Category: Better Public Transit

CSG in the News: “Metro Might Charge Bus Riders More For Paying In Cash. How Will It Affect Low-Income Riders?”

CSG in the News: “Metro Might Charge Bus Riders More For Paying In Cash. How Will It Affect Low-Income Riders?”

By Margaret Barthel | WAMU | February 25, 2020

Metro will hold three public meetings this week to solicit feedback on its proposed 2021 budget. The agency is suggesting a number of significant service changes, including fare changes, cuts to bus routes, free transfers between bus and rail and the return of late-night rail service.

In one proposal, Metro is suggesting a 25-cent surcharge — on top of the regular fare — for people paying cash to board the bus, or using cash to add value to their SmarTrip cards on the bus.

That’s been the subject of some concern from advocates worried about the way the proposal could affect low-income riders, especially those who are unbanked or under-banked. More than half of Metrobus riders make less than $30,000 per year, and a significant majority are people of color.

Speeding Buses Up

Metro wants to make bus trips more efficient, which could make the bus a more appealing transit option — one of the goals of the Bus Transformation Project, a vision for the region’s buses that the Metro Board endorsed last month.

But last year, a report found that buses on some of the system’s busiest routes arrive on schedule just 60% of the time and move less than 10 miles per hour, on average. Bus ridership has declined by 12% in the past 5 years, and the agency hopes to recoup its losses.

One way to do that is to minimize the “dwell time” a bus spends at a stop, waiting for passengers to board and pay for their ride. According to Metro research, payment takes 2-4 seconds with a SmarTrip card, but as long as 20 seconds for people paying in cash or loading a SmarTrip card with cash. About 96% of Metro passengers use SmarTrip cards, with 4% paying in cash on the bus.

A 25-cent surcharge on paying in cash would penalize those riders and, Metro hopes, would incentivize them switching over to SmarTrip cards instead.

“You could position it as a $2.25 bus fare with a 25-cent discount for using SmarTrip,” said Metro spokesperson Dan Stessel.

General Manager Paul Wiedefeld pointed out at a D.C. Council oversight hearing that a SmarTrip card can help riders unlock other savings, too, in the form of passes.

One such discount is also included in Metro’s proposed budget: a decrease in the price of a 7-day bus pass from $15 to $12. But that still requires riders to come up with $12 upfront, a fact Wiedefeld acknowledged.

“Now we’ve got to figure out how we get that done — how do we come up with that $12,” he said.

He suggested that Metro might work with the District to spread the word, perhaps through “book mobile-type things.” Another option Wiedefeld mentioned: a program modeled after Kids Ride Free, where the District could subsidize transit passes for low-income residents.

George Jones, who leads the nonprofit Bread for the City, told WAMU that the low-income residents his organization serves would be hard-pressed to switch to paying upfront for Metro passes.

“You’re talking about people who predominantly use buses, who probably aren’t just readily paying for transportation in advance, in long-term blocks, like those of us who have a Metro card we reload every month,” he said.

‘This Is Not The Way’ 

While some advocates agree that speeding up buses is an important priority, they also raise concerns about how the proposed cash surcharge could affect low-income riders.

“We all agree we need to speed up the boarding process, but this is not the way,” said Cheryl Cort, the policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a transit advocacy group.

“Some people don’t have easy access to load a SmarTrip card other than on the bus,” said Katherine Kortum, a transit policy expert and member of the Metro Riders’ Advisory Council. “Not everybody has access to the credit cards and the online access needed in order to top up a card online.”

About 8% of D.C. households are unbanked, and 21.2% are underbanked, according to a 2017 analysis from the FDIC.

“We’re talking about folks who are, at any moment, struggling just to figure out how to get from one place to another,” said Jones. He noted that Bread for the City spent around $50,000 last year in transportation assistance.

Kortum also notes that many bus riders don’t have close by Metro stations where they might add money to a SmarTrip card with cash. In addition to its own Commuter Stores, Metro has retail partnerships with some CVS and Giant locations to provide riders with additional places to add cash value to a SmarTrip. Just three of those places are east of the river.

Metro officials told the D.C. Council that there are about 500 retailers across the region where riders can buy or reload SmarTrip cards, predominantly CVS locations.

