Overarching transit planning is necessary for the Washington region

I mean infrastructure-extending planning. The problem with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (required by Federal law) and I would extend that to the local version, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, is that they don't really challenge the prevailing paradigms very much.

MWCOG, just like the WMATA board, is subservient to the jurisdictions that are members. Instead, we need to transcend that very constricted and bounded way of thinking. And we aren't.

Contrast this article in the Post, "Contradictions Surface in Dulles Rail Talks: Kaine Says Federal Slam Is a U-Turn; FTA Says FTA Says Va. Knew of Its Concerns," to this article from the Dallas Morning News, "Rising costs put DART in tough spot with loyal suburbs" and this one, "DART board to hear revised expansion plans today." While they haven't done everything right in Dallas either, there is a recognition that the system is being planned and constructed by the transit authority, and overseen by the Board.

In our region, in 2003, region-wide transportation planning was scuttled on the part of WMATA due to budget problems, and the responsibility was devolved to the local jurisdictions, which for the most part (Arlington is an exception) focus very narrowly on their own concerns, without looking at extending the power of the whole system.

The Dulle rail proposal is a perfect example of an overly narrowly construed project. It could have been used to bring back the separated blue line proposal, add an additional tunnel crossing over the Potomac, and set the stage for adding stations in DC, ,providing more service, and adding redundancy and capacity to the core of the system, which is increasingly "congested.'

Separated blue line proposal. Washington Post graphic.

But that wasn't done. The entire process has been managed by the State of Virginia and focused on Virginia, and boxed out WMATA for the most part.

Had the system been conceptualized along the lines outlined above it would have cost more sure, but it would have served far more people, and been able to justify the amount of federal funding requested. Although it's true that as Gerald Connolly said in "Dulles Rail proponents fending off blame " from the Examiner:

Connolly rejected Byrne’s assessment as “utter nonsense,” arguing the Bush administration’s Department of Transportation is ideologically opposed to large-scale rail investments. “There is no way to get a passing grade here because the whole system is skewed toward an F no matter what we do,” he said. “This was a ‘no’ in search of a rationale.”

But that's aggravating too. Congressmen Davis and Wolf could have stepped up and forced a change in how the FTA grades projects. Instead, they sat on their hands, and told the transit planners to cost contain the project.

About 3 years ago, I wrote a blog entry about network "theory" and transit, "The Vitality of the Transit City is Dependent on Transit Expansion--Applying Metcalfe's Law," it's just as relevant today.

But why didn't the Transportation Board of MWCOG and the WMATA Board step in and demand better planning and the creation of a better project to begin with? As the Examiner says in this editorial, "Metro outruns its supply lines":

One of the main reasons the Federal Transit Administration wisely considers the Dulles Rail project a bad risk for federal funding is the shaky financial condition of the Metropolitan Washington Area Transit Authority, including $7 billion in unfunded maintenance needs that threaten the safety of Metro’s current passengers. Before any money is spent on expansion, Metro must fix the existing Metro system. Metro’s situation has deteriorated so dramatically over the last year that it has significantly added to the already substantial technical, financial and institutional risks that the FTA was required to weigh while evaluating the Dulles Rail project, FTA Administrator James Simpson told The Examiner.