Throwing up my hands and the "Anacostia" "Circulator"

As I have written before, the pretty red buses don't have people thinking straight about what kind of bus service it makes sense to provide within the city. See "D.C. officials mull over Anacostia Circulator" from the Washington Business Journal.

There are three different levels of transit network to consider within the city. The intra-city transit network in turn connects to and is part of the metropolitan transit network, complemented by the suburban transit network.

From my transit network typology:

DC Primary Transit Network: The DC transit network considers the WMATA subway stations within DC as a subsystem of the full WMATA subway network. The primary network is comprised of the 29 subway stations in the inner core of DC (see map below); the proposed streetcar system; high frequency Metrobus and MetroExtra--express or limited stop—service (i.e., 30s, 70s, S, 90s, X, 50s lines); Downtown Circulator bus service; cross-jurisdictional WMATA bus service.

DC Secondary Transit Network: the other 11 subway stations in the city; other WMATA bus service within the city (i.e., 60s, G8); secondary DC Circulator routes (Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights-McPherson Square, Union Station-Capitol Hill-Navy Yard); Georgetown Connector shuttle service; water taxi service if added (based on the likely impact of utilization, which is projected to be minimal).

DC Tertiary Transit Network: intra-neighborhood bus services; private shuttle services (i.e., Washington Hospital Center to/from Brookland Metro, university shuttle services, etc.). This proposed tier of service would be comprised of an intra-neighborhood transit service that could be free (depending on monies provided separately by DC), and oriented to getting people to and from within a neighborhood, to main transit lines and stations without having to drive, and including delivery of goods and services from local commercial districts. The Tempe Orbit bus system in Tempe, Arizona is one model for this type of mobility option.
--------------------------------------

Downtown Circulator bus stop at Massachusetts Avenue and 7th Street NW.

What I didn't state in these writings (because it gets wonky) is that standards or levels of service are set for each segment of the transit network, and in fact how a transit service is defined as a primary, secondary, and tertiary service is dependent on at least three elements:

1. Type of service and its capacity;
2. Breadth of service in terms of area covered;
3. Frequency of service, the levels of which are based primarily on demand.

The pretty red buses, once they get out of the Downtown, no longer have to meet specific metrics for service, because for the most part, they are political bus services designed to make people happy.

The neighborhood circulator buses are 30 feet long, because DDOT managed to convince City Council that the demand of these services would be lower than the Downtown service, which uses 40 foot buses.

By definition a Circulator service is supposed to provide at least 6 buses/hour, or service every 10 minutes.

To justify such a level of service, the total daily ridership ought to be in excess of 10,000 riders/day. Only the Downtown runs meet that level of demand.

I am not against providing better connections between activity centers and transit stations, or connections within neighborhoods. In fact, that is the demand segment that the proposed DC Tertiary Transit Network aims to service.

HOWEVER, you don't serve that demand segment with 6 buses/hour, maybe 2 or 3 per hour is the appropriate level. Of course, it depends. A Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights-U Street (but not going beyond maybe P Street to provide service to the Whole Foods Supermarket) might be able to have more frequent service, at least at certain times of the day, but not the whole day.

But the discussion of the pretty red circulator buses ends up being completely divorced from a rigorous evaluation of optimal service structure for transit and from prudent consideration of the use of limited financial resources.

As a planner, it bugs the hell out of me. And it bugs the hell out of me that other urban bloggers don't lay out these issues, as they are enthralled with the pretty red circulator buses too...

(At least I benefit because the failure to do good planning here helps me figure out things and come up with great concepts... building of course, on the work of others. My joke is that working on these kinds of issues in DC is like working in dog years--you learn way more than one year's worth of stuff in each year.)

Getting back to the article, the first paragraph states:

The D.C. Department of Transportation is considering a new route for the D.C. Circulator bus that would connect the Barracks Row neighborhood of Capitol Hill with Metrorail stations in Anacostia and Congress Heights. The line would be the bus system’s sixth line.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DO THIS. You shouldn't provide duplicative bus service between the Anacostia and Congress Heights SUBWAY stations to Capitol Hill. And there is already Metrobus service along Martin Luther King Avenue between these stations (and beyond into the commercial district) already.

PLUS, the 90s buses serve both Congress Heights and Anacostia Stations, as well as 8th Street SE and the Eastern Market Metro Station already. Making an ANACOSTIA CIRCULATOR completely duplicative.

90s bus service map (section) between Capitol Hill SE and the Anacostia and Congress Heights neighborhoods. (WMATA map.) But the Metrobus isn't as cute and cuddly as the Circulator.

WHAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE, is to have the Capitol Hill Circulator (which doesn't make sense as a "DC primary transit network" service, but might make sense as a "tertiary network service" with service a couple times an hour, except during certain periods of the day) take people from the Navy Yard Station to 8th Street SE (Barracks Row).

Union Station-Navy Yard Circulator bus map (section from the complete map).

FORTUNATELY, IT ALREADY DOES. So all people who live in the mobilityshed of the Anacostia and Congress Heights green line subway stations need to do is to take the subway to Navy Yard and transfer to the Capitol Hill Circulator....

Civil society, participatory democracy and Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

Text of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Organizing independent of government, and civil society is partly about the ability "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-------
On the ANC6A list, there is a robust discussion in response to a proposal to seek donations from entities that often have business before Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6A. In DC, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions are bodies that have "great weight"--are consulted--on matters before DC government agencies, especially planning, zoning, historic preservation, certain building regulation matters, and alcoholic beverage sales. Commissioners are elected from districts containing about 1,800 residents, and there are something like 39 ANCs in the city, ranging from 3 to 15 members depending on the size of the commission. I have written about these organizations quite a bit over the years.

Here's my response to the thread (which I am not reprinting):

One of the things I used to say, after having become involved in the neighborhood in earnest around 2000, is that the great thing about the neighborhood from the perspective of developers and other interests is that people sell themselves for so little. One of my lines was "That you get $50 for a block party, and you're owned for life..."

That was based on my experience dealing with what we might call "legacy leadership" in the "near northeast" area centered around JO Wilson School.

Maybe you're all more sophisticated now...

It sure was frustrating back then, figuring out how the community mores were and functioned, identifying the real problems, and working to change them.

WRT block parties and such, the one criticism that I have of ANCs is more theoretical, irrespective of the incredible work that the post-2002 redistricted ANC6A has accomplished through the incredible efforts of so many people, both elected commissioners and nonelected volunteers, is that to my way of thinking, the one problem with ANCs is that they end up "governmentalizing" civil society at the most grassroots levels.

