Category: CSG in the News

When commuting in the D.C. region, distance doesn’t tell the whole story

If you work in downtown Washington, don’t have a car and want to keep your commute to under an hour, you could live in Gaithersburg, Md., or Reston, Va., both about 20 miles away.

But you’d have trouble doing the same from just across the Anacostia River in neighborhoods such as Bellevue, only seven miles away, or close-in areas of Prince George’s County, Md.

Metro, local bus systems and regional commuter rail combine to form an elaborate and expansive transit network for the Washington region. But data shows that wealthier neighborhoods and suburbs have an easier time tapping into it, while residents of poor and lower-income neighborhoods on the eastern side of the District and, farther east, across the border in Maryland face longer and often more-complex commutes.

A Washington Post analysis of travel times across the region illustrates stark differences in the commuting experience for transit users around the nation’s capital. Most striking, commuters in some areas in Southwest and Southeast Washington and close-in Prince George’s have longer trips to get downtown than more transit-connected locations dozens of miles away from the White House.

That problem will only be magnified in the coming months when Metro adopts truncated operating hours that will shut down rail service at 11:30 on weeknights. Those hours will hinder access from the downtown core to the wider region for an estimated 2,600 daily late-night riders, many of whom are low-wage workers, according to data.

For example, with Union Station as a starting point for a non-Metrorail commute, only the far reaches of Northeast Washington, a slice of Northwest Washington, and close-in Arlington County, Va., will be reachable within an hour by remaining transit.

“If you’re trying to get home from a job that lets out at 1  a.m., you work at a bar or a restaurant or something like that in downtown and you need to go to Southeast, you can’t do it in under an hour,” said J.D. Godchaux, co-founder of NiJeL, which describes itself as a “data storytelling” firm specializing in maps and data visualizations.

Howard Jennings, managing director of Mobility Lab, the research and development branch of Arlington County Commuter Services, said that on the basis of the Post analysis, Metrorail’s earlier closing represents a “severe curtailment” of transit service.

[How a National Transit Map could connect ‘transit deserts’ to the grid]

“This is cut back substantially,” he said. “People who are used to being rail riders, who are not bus riders, you’re going to have a real shift there in awareness of options. The onus is really going to be on providers of information.”

Others said the analysis points to the necessity of commuting alternatives for transit-dependent workers.

“What we’re confronted with, and there’s no easy answers, is how do we make sure that late-night labor can get home from work in an affordable way that allows our late-night economy to function?” said Adie Tomer, a policy fellow with the Brookings Institution. “This should be a motivator for us to think of a kind of set of alternatives for late-night laborers returning home, some kind of credit for them to use — in particular for [ride-hailing or taxi] services.”

The disparity in the region’s commuting experience might be illustrated most strikingly with the example of Shady Grove, Md. — a 28-mile drive from the White House. It is in a transit-rich corridor with substantial access to the wider region, with a footprint that roughly follows Metro’s Red Line.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Botanic Garden’s greenhouse complex in Southwest Washington, near the southern tip of the District, at about eight miles is physically much closer to the executive mansion. But the animated map, integrating real-time transit data, shows the greenhouses might as well lie 20 miles outside D.C. city limits. Because the commute from that part of Southwest requires a bus ride and rail transfer, the commute from Shady Grove beats the ride in from Southwest by several minutes. The Southwest example mirrors the experience in much of the District’s Ward 8.

Further contrasts are illustrated by King Street in Alexandria, Va., and Largo Town Center in Largo, Md., which are seven and 11 miles from the White House, respectively. Despite only a few miles’ difference between the locations, commuters from King Street have access to a wide swath of the region — including Arlington and Fairfax counties in Northern Virginia, the District, and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland — within an hour by transit. Commuters in Largo can reach only the District and Prince George’s, with the exception of some isolated pockets elsewhere in the region.

Still, Jennings said, the data illustrates that the Washington ­region is a model for transit usage. Arlington, where Mobility Lab is based, presents a stark contrast to communities on the eastern side of the Anacostia River, which are far less connected.

[Metro late-night service hearing features scathing criticism, pleas and protests from riders, advocates]

“People focus a lot right now on the ridership drop on Metrorail, but they’re also failing to remember there’s still a huge ridership there,” Jennings said. “It’s the second-largest system in the country. . . . It’s not a failing, dying system by any means.”

At rush-hour peaks, nearly the entire region is accessible within an hour. But the transit footprint shrinks as the day goes on and service is reduced, until the District is essentially isolated from the wider region late at night, analysis shows.

Ward 8 residents, who live in Southeast and parts of Southwest Washington, have the longest average commutes in the District, with trips taking about 46 minutes, according to districtmobility.org, an initiative of the District Department of Transportation.

“That is astounding,” said Godchaux, observing a comparison between the Ward 8 commuting footprint and that of Montgomery County. “These folks are in the District, but they’re definitely more disconnected from downtown than these folks in [the suburbs].”

The analysis is also a dramatic illustration of an “east-west” divide in the D.C. region’s transit network, according to Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the pro-transit Coalition for Smarter Growth.

“Part of it’s wealth and the ability for the jurisdictions on the west side of the region to spend more money on local bus service,” Schwartz said, “and provide local coverage to all income levels of their population.”

[Developers are making billions off Metro. How that could help save the system.]

