Washington Metropolitan transit leadership

(This entry was written in response to some of the discussion about the DC transit system in the current issue of themail, the twice weekly local e-letter on good government issues.)

WMATA

Erik Gaull is right that DC pays a disproportionate share of the cost of WMATA, but he doesn't say why. It's because the funding formula is based on the number of stations present in the jurisdiction, and DC has 40 stations (Friendship Heights is just across the border) of the 86 stations total. I believe that funding should be based not just on the destination station, but on the destination of the rider, and this would rebalance the funding formula somewhat, and the surrounding jurisdictions would end up paying a bit more, and DC a bit less.

In any case, people's focus on dedicated funding is important, but misses the point. Many transit systems across the country that rely on dedicated funding (e.g., Chicago, Boston, NYC) suffer when tax receipts (usually sales taxes and real estate transfer taxes) decline, which is usually the case during a recession, and is so now.

No transit system generates enough money from operations to pay for both capital improvements and operations. This is the case even with dedicated funding, at least based on the examples in the U.S. where dedicated funding streams are provided to transit systems.

People can criticize WMATA for not replacing 1000 series cars (although the issue of the likely failed circuit is far more important), but no one, including the NTSB, ever came up with the $1 billion necessary to do so.

Since the 1950s, U.S. transportation policy has favored automobility and it has been very difficult to get federal assistance for transit development and expansion, even while the federal government has provided a significant share of the construction money for the WMATA system.

The cascading problems for mobility that resulted from the crash last week (and will continue for some time while the system is run in manual mode, decreasing maximum speed by about 40%) demonstrates the centrality and relative efficiency of the subway system when it is working well and the problems that result when it is not.

The Washington Post can editorialize for dedicated funding (as it did today), but at the same time in the region it is the most consistent proponent for highway funding (Wilson Bridge, Springfield Interchange, Inter County Connector, toll lanes, etc.).

But a focus on automobility comes at great costs to the region's livability and the chewing up of once undeveloped land. And it's inefficient. One track of the subway can move 30,000 to 40,000 people per hour, while a one mile of highway moves about 1,600 to 2,200 cars in the same period.

In any case, the operation of the WMATA transit system can not be taken for granted, and there is no question that its leadership and oversight be evaluated and addressed as much as there are calls for dedicated funding.

As long as board members (appointed by their respective jurisdictions) focus on more picayunish and political concerns, the region and the riders are inadequately served. The crash and the aftermath should steel the resolve of citizens to demand better.

As far as DC residents are concerned, we must recognize that the city's competitive advantage and livability is dependent in large part on a smoothly functioning transit system, which gets people around quickly, and significantly reduces traffic on our streets, preserves demand for living here, and helps to attract and retain businesses.

This means that DC needs to manage our transit interests in two dimensions, for "ourselves" and for our region, because the relative attractiveness of the city is in part dependent on the regional dimensions of the transit system.

In 2003, WMATA devolved transit expansion planning to the jurisdictions. So it's up to DC to ensure that its interests are represented. To me, that means that transit expansion in the suburbs needs to be complemented with transit expansion in the core of the region, within DC, specifically adding capacity and redundancy to the system where it is needed, such as with the proposed separated blue line.

That line provided another crossing from Rosslyn, service to Georgetown, and a parallel line of service and stations in the core of the city. (Washington Post graphic provided courtesy of Post journalist Lyndsay Layton.)

Recent proposals by Representatives Connolley and Moran from Virginia to extend the WMATA system further into Northern Virginia suburbs (as well as frequent proposals to extend the green line north and south further into Maryland), without taking the time to consider how this impacts DC and the capacity in the core of the system is seriously shortsighted. (This was discussed in this blog entry: Planning subway expansion in a coordinated and planned fashion.)

But it will be addressed only if DC residents demand that DC transit interests are represented simultaneously with suburban interests. We can't and shouldn't expect the suburban politicians to represent DC.

This map was produced for me by David Alpert of Greater Greater Washington. It shows the original separated blue line, but in this conception it is colored silver as it is reconceptualized as an extension, including adding an additional river crossing, of the Dulles subway line extension (which is how it should have been planned to begin with).

It also shows the "brown line" which was conceived by Michael S., a Dupont Circle resident-advocate, although the line was reconceptualized by comments from readers and myself. The "problem" with the brown line is that it is proposed to serve an area which doesn't have the kind of density that heavy rail investments need in order to be justified, although this week especially, the idea shows a way to provide redundancy to the transit system.

Note also a separate proposal for a separated yellow line as published last week in "Imagine a separate Yellow Line," in Greater Greater Washington. Be sure to read the discussion, as there are some interesting counter-proposals and conceptualizations provided by thoughtful readers in the discussion thread.

Conceptual map for transit expansion in the DC region with a focus on subway service expansion within the District of Columbia.