You don't need an elected neighborhood government to organize and collect money for block parties do you? ANCs end up capturing and diverting most of the best of the local leadership into government, and thinking that all problems are solvable and addressable by government, and the idea of "self-help" and independent involvement becomes somewhat crippled as a result.

ANCs end up capturing most of that energy and diverting what would normally be independent actions into the functions of "government." (Yes, I have functioned as and am more comfortable as an outsider, although I am a kind of "inside outsider" who works alongside govt. and in the community. I never ran for ANC, although I served on the 6C Planning and Zoning Committee from 2003-2005 and worked on many initiatives involving ANC commissioners [including Main Street revitalization and neighborhood historic preservation efforts], and from time to time I provided free consulting behind the scenes on particular issues--I don't really have the luxury of doing that now. And by the way, who wants to take over from me the hstreetdc and northside_dc and anc6c listservs?)

Why aren't there many independent, organized, and functioning neighborhood groups outside of the "elected" "government" of the ANCs?

A healthy functioning participating civil society has a robust number of independent groups and a great number and variety of social, cultural, and civic organizations.

I think that's not exactly dangerous, but it isn't a healthy sign of democracy. This idea of sponsored block parties and soliciting donations by the ANC is but one example.

This is the libertarian side of my left progressivism coming out.

No urinating sign (Baltimore City)

No urinating sign (Baltimore City)
Originally uploaded by rllayman

around York Road and Woodburne Street.

Cover It with Asphalt (asphalt tanker truck)

Cover It with Asphalt (asphalt tanker truck)
Originally uploaded by rllayman

(I noticed a truck from this company a few weeks ago, but I didn't have time to take a photo. This is on Liberty Road in Baltimore County.)

Organic redevelopment in the city

In Huffington Post, Frank Gruber reviewed the new American Planning Association book, Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts, which I've wanted to get, but haven't gotten around to it. Note that "organic development" is revitalization that results without a focused revitalization or "sector" or "neighborhood" plan. One of his criticisms of the book is that it doesn't adequately address organic development. From the review:

Although the dynamism (and, lamentably, the dysfunction) of Los Angeles is characteristically expressed in individual developers' small and often idiosyncratic projects spread around the grid, the book is weighted in favor of large planned developments. ...

My only disappointment with the book is that contains only a few examples of places that developed "organically" (i.e., as a result of pluralistic decision-making) in recent years on top of an existing layout of streets.

In DC, over the period from the early 1960s to about 2003, most neighborhood revitalization had been organic, spurred on by urban pioneers attracted to living in the city, mostly in historic residential single family buildings (usually attached rowhouses). But this had been a phenomenon of working with the extant housing stock, involving renovation sure, but very little new construction.

In Shaw, Marie Maxwell's 1874 rowhouse is on a colorful block of "darn cute" houses. Washington Post photo.


Infill rowhouses on the north side of the 600 block of Maryland Avenue NE, in place of a church building dating from the 1940s. On the other hand, most of the infill new construction in the area north of Maryland Avenue over the past 25 years has been pretty bad. These buildings are quite nice, and of course, more expensive.

These were constructed around 1987, and they aren't that bad, compared to buildings further north. These are at the NE corner of 4th and F Streets NE.

During this same period, in commercial districts, most new construction over this period was in place of buildings that had been destroyed during the riots, and the site design typically was suburban and automobile-centric in orientation, ignoring urban design and placemaking considerations, and further diminishing the quality of the commercial districts in the city, and did not yield significant positive contributions to overall neighborhood revitalization.

In the northeast quadrant, the H Street Connection shopping center, parking fronted, and the block senior housing apartment building behind it were planned and built as part of the post-riot H Street Urban Renewal Plan. Despite more than $100 million in revitalization investments made in the H Street corridor in the 1970s and 1980s, the neighborhood did not begin to experience significant revitalization until broader changes in trends that began to favor urban living, the construction of the infill subway station at Florida Avenue, which spurred an influx of higher demographic residential ownership north of H Street, to some extent the H Street Playhouse and the Atlas Theater (the H Street Community Development Corporation, which had owned the theater building for many years, had suggested tearing down part of the building complex for parking), and the entry of tavern and nightlife impresario Joe Englert, who bought a bunch of buildings and has been putting interesting destination establishments inside, remaking the H Street commercial district in the "Atlas District."

Since 2003, stunted a bit by the recent real estate crash, neighborhood revitalization, mostly in the northwest quadrant, has been spurred by the addition of large numbers of multiunit condominium and apartment buildings located proximate to (heavy rail) transit, and supplemented some by high quality retail infill development. (Note that more suburban- and automobile-oriented redevelopment projects in the southeast and far northeast quadrants have been less successful.)

High quality infill development has tended to be "produced" in the northwest quadrant (not everywhere). It's been much harder to achieve in other areas of the city. Likely this is due to the relatively higher value of location in the northwest quadrant, so even with higher land costs, demand is higher, justifying higher prices, which in turn allows developers to spend more money on high quality design and materials. In locations that are in relatively less demand, developers stint on the quality of the design on the outside of the building, as well as inside, to bring the building "online" at a price where the developer can make a profit, but at the cost of failing to provide significant "increasing returns" to the place values of urban design, placemaking, and neighborhood revitalization.

The Ellington Condominium building on U Street NW, built by Donatelli and Klein, is a high quality infill building on U Street that has spurred revitalization in the eastern side of the 14th Street corridor. Photo by Eye Captain.

Here's my response to Frank's review

As for your point about "organic" development, in my experience, which I admit is relatively limited, my sense is organic (re)development that includes significant amounts of new construction is more about adaptive reuse of extant places, complemented by (hopefully high quality) infill.

I think the evidence would be that without overarching design guidelines/smart code type requirements/focused commercial district revitalization programs, and of course having incredibly progressive developers and property owners, having organic development result in quantum improvements that are truly significant happens very rarely.

Where it changes is where there is a lead developer who (1) cares about and understands quality; (2) is willing to work with historic (designated or eligible) buildings in a sensitive manner; and (3) has acquired enough properties to generate a critical mass of positive behavior on the part of other developers, property owners, and business proprietors.

The place in DC where I see high quality organic development that truly qualifies as organic is 14th Street NW, from P Street (with a little southern bleed towards Thomas Circle) up to about Florida Avenue (north of U Street) as well as along U Street.