Schwartz said the data underscores the need for increased transit investment in the region’s eastern reaches. He pointed to a performance analysis of the 2015 National Capital Region Long-Range Transportation Plan, which showed that many areas, “mainly on the eastern side of the region,” will see automobile accessibility decline even further as more jobs are concentrated in the western half of the region between now and 2040. As a result, investment in transit needs to be bolstered, he said.

Further, the analysis showed that some of the region’s least-accessible areas also are the most transit-dependent. Northeast and Southeast Washington contain census tracts where more than 40 percent of households are both transit-reliant and lower-income, the only such corridor in the region.

These census tracts east of the Anacostia River are home to roughly 145,000 residents, most of whom are black and more than half of whom live in households making less than $35,000 a year, according to census data. And while Metro stations are fewer and farther apart in these areas, two stations — Anacostia and Southern Avenue — were among the stations where the most passengers exited late into the night.

The Anacostia and Southern Avenue stations, which border the District, are two of the 10-most-exited stations on average between 11:30 p.m. and midnight on weekdays, according to data provided by Metro.

Schwartz said the “building out” of transit stations on the eastern end of the system will play a part in easing the divide in the coming years. He pointed to development in Prince George’s, investments stretching from New ­Carrollton to College Park, both in Maryland, to the planned Prince George’s regional hospital near the Largo Town Center Metro station, as potential drivers of growth.

Prince George’s officials have flirted with the idea that the hospital could be a perfect impetus for a mass-transit line from Charles County and Southern Maryland to connect to Metro and MARC trains, but no serious proposal has been made.

Even as regional officials debate ways to better connect the region, the wide disparities in the region’s network are clear, policy experts said.

“It is a serious equity problem; there’s no question,” Jennings said.

Click here to read the original story.

Metro’s GM: The System Needs $15.5 Billion and A New Business Plan

Metro’s general manager is calling for $500 million each year in dedicated funding for capital projects and other major changes to the business model for the transit system, which has been hemorrhaging riders and has seen incidents ranging from disturbing to catastrophic in the past few years.

The system “is aging under our feet. Major infrastructure like this does wear out, and we have to replace it,” Paul Wiedefeld said on the Kojo Nnamdi Show today. “It is about what are the financial realities that we face and how do we start to attack them.”

In a six-page document released yesterday, Wiedefeld outlined his proposals, knowing full well that they would kick off a major debate. Among them are major labor changes, including less generous pensions for future employees and opening up some projects to competitive bidding from contractors, and a significant increase in annual spending on infrastructure projects.

On the job for about a year and a half, Wiedefeld has won respect for making tough decisions, like shutting the system for the day, and his candor in articulating a vision for the future of the transit system. He’s seen some noteworthy successes, including bringing various regional partners to pull off the yearlong maintenance plan known as SafeTrack and handling the Women’s March on Washington, Metro’s second biggest ridership day after Barack Obama’s first inauguration.

But with operating expenses growing at twice the rate of revenues and infrastructure investments that have been neglected for years, his new plan is significantly more far-reaching and ambitious.

Things like adding wi-fi and painting typically inspire a round of commentary along the lines of “they should be making service reliable first.” The truth of the matter, though, is the cost of those things account for drops in the yawning financial bucket.

Wiedefeld says the system has $25.5 billion in unfunded capital needs. He is pushing for a $15.5 billion plan—$1.5 billion a year for the next decade—that he believes would be more feasible technically and politically, and it calls for a third of those funds to go specifically to infrastructure investments, so they don’t get re-appropriated for operating expenses.

And while Wiedefeld is advocating strongly for a dedicated funding source, he isn’t making recommendations about exactly how that should come about. “We want to stay in our lane. Our lane is to define the needs, justify the needs, and talk about what we would do” with the funds, he said on the Kojo Show.

At the top of the list of challenges is bringing the region’s governments together to agree on a plan. For some context, Virginia and Maryland didn’t get their act together to create the framework for a new Metrorail Safety Commission until after the federal government followed through on its threat to withhold millions of dollars from the transit system.

Wiedefeld acknowledged that extremely difficult decisions lie ahead, but said that the ongoing string of incidents and attention on the issues are working in their favor. “I think that has woken up everyone,” he said. “We have to start to address these issues—we cannot continue this path.”

Right up there in terms of difficulty will be convincing the union and labor groups to go along; they have already emitted a howl of protest that seems unlikely to diminish.

The proposal “is bad for riders, bad for workers and bad for the region. Instead of offering real proposals to improve the system and win riders back, Wiedefeld has, once again, pitted riders against workers in an attempt to balance the agency’s budget on the back of WMATA’s hardworking employees,” reads a statement issued by ATU Local 689 today. “His solution is to outsource services more and more of the system, which will make the system less safe, less reliable, more costly and demoralize the workforce in a race to the bottom.”

One self-identified employee called in to the Kojo Show to ask if Wiedefeld was trying to impoverish the workforce.

The general manager countered that one of the only other options would be service cuts, which would also mean job cuts.

Praise has come from other corners, including the Washington Post’s editorial board and some local politicians.

“GM Wiedefeld’s logical proposal for a long-term WMATA funding plan is worthy of careful consideration,” tweeted Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, had a similar take: “The general manager’s plan is the best we’ve seen to date. His statement is bluntly honest about the situation and we generally endorse his proposals—although we will need more information about some of them.”