Cort told WAMU she hopes Metro will ultimately go cashless — but that that would be paired with deeply discounted or free fare passes for low-income residents, as well as many more options for fare loading.

View the full story on WAMU here.

CSG Comments Re: WMATA FY2021 Budget

A copy of the letter below was sent on Tuesday, February 13, 2020 to the WMATA Board of Directors.

Dear Chairman Smedberg, members of the WMATA Board, and GM Wiedefeld: 

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is a 23-year-old non-profit and leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We partner with dozens of DC area conservation, housing, transit and smart growth non-profit, advocacy organizations, and the business community, and are founding members of the MetroNow coalition which was instrumental in helping WMATA win the first-ever dedicated funding for the agency. We also served on the Executive Committee of the Bus Transformation Project. Today, MetroNow and our non-profit partners are committed to winning implementation of the recommendations of the BTP, including dedicated bus lanes and network redesign for faster, more frequent and reliable service, more affordable fares for lower income residents, technology improvements for off-board fare collection, and more. 

We support a number of provisions in the draft budget but are concerned about others, particularly the proposed changes and cuts to bus service. 

We support: 

Restoration of late night service: Late night service is particularly important for service workers at late- night businesses, especially those who live in Virginia and Maryland. We support restoring late-night service, while still ensuring time for needed maintenance. 

Free transfers between bus and rail: Free transfers were a top recommendation from the Bus Transformation Project and the second-most requested bus improvement after bus lanes in the survey. They were the top recommendation among low-income riders along with more affordable fares overall. 

Low and lower pass costs: Lower pass costs are particularly helpful for lower-income riders and can support the transition to off-board fare collection which will speed buses. 

Improved weekend service for bus and rail: This will support the access to jobs for all those who do not have traditional Monday to Friday work schedules, and support the transition to car free and car-light living for the tens of thousands of residents moving into transit-oriented communities in the city and suburbs. 

We oppose: 

Increasing the cash fare for Metrobus: This should only be done in conjunction with a much-improved Metro SmarTrip Retail Outlet program, establishment of an off-board fare payment option for Priority Corridor Network routes, and a new integrated payment and trip planning system. 

Charging peak fares after midnight: This is inequitable for late-night workers. 

A $1 surcharge for MetroExtra: We should be encouraging people to use limited-stop service, which saves operating funds, increased ridership, and helps people get to their destinations faster. We should not create a two-tier system that hurts lower-income riders by discouraging their use of faster buses. 

Bus service changes and cuts: While some reconfigurations listed in the proposal may make sense, we have received significant negative feedback from our members about the proposed changes. To the extent that service cuts are being forced by the arbitrary 3% operating cost growth cap, we urge the Virginia and Maryland jurisdictions to remove the cap. 

We prefer that WMATA and the region initiate a process for bus network redesign. This process can start with the proposed development of common service standards for WMATA and local bus services based on the frequency and coverage needs of our region. But any allocation or reallocation of service to WMATA or the local jurisdictions and major service changes like those being proposed, should take place after a network redesign study. 

We also urge all area jurisdictions to continue to increase their operating funding necessary to expand bus service while making it faster, frequent and reliable. With climate change, we must maximize our investment in transit to support walkable, transit-oriented communities, access to jobs, and reduction in total vehicle miles traveled. 

Thank you, 

Stewart Schwartz Executive Director

CSG testimony supporting changes to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act (SB 136)

February 3, 2020

Budget and Taxation Committee

Miller Senate Office Building, 3 East

Annapolis, MD 21401

SB 136 – Transportation – Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act – Alterations (Support) 

Testimony for February 5, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the Budget and Taxation Committee. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We are strongly in favor of SB 136, which makes necessary alterations to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. 

This bill will repeal the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation withhold a portion of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority’s (WMATA’s) operating grant if WMATA’s operating expenditures increase by more than three percent over the prior fiscal year. The current three percent cap is arbitrary and limits WMATA’s ability to provide the level of service its Maryland customers require to get to and from work and other destinations. 