The lead developer was Abdo. For non-downtown, it's one of only a couple areas in the city where there is a large conglomeration of "old" larger footprint buildings (DC has but a handful of the kinds of old industrial buildings, and none of the big industrial complexes that typified traditional center cities, the kinds of buildings that are perfect for big adaptive reuse projects)--many had served as auto dealerships back in the 1920s. And while Abdo never had a whole lot of property, he set a high bar for design quality, which tended to rub off on the new projects. This effort was complemented by the successful recruitment of a Whole Foods Supermarket onto a key parcel, which helped generate a lot of energy and renewed sampling of the area, increasing the willingness to live there, which supported the addition of condominiums and apartment buildings.

Because DC is a relatively small place, improvements in the retail side (Whole Foods excepted) have really lagged. Many business failures have occurred. A new anchor, the furniture store Room & Board, has come in and that should help draw more customers from outside the immediate retail trade area, because this is their only store in the region.

An early entrant into this neighborhood was the Studio Theater, but it was a couple decades before Abdo. The theater helped stabilize the neighborhood, but didn't have the kind of heft and impact that lead to improvements in the commercial district. It took Abdo's projects (mixed use, primarily residential) to start the process in earnest.

One education story we aren't reading in the national press

Earlier this week, Education Week published a story, "Scholars Identify 5 Keys to Urban School Success," (registration required for access) about the new book Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons From Chicago. From the University of Chicago Press website:

The authors of this illuminating book identify a comprehensive set of practices and conditions that were key factors for improvement, including school leadership, the professional capacity of the faculty and staff, and a student-centered learning climate. In addition, they analyze the impact of social dynamics, including crime, critically examining the inextricable link between schools and their communities. Putting their data onto a more human scale, they also chronicle the stories of two neighboring schools with very different trajectories. The lessons gleaned from this groundbreaking study will be invaluable for anyone involved with urban education.

These factors are:

1) Strong principal leadership that focuses on instruction and is inclusive of others in the work, as opposed to our current, top down leadership that dictates to principals instead of trusting them to lead.

2) A welcoming attitude toward parents and a formation of connections to communities.

3) Development of professional capacity—treating teachers like professionals and giving them good professional development and collaboration time.

4) A safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing environment for all students.

5) Strong instructional guidance and materials, not forced curricula

When all five of these supports were working in tandem, the Consortium on Chicago School Research (the group doing the study from which the book was published) found that schools improved.

The ironic finding of their study, compared to what's going on in DC, is that trust and stability are key in promoting real and sustainable improvements in schools, particularly in schools with high levels of nonschool factors influencing attainment (particularly poverty). Chancellor Rhee has proven over and over again that building a shared culture of trust and stability are not part of her program.

(Not to mention that it's not about charters, vouchers, or various other flavors of the week.)

There was a symposium on the release date of the book.

- Download the slides from January 14 symposium
- Handouts: The Essential Supports
- Handouts: Truly Disadvantaged Schools
- Handouts: Supplemental Information

Internal censorship at the Washington Post

In the blog entry, "Censorship at WaPo," retired teacher Guy Brandenburg compares the sanitized version of a blog entry written by Bill Turque, the Post's DC K-12 education writer, to his original entry, which had pointed criticism of the Post editorial board's overtly sweetheart relationship with Chancellor Rhee.

It's just as bad an exercise of judgment as the recent hullabaloo over the attempt to create sponsorship opportunities for salon meetings with key editors and writers ("The Media Equation - A Publisher Stumbles Publicly at The Post" from the New York Times).

I haven't read the Columbia Journalism Review for awhile, but an analysis of the media's mostly hagiopic coverage of Rhee, particularly the national media, would be a great cover story.

As for this incident, it will definitely make the Darts and Laurels column features about egregious errors (and great jobs) in journalism, if someone submits it. (When I worked at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, I got an item in the D&L column, over a magazine that was soliciting advertising to support an issue that was going to include an article criticizing the organization's position on focused programs marketing alcohol to minority groups. CSPI was against this type of marketing. The magazine preferred the advertising revenues.)

In the late 1980s, one of the first things Michael Moore did that had national exposure was write a piece for CJR on the Flint (Michigan) Journal and its ultra-cozy relationship with General Motors and the Mott Foundation, and on projects they espoused (a number of which failed miserably) for the city.

CJR influences the media and has a national position of authority that far exceeds its paid circulation.

Crossing the road vs. walking alongside the road and Connecticut Avenue NW

Photo by Ken Firestone of the Chevy Chase commercial district on upper Connecticut Avenue NW.

A couple weeks ago, the Examiner featured an interview with of Marlene Berlin of IONA Senior Services. She's working on a project called "Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action to improve walkability between Calvert Street and Western Avenue." See "The 3-Minute Interview: Marlene Berlin."

Also see "Battle Flag of the Pedestrians"from the Post, in 2005.

When you have to carry flags across the street, in order to protect yourself from being hit by a car, there is a "design" issue. In this case, it's one of an extremely wide street that does a great job carrying traffic into and out of the city, but that does a terrible job serving as a neighborhood street.

Crossing the street and reducing the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, ought to be a primary objective of pedestrian planning in that area. To be fair, that's what the Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action project is going to do. But to often, we are glibly describing problems without being hyper accurate.

In this case, the issue is crossing the road, the prevailing speed of traffic, the posted speed for vehicles, and the conflict of the road being a neighborhood avenue as well as a major in-bound and out-bound road with a large degree of regional traffic.

Note that this is one of the roads that I have been arguing for a couple years should be designated as an HOV-2 street (at least one of the lanes) during rush periods. Plus, it should be a priority to consider streetcar or light rail service on streets such as this in order to reduce the amount of regional traffic borne by the road.

From "D.C. cop pleads with pedestrians: Pay attention" from the Examiner:

In the wake of another pedestrian struck, a D.C. police officer has offered a fairly blunt assessment of the often dangerous behavior of those who share the road: Walkers and drivers simply don’t pay attention anymore. ...

She was the third pedestrian struck at the intersection in a year — the two previous victims died. Some vehicles do speed through that busy crossing, Baker said, but most average 34 to 37 mph. The speed limit there is 30 mph. As he surveyed the site with his radar gun, Baker said he watched pedestrian after pedestrian stroll by listening to their iPods and talking on their cell phones, crossing against the walk signal and stepping into the crosswalk in anticipation of a walk signal.