Now that the plan is out in the open, the debate can begin in earnest. The open question is: will ever turn into action?

“If we don’t do something, we know the slide we’re on,” Wiedefeld said. “It will get steeper and deeper.”

Click here to read the original story.

Parking Pandemonium Hits Reston, Va.

Some store owners and shoppers in Reston, Va., are upset about new parking fees at Reston Town Center. Boston Properties, the town center’s managing company, introduced paid parking early this year modeled after urban transit-oriented centers. Kojo explores what’s at stake in the debate over parking in Reston and where it fits into broader discussions about “smart growth” in suburban communities.

Guests

  • Aaron Gordon Owner, Red Velvet Cupcakery; Reston Merchant’s Association; @RedVelvetReston
  • Cathy Hudgins Member, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (D-Hunter Mill)
  • Cheryl Cort Policy Director, Coalition For Smarter Growth

Photo courtesy of heffmike. Click here to read the original story.

D.C. wants employers to pay workers not to drive to work

D.C. officials and transit advocates are pursuing a shift in the way employers offer commuting benefits to encourage more biking, walking and transit over solo driving.

A D.C. Council proposal would require employers who provide their employees with free or subsidized parking to give them the choice to cash out. With that option, workers would be more likely to ditch the car for a more sustainable mode of travel to work, officials say.

“I can much more easily rationalize hopping in my car and driving downtown when I got a free parking spot,” said Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), a lead sponsor of the bill. “But if my employer says, we are going to give you a parking spot or we can give you transit benefits or cash if you bike to work, then I have the flexibility to make the choice that is best for me.”

The change, he said, would address a fairness issue for the workers who sometimes turn down a valuable perk because they don’t drive or who are forced to take it because otherwise they can’t get the benefit any other way.

The Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2017 is one response to growing criticism that historically commuter benefits for drivers are better than those available to people who take other modes of transportation. For instance, a few years ago, transit agencies including Metro fought for parity in transit and parking in the federal commuter benefits program, which three years ago gave commuters the option to spend up to $130 on public transit pre-tax vs. $250 for parking. That started to change in 2015, and this year the cap for the transit benefit and the parking benefit is $255 per month.

Advocates for flexible benefits cite research suggesting that traffic congestion is associated with perks, such as free parking, and that financial incentives for non-solo drivers could help cities move toward more diverse commuting.

In the District, experts say a parking cash-out program could be part of the equation to achieve 75 percent of all trips on sustainable transportation, and it would benefit city residents the most because they are more likely to have easy access to other travel options, such as bikeshare, bus and Metro.

About 40 percent of D.C. residents drive to work, according to data from the District Department of Transportation, while 39 percent take transit, 15 percent walk and 6 percent bike.

“It reduces traffic and pollution, incentivizes a healthier commute, gives workers flexibility in their commutes, and is paid for with a parking space that’s not needed,” Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth said of the legislation.

In 2014, the District joined New York and San Francisco in passing a law requiring employers with 20 or more employees to offer commuter benefits, giving thousands of workers access to the federal tax break to pay for transit and parking. Supporters say the new proposal would take the city a step further by requiring companies who subsidize parking spaces to offer an equivalent benefit to non-drivers.

It is unclear how many companies offer free or subsidized parking, but a city survey of 191 employers in 2016 found that 34 percent offer free parking and an additional 18 percent offer a parking subsidy, according to DDOT. Free parking is the most common fringe benefit to employees across the country and in many cases employers offer free parking or nothing.

“People who walk or ride the bus get nothing. It is unfair,” said Donald Shoup, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, and author of “The High Cost of Free Parking”.

Research suggests that having access to subsidized parking ranks high in someone’s decision to drive to work, he said.  A survey of 5,000 commuters and their employers in downtown Los Angeles showed that free parking at work increased the number of cars driven to work by 34 percent, he said

“Employer-paid parking is an invitation to drive to work alone,” he said “The cash option rewards commuters who don’t drive to work alone. Parking cash-out therefore increases the share of commuters who carpool, ride public transit, walk, or bike to work.”

In California, legislation enacted in 1992 requires that employers with 50 or more employees who offer free parking must also give workers the option to take an equivalent cash allowance instead. But the law did not set any penalties for non-compliance.

As companies become more aware of the rule, Shoup said, they are realizing the benefits. Studies of firms in Southern California that offer parking cash-outs found the share of commuters who drove to work alone fell from 76 percent before the cash option to 63 percent afterward, he said. For every 100 commuters offered the cash option, 13 solo drivers shifted to another travel mode, he said.

That’s the kind of response the District is hoping for with its proposal. But it is unclear how the business community would respond. Supporters say they don’t anticipate any change for businesses  beyond administrative.

“When a commuter takes the cash allowance instead of free parking, the employer saves the cash paid for a parking space,” explained Shoup, who was instrumental in the creation of California’s parking cash-out law. “The employer’s avoided parking subsidy directly funds the commuter’s cash allowance, so there is no net cost to the employer when a commuter forgoes the free parking and takes the cash.”

The D.C. “cash-out law” would not prohibit or discourage employer-paid parking. It would simply require that an employer who offers to pay for parking for employees who drive to work also offer to pay the same amount to those who don’t. The District would be the first major city to have an enforceable program if the bill passes.