WMATA’s own reports have shown that the best way to increase ridership, and thus increase farebox revenue, is to increase service. The WMATA Board has also recently endorsed the bold Bus Transformation Project, which seeks to make bus the mode of choice in the DC region. These service improvements cannot happen without the necessary funding and support from the State of Maryland. 

Right now, WMATA’s current budget proposal seeks to increase suburban fares and cut vital bus routes in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, which will either require local providers to fill in the gap or, more likely, people will lose the bus service that they depend on to get where they need to go. These fare increases and cuts will disproportionately hurt low-income residents. 

The WMATA Board, on which the Maryland Secretary of Transportation sits, is the proper body for deciding by what percentage WMATA’s operating expenditures should increase from year to year. If Maryland doesn’t want operating expenses to increase by more than three percent, the state can veto WMATA’s budget. Removing the legislative requirement of three percent gives more flexibility to Maryland’s decision makers. Three percent is entirely arbitrary and limits the system’s performance in a time of slow economic growth, high traffic congestion, and a climate crisis. 

We are also supportive of the updated requirements to the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) regarding the development of the Central Maryland Regional Transit Plan. A strong transportation network is key to connecting the DC region to the jobs and opportunities throughout central Maryland, and the plan for that network won’t be strong without regular consultation with those who are most familiar with its challenges. 

This legislation makes vital updates to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. Given the state’s traffic, high cost of living, and the urgent need to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, we should be pouring more resources into our transit services and making those services the best they can be. The contrast between how Maryland speeds ahead with destructive, 12-lane, multi-billion toll road projects while we fight over funding our transit services couldn’t be starker. 

Therefore, we ask you to vote in favor of SB 136. Thank you for your consideration.

CSG testimony supporting Montgomery County CIP amendments

January 30, 2020

Montgomery County Council Office

Council Office Building

100 Maryland Ave.

Rockville, MD 20850

FY 21 Capital Budget and FY 21-26 CIP (Support with Amendments) 

Testimony for February 5th, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager

President Katz and Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which supports the FY 21-26 CIP with several critical amendments. We are pleased with the support the County Executive’s CIP gives to bicycle and pedestrian safety, the Bethesda station south entrance, and bus stop improvements. These projects are a necessity if we want to end unnecessary tragedies on our streets. 

Missing projects: Given that, I’ll begin with what we believe is missing: funding for the northern entrance for the White Flint Metro station, the Capital Crescent Trail tunnel in Bethesda, and a multi-use path along Dale Drive. These projects will support economic development and increase both Metro and Purple Line ridership. They also both specifically address safety along MD 355, one of the most dangerous and deadly roads in the county, where two people have already been killed in 2020. 

Bus Rapid Transit: Regarding BRT, we are happy that this CIP includes funding for preliminary engineering of BRT on MD 355, Veirs Mill Rd, New Hampshire Ave, and the North Bethesda Transitway. However, given our economic development and climate crises, these projects cannot wait and should be advanced to start even sooner. Likewise, it is disappointing that there is no money included in the CIP for BRT construction. This is especially disappointing when every road project includes costs for both preliminary engineering and construction. Not one BRT project has a construction timeline. I hope the Council will prioritize BRT by actively planning for its implementation. 

Specifically, I hope you will accelerate the preliminary engineering timeline for MD 355 – four years is much longer than needed – and schedule planning for New Hampshire Ave and North Bethesda Transitway to begin much earlier than FY22 and FY24, respectively. At this rate, we can expect that service wouldn’t begin on these lines until at least 2026. Can our economy or climate wait that long? Can transit-dependent residents in Gaithersburg or Germantown wait that long for high quality transit, especially in light of the Corridor Cities Transitway cancellation? 

MCDOT has proposed that MD 355 BRT service be broken into three routes since the full 22 mile route is too long for an ideal level of frequency. This effectively breaks up construction and service commencement into three phases. I recommend that the Council select a design alternative (Alternative B); then when preliminary engineering and design for the first phase is complete, construction could begin on that phase while the second phase undergoes preliminary engineering and design, and so on. 

Finally, we firmly believe that Route 29 BRT will not set a good example without dedicated lanes south of Tech Road. MCDOT’s median lane study was supposed to be released last fall. This report should be shared with the Council immediately so that any construction funding can be included in the CIP. 