I raise this only because I am dealing with similar kinds of issues in Baltimore County, Maryland. There... I said it, that's where I am working, at least for the moment, as a bicycle and pedestrian planner, tasked with the development of a pedestrian and bicycling master plan for the urban section of the western part of Baltimore County. The finished plan will complement the Eastern Baltimore County Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan, and in combination will outline a conceptual on-street and off-street bicycle route network, along with significant improvements in the pedestrian environment for the entire urban section of the county.

(Baltimore County was one of the first jurisdictions in the U.S. to create an urban growth boundary, in 1967. Today, 90% of the County's populationo is located inside the Urban-Rural Demarcation Line.)

Anyway, in the context of what we're studying, we've created an online survey, which distinguishes between various types of issues (i.e., sidewalk conditions vs. crossing conditions, on-street bicycling vs. off-road multi-user trails, etc.

Couture cycling in Paris ... and the Riding Pretty photoblog

Couture cycling in Paris
Originally uploaded by rllayman

Looking for a photo of Beyonce Knowles bicycling, I came across the Riding Pretty blog. There's a lot of interesting photos in there, ranging from a bicycle themed dress to bicycle latte art.

Testimony regarding Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Options to address FY2010 Budget Gap

Public Hearing #547

Thank you, Members of the Board of Directors of WMATA and General Manager Catoe, for the opportunity to submit testmony on the above-referenced matter. I am Richard Layman of the Citizens Planning Coalition, a DC-based advocacy group concerned primarily with stabilizing, maintaining, and extending the qualities that make living in the District of Columbia so worthwhile. Due to a prior commitment, I am unable to testify in person.

CPC is convinced that one of the key pillars upon which the city’s economic and competitive advantages rests is the wide array of transit options serving residents, employers, retail and entertainment businesses, and visitors.

Furthermore, the richness and depth of transit services available within the metropolitan region and specifically the City of Washington allows for optimal mobility without requiring automobile ownership--more than 30% of the city’s households do not own cars—they are dependent, by choice or by need, on a robust Metropolitan Transit Network* and efficient services provided through an interconnected transit network. (At the same time, by using transit, and not owning a car, households can save as much as $6,000 in disposable income for each automobile that is foregone in favor of transit use.)

------

* The Metropolitan Transit Network has been defined conceptually by the Citizens Planning Coalition, extending concepts expressed in the Transit Network Element of the Arlington County Master Transportation Plan. This definitional framework has been attached to this testimony as an appendix.

------

Of the four options that WMATA is considering to make up for the current loss in revenue, the Citizens Planning Coalition supports Option 4 as it has the fewest number of service cuts.

Other testimonies recommend making changes to the service in ways that can optimize service provision without resulting in real changes in the amount of service, and we support those recommendations.

CPC does not support reductions in hours of service during which the Metrorail system is open and in operation (i.e., opening later in the morning, and closing earlier in the evenings, or closing earlier on weekends). In general, CPC believes that a world class city and region should provide as much high quality transit service as possible, even if this means higher fares.

We would like to take this opportunity to communicate to the Board and executive leadership of WMATA our thinking about the positioning, pricing, and marketing of transit service in the metropolitan area, because this should shape how questions of "level of transit service," "level of transit quality," the robustness and completeness of the transit network," and pricing are addressed.

We believe that despite the past year's many system failures on the subway system, that overall the quality of service and the area served by the Metrorail system, complemented by bus service, and that compared to most regions in the United States, residents of the Washington Metropolitan Area generally and especially residents of the center city enjoy high quality transit service that is almost incomparable (only cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City's boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn have comparable service, in addition to the Canadian cities of Toronto and Montreal).

Despite this reality, public transit in the DC region is treated as if it were a second class service, second to the automobile, and only used by people, especially the impoverished, who have no other choices.

We make this assessment based on the fares charged for the service, the focus on keeping fares low, and the various comments by board members in discussions on these issues.

I moved to the city in 1987. At that time, city bus fares were 75 cents and the base fare on the Metrorail system was 85 cents.

In constant dollar terms, if the fares had risen at the level of inflation, in 2009, the bus fare would have been $1.42 (it is $1.35) and the base fare on the Metrorail system would be $1.62 (at off-peak it is $1.35 and $1.65 during peak hours of service).

In short, while WMATA's personnel, maintenance, and energy costs have increased and the service profile was expanded (the green line opened, and stations were added to the system on the blue line in Maryland as well as the infill station at New York Avenue) throughout this period, fares have remained relatively constant, but actually are lower in 2010 than they were in 1987.

It should be no surprise that the budget is constantly under stress.

Like anyone else, I would prefer to pay as little as possible for transit service. However, I recognize (and the system should be marketed along these lines) that public transit (provided the origin and destination of my trip is optimized to favor transit) saves me time, money (compared to owning a car), and hassle (I don't have to find and/or pay for a place to park), and rather than wait 10-20 minutes for the next subway train, the opportunity costs involved in waiting mean that I would rather pay more directly money in higher fares, than bear the opportunity and indirect costs of having to wait.

Instead, fares on the WMATA system are priced amongst the lowest of any major transit system in North America. (Recognizing that unlike most systems, fares rise on the Metrorail system as distance increases, even though the per mile fee is biased in favor of longer trips, coming at the expense of users in the system in the center city, where trips tend to be shorter.)

Rather than criticize the general focus on keeping fares low, we must recognize that this is seen as a compassionate response to concerns about social equity and ensuring that access and mobility is made available and provided to people of lesser means.

But every time service is cut (cuts in rail and bus service frequency, elimination of bus routes, reduction in train sizes), especially on buses, where demographics of ridership demonstrate that lower income households rely on the bus service for mobility (and the fare price structure, especially the relatively low cost weekly passes, favors use), the reality is that equity is significantly impinged.

Maybe riders are forced to use a relatively high-cost taxi, travel in a convoluted fashion, use a carsharing service, or rent a car, etc.--any of these options are much higher cost than transit. Maybe riders choose not to undertake a specific trip, or not to get a particular job, because of the high "costs" that a crippled transit imposes on access and mobility.

A transit system that doesn't go where you want when you want, relatively quickly, is not a low cost system, even if the fares are "low," because to get where you want to go you have to spend a lot of time to accomplish your trip.

How can that be equitable? In short, crippling the bus and rail service by maintaining low fares keeps the system constantly focused on reducing costs, and results in a constantly reduced service profile.

Transit planning should be a separate endeavor from transit operations. By default, WMATA is both the region's transit planner and the region's transit operator.

But decisions about the level of service, level of quality, and the breadth of the transit network shouldn't be made by the transit operator, but by the region. In response to such metrics and preferences, WMATA in turn should demonstrate how to meet these preferences, what level of revenue is required, and offer options, including a discussion on fares, and appropriate farebox revenue levels, necessary to achieve the provision of the specified level of service, quality, and network robustness.