Read the original story here.

Metro fare hikes, service cuts move a step closer to reality

The Metro board finance committee voted Thursday to raise fares for bus and rail riders, but also approved last-minute amendments to save a slew of bus routes that were slated for cancellation or reduction.

Board members advanced the proposal despite numerous concerns, including whether raising fares would accelerate a ridership decline that has contributed to the transit agency’s financial stresses. There was one dissenting vote.

Metro is facing a $290 million budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year, and General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld has said he is essentially out of options to further reduce operating costs. The transit agency slashed 500 positions last year and aims to cut another 500 jobs this year.

[Metro moving forward with fare increases for coming year]

Under the proposal, rush-hour rail fares would go up by a dime, and off-peak and bus fares would jump by 25 cents. Trains would arrive every eight minutes in most of the system, with higher frequencies in the core — but riders would see fewer trains overall on most lines.

Malcolm Augustine, a board member representing Prince George’s County, was the lone board member to vote against the proposal. He warned of the potentially disastrous impact of raising prices at a time when riders appear to be fleeing the system. Ridership is down about 100,000 trips overall from 2009 peaks.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” said Augustine, an alternate member who does not have a vote on the full board. “That is a bad business move.”

But Jim Corcoran, a board member representing Virginia, argued that the fare hikes would help stabilize ridership in the long term — because a stable budget helps pay for safety and reliability improvements that would win back riders in the long run.

“I think this is a very good business decision to improve the product,” Corcoran said, “because an improved product will bring back riders.”

Others said the fare increases were painful but necessary. Christian Dorsey, who represents Arlington on the Metro board, said Metro could stem the ridership losses by adhering to promised wait times.

“If we can deliver on what we say we’re putting out there, that would be an improvement,” he said.

Aimee Custis, deputy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group, disagreed with the idea that the new headways could bring riders back to the system.

“The thing that will eventually bring people back is frequent, reliable service, and we are headed away from that,” she said.

Board members from the District, Maryland and Virginia also made 11th-hour amendments to save bus routes that were slated for elimination.

The District rallied to save routes B8 and B9 — the Fort Lincoln Shuttle Line — and to modify the H6, which runs between Brookland and Fort Lincoln.

Virginia board members offered a series of changes that they estimated would cost about $500,000 in subsidies for the year. Their list included the full restoration of the 3T in Pimmit Hills, the 1C in Fair Oaks, and the 16G/H/K/X routes that run along Columbia Pike, from Columbia Heights West to Pentagon City.

They also approved some changes to local routes meant to help serve riders affected by the cancellation of the 28X, 7X, 17A and 17F lines.

Maryland members of the board pushed an amendment that would fully restore the following routes: T14 (between Rhode Island Ave. and New Carrollton stations), F1 and F2 (running along Chillum Road), C8 (between College Park and White Flint stations), and the J1, J2 and J3 routes (operating between Bethesda and Silver Spring stations).

Maryland also persuaded the board to allow Metro to continue to operate the J7 and J9 buses through at least October. Those are express buses that run along Interstate 270.

Maryland board members did not offer details on how much those revived routes would cost to operate and who would be paying for the service.

Dorsey praised the amendments for ensuring the agency doesn’t harm Metrobus, “relatively the shining star of Metro at this point,” he said.

Immediately following the vote, Metro Board member Corbett A. Price — who was not at Metro headquarters — chimed in from a conference calling system.

“You may record my vote in favor of it, reluctantly,” said Price, who represents the District.

The proposal is up for a full board vote March 23.

Click here to read the original story.

Metro Board Approves Fare Hikes, Service Cuts Effective July 1

Despite already plummeting ridership, Metro’s board on Thursday gave preliminary approval to a package of fare hikes and rail and bus service cuts. Final approval of the austerity budget, little more than a formality, is expected on March 23. The changes will take effect July 1.

Base rail fares will go up 10 cents for rush hour and 25 cents for off-peak travel times. The maximum rail fare will reach $6. Bus fares are increasing by 25 cents to $2, but the weekly bus-only pass will remain at $17.50, a break for low income commuters.

Fares for both rail and bus service will be going up under Metro's new budget.

Fares for both rail and bus service will be going up under Metro’s new budget.

The wait for rush-hour trains will grow to eight minutes at outlying stations across all six Metro lines; more trains in the system’s core will drop the wait times to three to four minutes closer to the system’s core. At off-peak hours, trains will continue to run at 12-minute intervals.

Supporters of general manager Paul Wiedefeld’s “reality check” budget voted yes reluctantly because riders have been fleeing the system in droves and the remaining loyal customers will now be asked to pay more for fewer trains and buses. Only one board member, Malcolm Augustine of Prince George’s County, voted no, venting his disgust in the process.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” Augustine said. “It’s just a bad business decision.”

But asking commuters to share the pain is a gamble the transit authority must take, said Christian Dorsey, who represents Arlington.

“This board had to take the responsible step and do what good governance institutions do, which is to make these difficult choices,” Dorsey said. “The process of arriving where we are today has been to try to mitigate the pain in ways that are sensible. No one likes raising fares, but I think overall the fare increases are necessary.”

Through a series of amendments, the board voted to restore bus routes that were on the chopping block in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, but not all will be spared. Metro received thousands of public comments through surveys and other means, many of which pleaded for the restoration of bus service in areas with few, if any, transportation alternatives.

