More on funding subway improvements within DC

There are two good comments to the previous entry, and rather than discuss them in the comments, they deserve a full blown entry.

First, Christopher makes the point that by adding station entries and/or underground walkway connections in places such as between Farragut West and Farragut North, trips can be optimized better and throughput increased. This is addressed in WMATA's Core Capacity Study, but again, a big part of the initiative has to come from the local jurisdiction, in this case, DC, which for the most part is focused on surface transit improvements (bus and creating a streetcar system).

Note also that BeyondDC's point in "Predictions for 2040" about adding railroad stations in Arlington County and DC, comparable to how railroad passenger services are a key element serving cities like London, Paris, and Montreal, and in the U.S., Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City--which is why a connection between the east side and west side of Manhattan by railroad is so important, is also about reducing transferring to the subway system, by getting more people closer to their final destinations without requiring another transit trip.

Montreal transit and passenger railroad station and line map.

Second, TR(2)L writes:

Even if DDOT had a robust plan for developing improvements for Metrorail--as well as every other aspect of our transit infrastructure--the problem is still trying to get these projects paid for. I realize that isn't a good enough reason for many people, and your point that Arlington has found a way to push improvements to the stations within its jurisdiction is well taken.

For better or worse, Arlington is much more willing to pressure private developers to fund infrastructure improvements than the District is. I don't think that putting it on the shoulders of private developers is a sustainable solution--and particularly not in times, like now, when financing for real estate development of any kind is still relatively scarce.

In this case of GW and the Foggy Bottom station, $21MM may not seem like much in comparison to a $275MM project, but, in many cases, increasing project costs by just 1% can be enough to scrap a development--nevermind the damage that 7.5% can do. While I would stand on the side of GW and private developers on the issue, I do also see that every option should be on the table.

Like many others, I think that improvements in the overall transit system should be paid for by the less desirable forms of it, however socialist that may be seen. Although I already don't like carrying around copious amounts of change for parking meters, maybe we need to further increase rates, or take additional fees for parking in public garages.

I think the District, like so many other major cities, should be able to implement a commuter tax for people working but not living in DC, have tolls on roads leading into the District, and consider congestion pricing. Any of this could be used as a dedicated revenue stream for maintenance and improvements to our overall transit infrastructure. Unfortunately, we would need an Act of Congress to be able to implement the best of these options, so we have to find other ways for at least the foreseeable future.

My response is this:

1. You're absolutely right that in this economic climate, getting the go ahead for new real estate developments is extremely problematic and additional costs for projects makes them even less likely.

2. But, the justification for having developers fund transit improvements is that access to transit and access to better transit makes projects worth more, and that more of the value of this access is captured by developers and building owners (through higher rents, sales prices, etc.) than the transit system.

3. In DC, the only area where this has been done is the creation of a special taxing district for the area around the New York Avenue Metro Station. This money provides 1/3 of the funding for the construction of that station (DC paid 1/3 and so did the Federal Government).

4. In Arlington, they have an advantage over DC because buildings can be taller (yes, I am gonna write another piece about the height limit imminently), making the overall project bigger, with more revenue, and more capable of taking on, in part, the cost of providing better transit access.

Not to mention the fact that their land use policy links density bonuses to specific community benefits, focused on transportation enhancements (infrastructure and demand management). That's true along the Orange Line corridor especially, and jointly, Alexandria and Arlington have done something similar with the planning for the Potomac Yards area along Rte. 1--the former Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac railroad switching yard. If developers don't sign off on the transportation improvements, they can't build, because it has been determined that the area is roughly at transportation capacity now, and that adding significant numbers of car trips would overburden the system.

(In 2000, after seeing a presentation by Arlington County planning director Bob Brosnan at the Building Museum, I went up to him and said he should retitle the presentation to "How to Kill DC.")

5. DC may do something like this with regard to streetcar planning, but it should have done this around at least some station areas a long time ago anyway, to fund improvements. E.g., the developments at Washington Circle in DC are being driven by access to transit, yet the additional demand that these developments will generate is expected to be borne by the transit system without any contributions from the developers.

6. But yes, the costs of extending and improving the transit system should be spread around more. Congress won't pass a commuter tax, as you point out. I have suggested for three years imposing a transit withholding tax, as has been done for many years in certain areas in Oregon (Portland and Eugene), and has just been recently enacted in New York State, in the serving area of the Metropolitan Transit Agency.

-- Oregon Transit Withholding Tax
-- Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax, New York State

7. But both taxes exclude federal workers, and for it to work here, it would have to be imposed on federal workers as well in order to generate enough revenue. In my paper, I estimated that such a tax could generate about $200MM annually, which I would use primarily for subway system improvements, with some monies directed to surface transit improvements for bus in particular, but also for the streetcars.

I think it would be politically impossible to get this to happen, especially in the current political climate.

8. And residents don't seem to be too keen on adding taxes to pay for these kinds of improvements either, judging by recent events in Alexandria. See "Alexandria neighborhood protests proposed tax increase" from the Examiner. (Also see "Tax for Potomac Yard station targeted" from the Post.)

From the article:

An Alexandria neighborhood is protesting the creation of the city's first special tax district, designed to fund the $270 million construction of a Potomac Yard Metro station.

The tax plan could create two tiers of additional property taxes in a designated area around the station's future location, west of Jefferson Davis Highway behind the Potomac Yard Shopping Center. Commercial properties in the area would be taxed an additional 20 cents for every $100 of assessed property value, and residential properties would be taxed an additional 10 cents once the station is completed, no sooner than 2016.

The Potomac Greens neighborhood, which falls within the tax district's boundaries, has been distributing hundreds of signs and fliers with the message "Just Say No to Any Special Taxes." They're also planning a morning rush-hour rally on Nov. 1 at the intersection of Slaters Lane and Potomac Greens Drive.

9. Again, this justifies my recommendation of an area-wide transportation-transit planning initiative to rebuild--somewhat anyway--a regional consensus on the value of transit, a commitment to improvement and extension, coming up with a better way for leadership, management, and oversight, and a way to fund the improvements and extensions, while also dealing with the various efforts that focus on extending the system outward--where transit will be much less effective--versus what we would call improvements by intensification of the service network in the core of the region, where transit is much more cost effective.

See "St. Louis regional transit planning process as a model for what needs to be done in the DC Metropolitan region."

It's been more than 40 years since the creation of the regional compact that set up WMATA. It's time for the region to reconnect to the compact and extend and rearticulate the vision.