Other transit systems across the country have faced significant problems concerning revenue and service effectiveness. The St. Louis region is currently going through a region-wide public planning process concerning the role of transit in the region. For many years, Chicago has been dealing with similar issues. And the San Francisco Transit Effectiveness Project (a multi-agency city government initiative) addresses comparable concerns.

All of these processes have involved significant citizen participation and input, as well as deep and wide discussions throughout their respective regions, including the widest possible participation and involvement of stakeholders at all levels.

In order to restore trust in the WMATA system generally, and to come up with a common understanding about the role of transit in the region, pricing, and metrics for level of service, level of quality, and the breadth of the transit network, the Citizens Planning Coalition recommends (as it has been recommending for at least 4 years in various writings) that WMATA embark on a similar public planning and participation process.

It is extremely important that this be a participatory process rather than a dog and pony show seemingly seeking citizen input, without allowing for the possibility of real substance.

(Also see the article, "Crowdsourcing helps the Chicago Chamber of Commerce Find More Bus Riders," from Government Technology Magazine, on an initiative seeking proposals for improvements in the quality and breadth of the transit system in the Chicago region. As well as discussions in the Toronto Star on the "transit camp" and other independent citizen initiatives focused on improving local transit.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix
Washington Metropolitan Transit Network
Working Document – Version 2.0, April 17th, 2009
Citizens Planning Coalition

A framework for an all encompassing DC-MD-VA transit network

This framework is predicated on a large base of transit users, a high-capacity transit network to move people around, connections to destinations that people want to visit, and activity centers that are visited regularly (especially the workplace). Buses running on routes with few riders aren’t cost effective. As articulated, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Network functions within a broader, multi-state, Regional Transit Network.

At both the Regional and Metropolitan levels, the overarching networks are defined by their provision of foundational “trunk line” service. Differences between the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary subnetwork categories are defined by speed, capacity and reach of the service, and how it connects to nodes within the overarching Metropolitan Transit Network.

Meta (or Multi-state) Regional Transit Network: MARC and VRE service ideally combined into one multi-state compact and system, with service as far south as Norfolk and as far north as Wilmington, DE and Harrisburg, PA, west to Charlottesville, VA (or beyond), and connections to West Virginia, with intermodal stations connecting to heavy and light rail transit systems; supplemented by Amtrak. Water-based transportation services could augment fixed rail service. At certain nodes connections are made with the Metropolitan Transit Network.

Washington DC Metropolitan Transit Network: WMATA subway system; ferry system if added; cross-jurisdictional bus rapid transit; commuter services oriented to moving people between home and major job centers within the region, across jurisdictional boundaries (i.e., OmniRide from Prince William County, which provides commuter-oriented service to Metro stations and job centers, with an end point in DC [and back] or the MTA Commuter buses).

Suburban Primary Transit Network: public transit systems operated by Counties and Cities in the Washington region providing bus, streetcar, and light rail service within the suburbs, providing connections to major activity destinations, stations (nodes) within the regional transit network, and potentially providing cross-jurisdictional service.

Suburban Secondary Transit Network: intra-jurisdictional municipal transit service; private shuttle services.

DC Primary Transit Network: The DC transit network considers the WMATA subway stations within DC as a subsystem of the full WMATA subway network. The primary network is comprised of the 29 subway stations in the inner core of DC (see map below); the proposed streetcar system; high frequency Metrobus and MetroExtra--express or limited stop—service (i.e., 30s, 70s, S, 90s, X, 50s lines); Downtown Circulator bus service; cross-jurisdictional WMATA bus service.

DC Secondary Transit Network: the other 11 subway stations in the city; other WMATA bus service within the city (i.e., 60s, G8); secondary DC Circulator routes (Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights-McPherson Square, Union Station-Capitol Hill-Navy Yard); Georgetown Connector shuttle service; water taxi service if added (based on the likely impact of utilization, which is projected to be minimal).

DC Tertiary Transit Network: intra-neighborhood bus services; private shuttle services (i.e., Washington Hospital Center to/from Brookland Metro, university shuttle services, etc.). This proposed tier of service would be comprised of an intra-neighborhood transit service that could be free (depending on monies provided separately by DC), and oriented to getting people to and from within a neighborhood, to main transit lines and stations without having to drive, and including delivery of goods and services from local commercial districts. The Tempe Orbit bus system in Tempe, Arizona is one model for this type of mobility option.

The subway stations defining the boundaries of the DC Primary Transit Network are Foggy Bottom on the west, Stadium-Armory on the east, Van Ness on the northwest, and Brookland on the northeast. (Fort Totten, pictured on this map, is not included in the definition of the Primary Transit Network, based on urban design and population density.)

I forgot to mention (mea culpa)

In the Davis legislation to provide additional federal support to WMATA, a key provision was the addition of board members representing the federal government.

Many people in the transit and government workers community were concerned that the agency designated to make the appointments was the General Services Administration, which is mostly a building management and contracting organization, rather than a mobility organization (GSA does assist government agencies on transportation demand management).

In fact, I wrote a blog entry, "USDOT and NCPC, not GSA, should appoint members to the WMATA Board," about a year ago expressing this concern.

So it was a pleasant surprise to see the reports over the weekend about the first two appointees, Mortimer Downey, a former transit agency administrator, and the executive director of the National Capital Planning Commission, Marcel Acosta, and how good they are. According to this article in yesterday's Examiner, "New Metro board member sees 'serious disorder' in system," Mr. Downey is already cognizant that he won't be able to be somnambulant and take his participation for granted.

Clearly the Obama Administration recognized the importance of these appointments.

(When I commented aloud about this news in the Sunday paper, Suzanne commented that it was the first time in awhile that I positively commented after reading something in the newspaper.)

While I don't look to the federal government to be the local government and region's savior (unlike Jonetta Rose Barras, see "Leaving the Metro station" from the Examiner) it's always nice to see when they do the right thing.

WMATA fare hikes and service cuts (and RideOn service cuts): hearing on Wednesday

The public hearing that WMATA is holding to take public comments on the various options that it is considering to deal with a midyear revenue reduction will be this Wednesday, January 27th, at 7pm, at the WMATA headquarters.

Sign up now by emailing your name, address, telephone number and organization affiliation, if any to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. If you can't attend, you can also email comments to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com.