Bus line changes

Metro’s average weekday rail ridership is at its lowest level since 2003, in part because the SafeTrack reconstruction effort has severely disrupted the timely arrival of trains. Bus ridership is also dropping, although customer surveys show bus riders are generally more satisfied with service levels than people who take the train.

Even as they approved the $1.8 billion operating budget, board members expressed a sense that Metro is in a danger zone from which it may not emerge.

In remarks to reporters, Wiedefeld said the system is not heading toward the so-called transit death spiral, a term used to describe an irreparable loss of riders fueled by higher prices and less robust service.

“The way that we bring back ridership is through basically more reliable service,” said Wiedefeld, who has launched multiple initiatives to repair aging track infrastructure and railcars.

By running fewer trains, Metro believes it can deliver on timely service that is “right sized” for dwindling riders. But some analysts say this approach is akin to managing the system’s demise, not turning it around.

“I think there is something wrong with the idea that riders have to share in the sacrifice to close the budget gap,” said Steven Higashide, a senior analyst at Transit Center, a New York-based research foundation. In his view, Metro is in a death spiral.“Riders have already been sacrificing for years, and it is now at a point where many are no longer willing to sacrifice and they are fleeing the system,” he said.

The new rush hour headway of eight minutes at outlying rail stations makes Metro an outlier, Higashide said, compared to most major mass transit systems across the nation.

“In cities like Boston, Chicago, and New York it’s not unheard of to wait eight or even ten minutes during the early rush at 5 or 6 in the morning, but most transit customers in those cities aren’t going to be waiting more than five or six minutes for a train at the height of the rush,” he said.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group, said Metro’s contributing jurisdictions should have ponied more money — beyond the $130 million they agreed to add to Metro’s budget — to avoid fare hikes and service cuts. The regional governments’ latest additions to Metro bring subsidy to close to $1 billion in a $1.8 billion operating budget.

“The data has shown over and over again that the way to get people riding transit is frequent, reliable service. Fare hikes and service cuts are neither frequent nor reliable service,” said Aimee Custis, the group’s deputy director.

“The money should be coming the local jurisdictions that are part of the WMATA compact,” Custis added.

But Wiedefeld said the jurisdictions could only be asked to cover part of the shortfall.

“The jurisdictions have lots of other financial issues they are dealing with, and I had to take that under consideration,” Wiedefeld said.

Today’s vote comes close to capping one of the most difficult budget seasons in memory, as Metro was forced to close a projected $290 million shortfall. The general manager is in the process of cutting the workforce by 1,000 positions and cracking down on absenteeism, but in the end it proved impossible to completely avoid raising fares for the first time in three years.

Moreover, Metro’s financial problems will not be erased through a single austerity budget. At this time next year, the general manager and board expect to grapple with another massive shortfall because ridership is not expected to rapidly recover.

When asked where he will find the money, Wiedefeld declined to offer a specific solution.

“We are going to work through it with the region to deal with those issues. We have to,” he said.

Establishing dedicated funding through a new, regional sales tax is one of the most commonly discussed solutions to Metro’s structural operating deficit and long-term capital needs – at least when it comes to revenue.
When it comes to Metro’s growing labor expenses, some controversial ideas are gaining traction amid suburban jurisdictions wary of escalating subsides and among lawmakers in Annapolis and Richmond, namely privatizing aspects of WMATA’s maintenance and operations.

But Wiedefeld is not ready to endorse privatization yet.

“I am not there yet, but I think we have to, as we start to look to future of funding this, take a broad look at all aspects of the business,” he said.

Any proposal to privatize Metro would run into ferocious opposition from Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, which represents 8,500 front line employees. The union is currently negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with management, and has condemned Wiedefeld’s budget proposal.

 

Click here to read the original article

Metro committee approves service cuts, fare hikes

WASHINGTON — Metro’s Finance Committee approved fare increases and service cuts Thursday and advanced the transit agency’s budget to the full board.

The committee also restored some bus service in D.C., Maryland and Virginia that had been slated to be cut.

The plan would reduce rush-hour service. Trains would leave the end of the lines every eight minutes rather than every six minutes that current train schedules call for. It would also raise rush-hour fares by 10 cents and off-peak fares by 25 cents.

In addition, the service change would increase scheduled rush-hour service on the Blue Line from every 12 minutes today to every eight minutes by cutting the Yellow Line “Rush Plus” service between Franconia-Springfield and Greenbelt.

The changes would raise bus fares by 25 cents.

A final budget vote by the Metro Board is expected March 23. If the board approves the plan, the fare hikes — which would begin around July 1 — would be Metro’s first fare increase in three years.

A number of transit advocacy groups worry that the combination of fare increases and service cuts could cut people off from crucial transportation and dissuade other riders from using the system.

“While we understand the fiscal crisis the agency faces, and the General Manager’s intention to close the gap by sharing the burden between staff, riders, and jurisdictions, further fare hikes and service cuts will only exacerbate ridership declines and financial challenges,” wrote Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth’s executive director, in a letter to the Metro Board last month.

“We urge the Board and leaders in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to come together and close 100 percent of Metro’s operating gap with jurisdictional funding.”

