, Virginia’s transportation officials have been developing a scoring system to evaluate which projects are most worthy of public investment.

Makes sense, right? Scoring takes the politics out of the decision-making.

Well, not so fast. Turns out there’s plenty of room to debate which criteria should get the most weight in a scoring system.

In built-up Northern Virginia, the formula puts a huge emphasis on congestion relief, but there was considerable debate over just how huge that emphasis should be.

With congestion relief counting for 45 percent of a project’s total score, your transportation network could tilt toward big highway programs. The public could wind up pouring money into projects that reproduce some of the same old problems that developed with the 20th-century transportation network.

During one of my online chats, smart-growth advocate Stewart Schwartz described the concern about highway expansion programs: “We know that ‘if you build it, they will come.’ It’s well documented that new highway lanes in metro areas can fill up in as little as five years due to ‘induced traffic.’ ” (If you give drivers more lane space, it won’t be long before they fill it up. Then what?)

“Those pushing ‘congestion reduction’ are just looking to expand highway lanes and are only looking at the short term,” Schwartz said. “They are failing to look at the bigger picture of how land use, technology, and transit, walking and biking can reduce the amount of driving for the short, medium and long term.”

But in the long term, as the far-sighted economist John Maynard Keynes observed, “we are all dead.” Today’s commuters — today’s taxpayers — crave those short-term solutions. Short term as in “Now!” And the vast majority of those commuters/taxpayers are drivers.

Many want scoring systems tilted toward doing the greatest good for the greatest number, and they’re the greatest number.

They’re part of the travel constituency that Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance is hearing when he argues for a new Potomac River crossing, the rapid widening of Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway and other high-impact road projects.

No matter how rapidly a project can be built, it’s supposed to last a long time, and that gets us to another challenge for data-driven decision-making.

No matter how good the number-crunching today, the planners are making educated guesses about how the results will apply decades from now, as their projects mature. Many times, changing realities intrude on the trend lines the planners developed.

The economy gets better or worse, areas develop in unanticipated ways, businesses and government offices relocate, commuting habits change, or technology opens up new travel options. Plus, an optimism bias can affect the humans who use the travel data to anticipate the popularity of their projects.

If all these complications leave you confused and frustrated about our ability to design the future, you’ve got the right idea.

Till we’re all dead, you can trust that Nicely’s conclusion will remain relevant: “We need a better way to keep people moving.”

Photo courtesy of Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP. Click here to read the original story.