This is a legal proceeding (governed by various federal regulations) and if your comments are not received by the end of the hearing, they will not be entered into the record. So send them before 7pm Wednesday, to not have to worry...

I can't testify live (a planning process I am managing launches the same night) but I will be submitting comments, including extended comments about pricing, LOS and LOQ, and network planning for LOS, LOQ, and robustness vs. transit operations planning, which is more micro focused and ends up being about cuts and fares, not service quality.
--------

The Sunday Post Dr. Gridlock feature, "Before Metro budget hearing, brush up on financing options" discusses the various options that WMATA is considering. (Virtually all transit systems across the country have experienced loss of ridership and loss of farebox revenues and reductions in other sources of funding, ranging from government appropriations to sales tax and a variety of other taxes or fees, such as real estate recordation taxes.)

The Examiner has the ominous cover headline and stories today "Transit riders pinched amid budget crunch" and "Metro hearing lets public consider increases, cuts, delaying fixes," and a sidebar "Want to have a say?" listing the details on speaking at the hearing, as well as about signing up to speak on Montgomery County's RideOn bus service and its proposed cuts, and their public hearing, scheduled for Monday February 1st, in Rockville.

Greater Greater Washington, in "Support option 4 on Wednesday" suggests supporting option 4, and I probably agree that it is the least hurtful of the various options. I favor more service rather than reduced service, so I would rather see fare increases than significant service cuts. The discussion in the GGW entry lists a variety of other tweaks that could be instituted to operations that would result in savings without significantly impacting service in negative ways.

Image from Greater Greater Washington.

Generally, I don't favor cuts in service. Even lightly used buses are important to the people using them, and in the context of an entire transit network, often these routes are significant in the overall service framework.

Like most everybody else, I don't want to pay more money than I have to for transit service. But when it comes to no service, I'd rather pay more. And I'd rather pay more so that the entire transit network benefits, not just me. I am willing to sacrifice some for the greater good so to speak. But a higher fare increase was taken off the table by the refusal to consider such an option by DC's representatives to the WMATA Board of Directors.

I don't think that the subway service is really priced as the premium service that it is. Irrespective of all the recent problems and manual operation, it is more reliable and depending on how smooth the ride is (some operators suck in manual mode) far far better than a bus ride.

But it isn't priced at premium rates. Probably the base fare should be $1.75--even though that would screw people like me a lot, because my off peak fares are typically $1.35.

But I'd rather pay that and have more frequent service, than be faced with significantly longer headways and smaller trainsets (4 or 6 car trains minimized to save money, instead of 6 or 8 car trains, in response to real service demands) with very packed cars.

I'd price bus service at $1.50, or maybe $1.40 with a $1.50 price during rush hour.

While these are not options before WMATA now, I will include this type of discussion in my testimony, perhaps in an appendix, to get it into the record and on the radar of WMATA planners and the board.

Why I favor streetcars

Three streetcars built in the Czech Republic arrived by ship in Baltimore last weekend. The wormlike vehicles are flexible in places and so can negotiate turns better than their older counterparts. Photo Credit: DC Department Of Transportation

In a side e-conversation that derived from an e-conversation thread on a Tenleytown area e-list, I have come to realize that the big problem with the discussion about streetcars is that people are talking past each other. I look at this in terms of broad questions about the future competitiveness of the city and substantive increases in traffic while others think about this as a streetcar line vs. a particular bus line. This email is part of a broader chain, and is edited slightly to add context...

1. Obstructions aren't the end of the world. They are dealt with. FEMS policies could deal with more focused street closures (they are pretty overbroad now). Etc.

You just can't completely discount a technology and make a policy based on a once in a year or a decade occurrence [of an obstruction in the way of a streetcar that because it is rail-based, can't move around it, unlike a bus].

Frankly, to use the same standard--which you seem to think is appropriate for streetcars, to be fair, you'd have to close the freeways during rush hours, because typically there is a catastrophic occurrence (accident) resulting in significant travel delays at least once/month, if not more frequently, and tie ups at specific choke points every day during rush periods (i.e., merging from one freeway to another, such as from 270 to 495 or 495 to 95, or from the HOV lanes in Fairfax to the regular lanes once the HOV lanes end, or 695 to 83 in Baltimore County--I work in Baltimore County).

2. But of course, the reason you have separated heavy rail systems, including underground construction and service, is to be able to provide (relatively) unimpeded service. Yes, street-based in-traffic rail service will never be as fast as separated and underground service.

3. I think it's a reasonable tradeoff, since it's not unlikely that over time ridership on streetcars could double compared to bus service, removing significant amounts of vehicular traffic from the system, which will have extranormally positive benefits for residents and other users of the transportation system within the city.

4. I was thinking about the previous email after I sent it, and for most of the buses that I ride regularly (and I do not ride the 30s buses that often, or the buses on CT Ave., but I have extensive experience with the 50s, 60s, 70s, 90s, G8, X , H, S, and certain D bus lines in DC, and the 8 and 48 in Baltimore) typically fewer than 10% of the total ridership is white. (The wee bit of RideOn service I've experienced has more white riders.)

Since more than 30% of the population of the respective cities is white (and it happens that the demographics of this population in those places demonstrates that these people tend to be of significantly higher income compared to the Black and Hispanic populations, and especially those populations that typically ride buses), it is fair to say that this potential market segment has demonstrated for decades it is unwilling to ride typical bus service.

5. Of course, streetcar ridership dropped because of the widespread adoption of the personally owned vehicle as a mobility technology generally, and as the primary mobility technology specifically.

This was compounded and at the same time automobile use complemented suburban outmigration and the shrinking of center cities. (Actually, in many places streetcar usage started dropping before the Depression, because of outmigration and the spead of suburban development and the adoption of the automobile. It rose during the WWII period when employment rose and automobile production ceased in favor of war production.)

PCC streetcar on Lincoln Park, source and date unknown.

However, into the early 1960s, transit utilization in certain center cities, such as Washington, was still high. It's likely, although you can never answer this question definitively, that the change in technology from streetcar to bus was a significant factor in the subsequent drop.

SE-SW Freeway under construction near the Marine Barracks, 1971. DDOT photo.

6. Bus ridership decreased with the Metrorail but that is not what I am talking about. Transit utilization dropped significantly during the period that streetcars were being discontinued, and especially after the service ceased in DC in 1962. This preceded shifting from bus to subway once the Metrorail system opened and continued to expand. (Not to mention expansions in ridership associated with further system expansion as the realization of the original plan was achieved.)