And Metro’s largest union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, said in a statement that the budget plan and the risk of additional cuts next year illustrate the need for a new regional, dedicated funding source for Metro.

“We stand with the riding public and continue to encourage the leadership at WMATA to reject this death spiral budget,” the union said.

The union and Metro have been squaring off in contract talks, which have spilled out into vocal public disputes since late last year.

Theses bus route changes were included in the budget plan the committee passed on Thursday:

Airport bus fares for the B30 and 5A would rise to $7.50 (other bus fares would still rise 25 cents rather than 50 cents).

In D.C., no bus routes would be eliminated or changed.

In Maryland, the C11 and C13 Clinton routes would run less often. The B30 to BWI-Marshall Airport would only run once an hour and only on weekdays.

The J5 bus between Silver Spring and Twinbrook would be eliminated. The H11, H12 and H13 between Marlow Heights and Temple Hills would run less often.

The J7 and J9 I-270 Express Lines would continue until October 2017. The T2 River Road line would run less often. The W19 Indian Head Express would be eliminated.

The P17, P18 and P19 Oxon Hill-Fort Washington lines and the W13 and W14 Bock Road lines would now end at the Southern Avenue Metro Station. The Z7 Laurel-Burtonsville Express would run less frequently.

In Virginia, routes 18R and 18S would be eliminated, but some service would be added to Route 18P to Burke Centre.

Route 28X would be eliminated, but some service would be added on Route 28A, which also travels Leesburg Pike.

Route 15K and 15L would serve East Falls Church, not Rosslyn Metro.

The Route 5A bus to Dulles International Airport would run less frequently. Route 7X would be eliminated, but some service would be added between Lincolnia and Pentagon on route 7W. Route 13Y service between Reagan National Airport and Union Station on weekend mornings would be eliminated.

Route 2T between Tysons Corner and Dunn Loring would be eliminated. Routes 17A and 17F to Kings Park would be eliminated with some additional service on a newly truncated route 17B (Route 17M would also remain in service).

Richmond Highway Express REX buses would run less frequently, but on an extended route. And the 2B Fair Oaks-Jermantown Road Line would run less frequently at rush hour.

Bus service changes removed from the budget plan:

In Maryland, the J1, J2, J3 Bethesda-Silver Spring line would remain in service as would the C8 College Park-White Flint Line and the F1 and F2 Chillum Road Line and the T14 Rhode Island Avenue-New Carrollton Line.

In Virginia, Route 3T in Pimmit Hills would remain in service, Route 1C Fair Oaks-Fairfax Boulevard Line would remain in service, as would the 16X Columbia Pike-Federal Triangle express route. Routes 16G, 16H and 16K would also maintain full service levels.

 

Click here to read the original story

Metro board advances fare hikes and service cuts, advocates warn ridership decline will worsen

The Metro board finance committee voted Thursday to raise fares for bus and rail riders, reduce train frequencies and slash some bus routes, advancing the agency’s austerity budget to a final vote — but not before slipping in three last-minute amendments to preserve a slew of bus lines that were slated for cancellation or reduction.

Board members approved the $1.8 billion operating budget in the face of numerous concerns, chiefly: whether fare hikes and fewer trains would accelerate a ridership decline that has driven the nation’s second-busiest subway into financial distress.

Metro is facing a $290 million budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year, and ridership and parking revenue losses — exacerbated by the year-long SafeTrack maintenance program — make up about a third of the shortfall. As board members cautiously advanced the spending plan, Metro General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld defended the cuts, which have drawn the ire of riders and transit advocates.

“The way that we bring back ridership is through basically more reliable service,” Wiedefeld said at a news conference after the board meeting. “We have not been able to deliver what we said we were going to deliver. So I think it’s more important to the customer [to] ‘just tell me what I’ve got and then deliver it.’ ”

Rail ridership was down 12 percent compared with a year earlier, the latest figures showed, and has fallen by about 100,000 trips from its 2009 peaks. Metro estimates that the fare increases will result in a total loss of 10 million trips during the 2018 fiscal year. But even with the ridership loss, Metro estimates the fare increase will boost revenue by $21 million.

Rush-hour rail fares would increase by a dime, with $2.25 as the new minimum and $6 as the maximum one-way fare. The plan increases off-peak rail and bus fares 25 cents. The frequency of trains, most of which are scheduled to arrive at least every six minutes, would be reduced to every eight minutes, with more service in the system’s core.

The full board is expected to approve the budget March 23, and the fare increases and service changes would go into effect July 1.

There was little debate over the need for drastic cuts. Wiedefeld, who has eliminated 500 jobs and is in the process of cutting 500 more, has said there are few other sources of savings left for the beleaguered transit agency.

But board member Malcolm Augustine said the fare increases and service cuts are the wrong approach. The lone dissenting vote, he worried the changes would only hasten the ridership decline.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” he said. “That is a bad business move.”

Wiedefeld, however, called the changes a “strategy” to improve performance.

“If we provide consistent reliable service then that market will come back,” he said.

Aimee Custis, deputy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, an advocacy group that promotes pro-transit policy, said it’s illogical to think riders will return with Metro offering less service.

“The thing that will eventually bring people back is frequent, reliable service, and we are headed away from that,” Custis said.

But other board members agreed with Wiedefeld, saying the measures are necessary to balance the agency’s budget.