Ride On improvements: Given slow progress, most BRT service in the county won’t be operational for five to ten years. We recommend that MCDOT take the success of Ride On extRa and expand express bus service to the other future BRT corridors. Ride On extRa Route 101 increased ridership by 11 percent and reduced travel times by 25 percent. MCDOT should also officially name priority service corridors, similar to WMATA’s Priority Corridor Network, which has helped WMATA to quickly improve service in phases. 

As mentioned, we are pleased with the continued upgrade of Ride On’s 5,400 bus stops. The CIP details a GIS bus stop inventory and condition assessment, criteria for improvements, and prioritization. To the best of our knowledge, that information is not easily available to the public. We request that MCDOT publicly post that information, especially their criteria for improvements and prioritization. 

Additionally, we urge the county to prioritize electric vehicle replacement. Most replacements for the Ride On fleet are set to be hybrids; however, the proposed CIP still details that 80 of the 153 vehicles will be diesel. 

Affordable housing: We are grateful to the County Executive for creating the new Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund to help acquire properties in areas with growing rents. This fund supports the recommendations we crafted as members of the Purple Line Corridor Coalition Housing Action Team. We hope the County Executive and DHCA will continue to work with affordable housing developers to craft a program that best fits their financing needs. 

School capital projects: Finally, we want to support funding for school capital projects, especially those that will relieve clusters in moratorium. However, we should note that the incentive created by the moratorium to fund capacity projects leaves out the vital capital needs of schools that are falling apart but aren’t overcapacity. Through the SSP update process, we hope to revisit the moratorium, and replace it with a policy that better serves the needs of both schools and housing. 

Given the challenge of a shrinking capital budget and so many urgent projects, it’s time for the Council to start considering new funding sources. We will not meet our economic development, climate, and equity goals without significant investments the infrastructure that allows us to thrive. Thank you for your time.

CSG testimony in support of changes to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act (HB 0086)

January 24, 2020

Appropriations Committee

House Office Building, Room 121

Annapolis, MD 21401

HB0086 – Transportation – Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act – Alterations (Support) 

Testimony for January 28, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the Appropriations Committee. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We are strongly in favor of HB 86, which makes necessary alterations to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. 

This bill will repeal the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation withhold a portion of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority’s (WMATA’s) operating grant if WMATA’s operating expenditures increase by more than three percent over the prior fiscal year. The current three percent cap is arbitrary and limits WMATA’s ability to provide the level of service its Maryland customers require to get to and from work and other destinations. 

WMATA’s own reports have shown that the best way to increase ridership, and thus increase farebox revenue, is to increase service. The WMATA Board has also recently endorsed the bold Bus Transformation Project, which seeks to make bus the mode of choice in the DC region. These service improvements cannot happen without the necessary funding and support from the State of Maryland. 

Right now, WMATA’s current budget proposal seeks to increase suburban fares and cut vital bus routes in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, which will either require local providers to fill in the gap or, more likely, people will lose the bus service that they depend on to get where they need to go. These fare increases and cuts will disproportionately hurt low-income residents. 

The WMATA Board, on which the Maryland Secretary of Transportation sits, is the proper body for deciding by what percentage WMATA’s operating expenditures should increase from year to year. If Maryland doesn’t want operating expenses to increase by more than three percent, the state can veto WMATA’s budget. Removing the legislative requirement of three percent gives more flexibility to Maryland’s decision makers. Three percent is entirely arbitrary and limits the system’s performance in a time of slow economic growth, high traffic congestion, and a climate crisis. 

We are also supportive of the updated requirements to the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) regarding the development of the Central Maryland Regional Transit Plan. A strong transportation network is key to connecting the DC region to the jobs and opportunities throughout central Maryland, and the plan for that network won’t be strong without regular consultation with those who are most familiar with its challenges. 

This legislation makes vital updates to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. Given the state’s traffic, high cost of living, and the urgent need to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, we should be pouring more resources into our transit services and making those services the best they can be. The contrast between how Maryland speeds ahead with destructive, 12-lane, multi-billion toll road projects while we fight over funding our transit services couldn’t be starker. 

Therefore, we ask you to vote in favor of HB 86. Thank you for your consideration.