At the same time, bus ridership stabilized and "increased" with the operation of Metrorail, because of its complementary aspect to heavy rail in providing riders with a complete trip from origination to final destination.

7. Because of the likely significant increase in ridership from streetcars [compared to buses], because of the fact that DC specifically is a "transit city," given that today 50% of daily work trips are made via walking, bicycling, and transit, because of the city's competitive advantages deriving from streetcars, because of the real fact that there is "lack of inventory" that the street network is virtually fully built out, the ability to significantly improve access and mobility by adding streetcars to the transit system, and the significant decrease over time that is likely to result in traffic on DC streets (traffic that is generated in the region as well as within the city specifically), the cost difference between bus vehicles and streetcar vehicles is almost immaterial.

8. It isn't immaterial, but you and I are interpreting and answering the question completely differently.

You look at this question in terms of the 30s bus.

I think of this in terms of my broad concepts of the metropolitan transit network, the DC transit network, the transit shed, the mobility shed (all my concepts, extended of course, from ideas of others--come to my presentation about these concepts in March at the U of Delaware if you want...) combined with a rigorous transportation demand management protocol, and the competitive advantage of the city and its locational value in terms of a place to live and a place to locate business and as a place to conduct commerce, go to school, visit, and play, and improvements in the overall quality of life within the city.

So one is about a bus line. The other is about how to increase the economic, social, cultural, and transportational value of the city, how to ensure that the ROI from transit is constantly increasing and substantial, rather than neutral and/or declining and failing to keep pace with developments outside of the city, in the metropolitan area, in jurisdictions that compete with the city for residents, jobs, and activity centers.

Transit expansion and substantive improvements in the quality of the service that is provided on-street (as well as the separated and/or underground subway service) will allow the city to maintain its relevance and value in the context of the landscape of the metropolitan and regional and national economy.

I am looking at this as a 50+ year time frame and investment in the city.

You need to consider the question similarly.

As long as we are talking past each other, we will never have consensus.

Streetcar rail installed on Benning Road, for the future streetcar line. Photo by Matt Johnson.

Press conference Monday: Bringing inter-city bus service to Union Station

Bolt Buses
Originally uploaded by Mr. T in DC

From Delegate Norton's Office:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over Union Station, will greet the first passengers as they board coach buses at the city's first centralized bus facility.

The Congresswoman will be joined by David Ball, President, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, and bus company representatives at a press conference on Monday, January 25, 8 a.m., Union Station Garage Bus Deck Level as the new public bus facility opens for the first ever bus pick-up and drop-off service in Union Station's history.

The three intercity bus companies - Greyhound's Boltbus, Washington Deluxe, and DC2NY - will launch this new facility filling their buses with the first passengers from this new center.

"We open this facility at a time when residents most require affordable choices for travel outside the District," Norton said. "Our subcommittee has required the first bus service, as a pilot, while we plan renovations there at Union Station to accommodate a full bus facility of the kind expected of any great city."

The new bus depot is part of a plan Norton is leading to make Union Station a model intermodal center while expanding train service and building retail and commercial space in the air space above the railroad tracks. The Congresswoman has held several hearings on the overhaul of Union Station, working closely with the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, and already has secured $500,000 in federal funds for Union Station redevelopment.

Woman has Chicago El map tattooed to her foot

(I am not that dedicated to transit.)

From the news section of the George Ritzlin Antique Maps and Prints website:

An example of where you really need a Circulator bus...

A couple weeks ago in the Gazette, there was this letter to the editor, "More parking needed at Glenmont Metro" in favor of the construction of a second parking garage at Glenmont Station, which is the northernmost red line subway station on the eastern leg of the subway line.

From the article:

People questioning the need for a second Glenmont garage either do not take Metro from Glenmont regularly, or already have reserved parking.

The letter is in response to this November Gazette article, "Metro unveils design for Glenmont parking garage," which discusses plans to build an addition !! 1,200 space !! !! parking garage !! at the station.

The reality is that it's damn expensive and a waste of resources to build a parking garage, at $20,000/space of money from the WMATA budget which is seriously pressed, for a bunch of cars to sit for 9 hours or so, so people can get to and from the subway.

Of course, it depends on where the cars are coming from. Since it is the outwardmost station on the eastern leg, theoretically, a fair number of riders could be coming to the station from distant points where there isn't transit service, comparable to how far out residents drive to the Vienna Metro Station in Fairfax County, from points further west beyond Fairfax County.

In any case, a rider study could be done, determining where the riders come from, and how to get more people to the subway station via transit/walking/bicycling, rather than driving.

Of course it's too late because the parking garage is going to be built.

Maybe RideOn schedules for buses serving the Glenmont station can be tweaked/expanded during rush periods, to move more people to the station by transit, just as how the region is working to improve bus stops so that more people who use the paratransit service will instead use the cheaper option of regularly scheduled service (one inducement would be to offer MetroAccess eligible riders free transit on the regular system vs. highest maximum fare on the paratransit service).

Sadly, looking at this from a broader perspective did not happen.

Transit and community

From time to time the blog has discussed transit and the behavior of people on transit, whether or not they talk to others. Anthropologically, I would argue this is a phenomenon of regularity. On a bus, or even on a railroad commuter train, the same people tend to ride around the same time (because trains and buses run at certain times, and then with regard to the train, people tend to sit in the same cars in the same places so you become familiar with the people around you), so you become more familiar with at least some of the people and you're more likely to acknowledge them, talk with them, etc.

This doesn't tend to happen on the subway because more people ride and more people mix from multiple origin points.

So I am not sure what to make of the Discovery Channel story, "Public Transportation Passengers Avoid Getting Social," which is based on research in New Zealand, which found that:

Fifty percent of respondents said they intentionally engage in isolating activities, such as listening to music or reading, to discourage conversation. The study concluded that side-by-side seating arrangements and standoffish behaviors create a socially uncomfortable environment akin to a crowded elevator.

To change this, the researcher recommends changes in design and how seats are laid out, to foster the kind of interaction that William Whyte would have called "triangulation" (Anne Lusk, a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health, whose dissertation is on multiuser trails, calls this a "social bridge").
----------------
William Whyte called triangulation the process by where "some external stimulus provides a linkage between people and prompts strangers to talk to other strangers as if they knew each other." (p. 154, The City).