Board member Jim Corcoran said the fare hikes will help stabilize ridership because a stable budget helps pay for safety and reliability improvements that will win back riders in the long run.

“I think this is a very good business decision to improve the product because an improved product will bring back riders,” he said.

Echoing Wiedefeld, board member Christian Dorsey said Metro could stem the ridership losses by adhering to its promised wait times.

“If we can deliver on what we say we’re putting out there, that would be an improvement,” he said.

Meanwhile, board members from the District, Maryland and Virginia scrambled to insert last-minute changes into the budget to help their constituents. The 11th-hour effort to save bus routes around the region was an about-face for the members, who arrived at the meeting with printed amendments detailing the list of bus routes that they planned to rescue from the chopping block — causing some to question whether the move was an act of long-planned political showmanship.

The District rallied to save routes B8 and B9 — the Fort Lincoln Shuttle Line — and to modify the H6, which runs between Brookland and Fort Lincoln.

Virginia board members offered several changes that they estimated would cost about $500,000 in subsidies for the year. Their list included the full restoration of the 3T in Pimmit Hills, the 1C in Fair Oaks, and the 16G/H/K/X routes that run along Columbia Pike, from Columbia Heights West to Pentagon City.

They also approved some changes to local routes meant to help serve riders affected by the cancellation of the 28X, 7X, 17A and 17F lines.

Members representing Maryland pushed an amendment restoring the following routes: T14 (between Rhode Island Avenue and New Carrollton stations), F1 and F2 (running along Chillum Road), C8 (between College Park and White Flint stations), and the J1, J2 and J3 routes (operating between Bethesda and Silver Spring stations).

Maryland representatives also persuaded the board to allow Metro to continue to operate the J7 and J9 buses through at least October. Those are express buses that run along Interstate 270.

After the meeting, finance committee chairman Michael Goldman said he believes Maryland will be able to pay the approximately $2 million necessary to retain some of those local routes, because there appears to be extra money in the subsidy appropriated by the state legislature to Metro for next year’s bus budget.

Goldman said Metro staff has been asked to come up how much it will cost to save those routes, and the state will pay for them if the cost falls within what it can afford.

“If it fits within the wiggle room, all those services could be restored,” Goldman said.

Dorsey praised the amendments for ensuring the cuts don’t adversely impact riders of Metrobus, “relatively the shining star of Metro at this point,” he said.

Augustine was afraid increasing the bus fare a quarter, to $2, would have a dramatic impact on Metrobus ridership and target low-income and minority riders.

In the original version of the fare increases proposed by Wiedefeld last fall, Metro came close to failing a Title VI analysis — a federally mandated statistical test to ensure that low-income and minority riders are not disproportionately harmed by changes to transit fares or service. Metro said Thursday that the agency’s decision to preserve the $17.50 price of a weekly bus pass was aimed at helping it steer clear of civil rights violations.

Augustine, however, pointed out that only a small percentage of Metrobus riders use the weekly bus-only pass. Following his lone ‘no’ vote, it was announced that the budget had been approved.

But a brief moment of confusion ensued when board members realized they hadn’t heard from member Corbett A. Price, who was looped in via conference call. Perhaps a sign of the general discontent with the situation, Price chimed in: “You may record my vote in favor of it, reluctantly.”

 

Click here to read the original story

Let’s build more homes near transit

A coalition of affordable housing advocates, faith groups, business groups, tenants’ groups, developers, and over 250 residents have unified to support more housing, more affordable housing, and targeted support for communities as DC rewrites its Comprehensive Plan. One of those priorities: Best utilize areas near transit.

The coalition, which includes Greater Greater Washington and many other groups, has agreed on a statement of ten priorities. In a series of posts, coalition members will go through many of the priorities to explain what they mean, why there’s a problem, and how the group reached agreement. Do you support the priorities? Sign on today!

What “Best utilize areas near transit” means

The coalition says:

Best utilize areas near transit.​ When redevelopment occurs on blocks surrounding Metrorail stations and priority transit corridors, the District should, through the Comprehensive Plan, permit and encourage mixed-use developments of medium to high density. To the extent feasible, redevelopments involving increased zoning should include affordable housing in excess of what is required by inclusionary zoning.

Put plainly, building housing near Metro stations, bus lines, and streetcar service makes it easier for people to live in the District without owning a car. And that means less congestion and pollution as well as a stronger local economy.

As the District of Columbia continues to grow to historic population levels, our transit corridors and stations offer the best opportunities for creating places to live and work that are more sustainable, accessible, and affordable. Helping more people live close to transit, enabling more jobs near transit, and creating attractive places near transit are all essential to well-managed growth.

The consequences of not creating these opportunities near transit is spread out, sprawling development.

Pushing growth away from cities, towns, and transit lines means converting more farms into subdivisions and strip malls. This generates ever more polluted stormwater runoff and carves up working agricultural lands.

Sprawl also makes it impractical to get around by walking, biking, or transit, forcing everyone to get around by car, which  fuels traffic congestion and air pollution. The cycle then continues, as the congestion leads to bigger roads that simply get congested again, all of which are built with money that gets diverted from transit and existing infrastructure.

Finally, when we sprawl out, low-income people disproportionately feel the negative effects of having no option but to drive.

We’ve missed chances to build near transit in the past

Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of lost opportunities to provide more  mixed income housing options at Metro stations in D.C. While some parts of the District have been growing, others— particularly more affluent ones— have not.

The reason for the lack of new homes is not due to lack of interest. Rather, local opposition that takes advantage of a weak and nebulous Comp Plan make it difficult to build new housing in neighborhoods where some existing residents are determined to stop it. That leads to exclusive enclaves with limited housing opportunities for residents of different incomes.

Under our current Comp Plan language, here are a few examples of what we’ve lost:

  • Abandoned: The single use, two story library constructed by the Tenleytown Metro station was supposed to be a mixed use building with affordable and market rate housing above the library. While the city spent extra money to strengthen the foundation to allow some apartments  to be built above the library in the future, the prospects for many affordable units is dim.

All these proposed projects offered below market rate and market-rate homes. They are all examples of the market responding to strong demand to live in the city close to transit by redeveloping sites close to transit.  They are also examples of how determined opponents can use contradictory language in the Comp Plan to stall, stop, and shrink the construction of much needed new homes and affordable homes.

Under the current Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which translates the Comp Plan onto a map, no Metro stations are designated for low density residential development. A reasonable update to these designations could be to take land that the FLUM categorizes as “moderate” density (row houses and low rise garden apartments) and make it “medium” (4-7 stories), and to change what the FLUM categorizes as “medium” to be “high” (8 stories or more).

Based on the experience of the last decade, it’s fair to say that the Comp Plan has not been as effective as it should have been in balancing the need for more housing, and more affordable housing, around transit stations. That’s especially true in affluent neighborhoods.

Looking into the future, it’s critical that the Comp Plan clarify that a good share of our city’s needed future homes should go to places well-served by transit. Rather than losing out to some neighbors’ objections about new homes, we need to address local concerns while committing to creating more housing opportunities that help more people live more sustainably, and help the city thrive.

Sign on to the priorities!

This is one of ten priorities where the coalition reached agreement. We’ll be following up with articles on more of the 10 priorities by a variety of coalition members.

(Note: While the coalition agreed on the priorities, this article is my commentary about one of the priorities, not an official coalition statement, and all members have not signed onto the specific wording here. The same goes for the other posts in this series.)

So far, 65 organizations and over 350 individuals have put their names on the priorities statement. Will you join them?

Sign the Priorities Statement!

Click here to read the original story.

D.C. Judge Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Major Affordable Housing Tool

A federal judge has ruled in favor of the District in a four-year case over inclusionary zoning, a policy allowing developers to construct larger buildings than otherwise permitted in exchange for creating affordable units. The case was a touchstone of affordable housing issues in D.C.—leading some organizations to push for improvements to the city’s IZ program.

In December 2012, real estate developer Art Linde brought the suit, via one of his companies, over a 22-unit condo building at 2910 Georgia Ave. NW near Howard University. Linde’s company for the building argued that IZ requirements prevented the developer from making an “economically viable use” of the property. In fact, the building was the first to bring IZ units onto the the District’s housing market—a total of two.

Linde’s lawyers contended that the city’s Department of Housing and Community Development could not supply the developer with any qualified buyers for the two affordable condos. The 20 other condos sold within a few months. The LLC argued that IZ amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property rights as well as a denial of due process and equal protection rights.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court for D.C. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied Linde’s company’s constitutional challenge to the District’s IZ program. In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the company’s constitutional claims while acknowledging that D.C. may have indeed “‘fumbled and bungled every aspect of the IZ Program’s implementation,'” as the developer had stated in its complaint.

“The Court does not intend to minimize Plaintiff’s [2910 Georgia Avenue LLC’s] legitimate grievances with the District’s administration of the IZ Program, or to suggest that the District acted perfectly at all times,” the judge wrote. “The Court merely concludes that at no point did the District’s conduct rise to the level of a violation of the United States Constitution.” D.C.’s IZ program was first approved in 2007 and took effect in 2009, slow to start after the recession.

City Paper has reached out to Linde and his attorneys for comment and will update this post if we hear back. Meanwhile, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine‘s office says the ruling “is a major victory for the IZ program,” which requires that 8 to 10 percent of a new development’s residential space be set aside as affordable housing. Last year, the D.C. Zoning Commission lowered the income threshold for affordable units through IZ.

“We are committed to using all of the tools in the toolbox to protect affordable housing” via IZ and other legal means, Racine says in a statement.

Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion notes that IZ requirements did not stop the developer of 2910 Georgia Ave. NW “from earning a considerable profit from its property”—some $6 million from the sale of the market-rate units in the building, which resulted in a “20 percent return on their investments.”

Affordable housing advocates praised Kollar-Kotelly’s decision. Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, says IZ “has proven to be a reasonable program for developers and an important development to D.C.’s residents searching for more affordably priced homes.” And Claire Zippel, an analyst at the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, notes the District isn’t alone in enacting IZ regulations. “I am heartened but unsurprised by the court’s affirmation of inclusionary zoning, which has worked successfully with the private sector to create hundreds of affordable homes in D.C.—and hundreds of thousands of affordable homes in more than 500 jurisdictions across the country,” Zippel explains.

In January, a majority of the D.C. Council co-introduced a bill that would amend existing IZ law to reflect last year’s changes by the Zoning Commission.

Click here for the original story.