From "Design Guidelines for Greenways," from the concluding chapter of Dr. Anne Lusk's dissertation titled "Guidelines for Greenways: Determining the Distance to, Features of, and Human Needs Met by Destinations on Multi-Use Corridors." University of Michigan.):

Except for a minimal number of elements, the environment does not facilitate interaction between strangers. While someone could hold open a door and a person passing through could say thank you, necessary ADA regulations are making many doors automatic. If social capital is to be increased and interaction between people who know one another and people who do not know one another improved, environments that might foster positive interaction should be built. At the destinations, social bridge elements could be incorporated in the built environment. These social bridge elements include four types: 1) Assist, 2) Connect, 3) Observe, and 4) In Absentia.
---------------

From the Discovery Channel article:

Thomas thinks that fostering a friendlier atmosphere would improve the ride experience and attract more public transit customers. "I think the key thing is that it's important to get a balance, looking at improvements for the social and privacy needs of the users, neither of which are being met under current design," Thomas said.

For instance, Thomas recommends altering seats to face each other since riders are 30 percent more likely to converse at that distance. Passengers also respond well to L-shaped seating, arm rests and small tables that establish more interpersonal distance.

While some transit systems have replaced awkward three-person benches with two-person or single seating, social dynamics are often overlooked in favor of maximizing rider capacity.

Of course, these suggestions are completely divorced from the requirements of "mass" transit, where you have to move a lot of people in a short period of time with limited budgets.

Auckland, New Zealand is a city of about 450,000 people in a region of 1.3 million residents. Maybe they could make buses up more like RVs and meet throughput needs, I don't know.

But a reason I find this interesting is in how the arguments of Bill Lind, co-author of the book Conservatives and Public Transportation, were represented by someone who attended a presentation of his a couple years ago. He also spoke last week at a meeting of Montgomery County's erstwhile transit advocates, Action Committee for Transit (note they have redesigned their website).

On an e-list, Martin D. wrote:

Probably the biggest difficulty for me were his notions on the inevitability of class and the need to build both cities and services that favor isolation of classes. This is a simplistic paraphrase and likely does not do full justice to Bill or his point. He's better at presenting his case and it's available in the book.

That thread started with examples from the train ride and he made the case that there should be fully separate classes on the train so that people of finer social manner would not have to tolerate the slobs in coach (including interaction in the diner.) Of course he then chose to tolerate the noisy urbanists in the private car, but private rail cars do align with his views.

While I may sympathize with this emotionally (and bitch and moan about all the crimes we have to tolerate in these days of twittering boneheads in elevators and beggars on every street corner) it's counter to my particular world view.

Bill did offer a litany of opinions and examples about ways that the constant intermixing of class (and related social, economic and philosophical behavior) was (variously) dumbing down, cluttering, vandalizing, dismantling and, at least, misunderstanding the higher potential for civilization.

So according to Martin, Lind believes conservatives will only accept transit if they can ride in their own buses and train cars.... not exactly, but he believes there should be multiple tiers of service, from better to worse, so that those who can afford better service can pay for it, and not have to mix it up with their social and economic inferiors. (my words not his)

It's not a very democratic-civically engaged type of view. And by separating users, I think you make it easier to provide less adequate service to the people who are typically less connected and engaged in the democratic process.

In the "old days" into the 1960s for sure, in cities at least, it was typical to ride transit to work and leave your car (if you had one) at home. That was aided by relatively short distances between home and work, and the concentration of major office centers into relatively few places.

As worksites and residences dispersed widely, from the standpoint of efficiency, these places became disconnected and less able to be effectively served by transit. So people started driving to work.

As Mr. Lind's "betters" stopped using transit, they also became disconnected from caring about the quality of transit service, because they believed that people should drive and that transportation priorities should be focused on creating, maintaining and extending a robust road network to facilitate automobile (and truck) travel.

Spread on ideal highway construction, Fortune Magazine, August 1936.

There is a good deal of that in the Washington region today. Because of the existence of both heavy rail (subway) -- with both metropolitan commuter and local service aspects, complemented by long haul motor coach commuter bus services, and mostly local bus services, there are two tiers of quality in the provision of transit service in the metropolitan area.

In the center city, where if you have the right timing and location, bus service can be just as efficient as subway service, most "choice riders" (meaning people who have the choice of using transit or not, vs. transit dependent riders who have to use what is provided, or they won't be able to get around at all) ride the subway.

The Washington Post published this graphic as part of a big piece about bus transit in 2005. (See "Agustin (and many others) have a hard time hopping on the bus" for the link to the story.) Clearly, you can see that subway riders generally are much higher income than bus riders, and have more cars/household.

WMATA has been upgrading the bus fleet to make the service better. But their ad campaign on the improvements has been misfocused away from this, and towards how the bus can also get people to various places in the region. The Examiner got around to writing a story about this a couple days ago, "Metro spending $739000 to tout flagging bus service," but I wrote about it in late November, "What's wrong with this Metrobus ad?."

But bus service can still be very inconsistent. And as long as people with organizational, social, and civic capacity don't ride transit, or specifically buses, they aren't going to be there, advocating for improvements and demanding that the service continue to be provided.

In short, there is a long way between Lind's "separate but equal" ideas and Thomas' "let's make buses up like cocktail lounges" ideas, but there is no question that without people of various classes mixing on transit, we will continue to have substandard transit offerings.

This is very much apparent in areas where rail options don't exist. Then, only the people who are transit-dependent are transit riders.

Dangerous thinking about WMATA

1. That the technology problem that led to the crash that killed 9 people was a technical problem not a management problem. The same problem had happened at least twice before but fortunately resulted in only close calls, no crash. Failure to deal with that was a management problem of catastrophic proportions.

From "Metro board members discuss Catoe, service, fares" in the Dr. Gridlock blog:

Catoe's legacy
Zimmerman: "He absolutely helped this agency." When people look back, they'll see that progress was made. We had an agency that was having a lot of problems three years ago. "Even in safety, tremendous progress was made."

Of the Red Line crash, still under federal investigation, he said, "I think we'll find it had nothing to do with management ... that it had to do with a piece of old equipment."

Frankly, I was surprised to read this. It is clear that the rail operations management had let a very very very serious problem fester and get much worse, to the point where trains crashed and people died.

When my computer crashes and I haven't backed up my hard disk this highlights a couple problems: (1) whether or not I maintained the computer; (2) whether or not I took notice of the warning signs of imminent crash; and (3) backed up my hard disk; (4) to prepare for the inevitable moment when the computer will break down and take all my data, programs, and photos with it.

I can't just blame the computer. I have a hand in not being prepared for failure or better yet, working to prevent the failure, or by being proactive eliminating the possibility of failure (from that potential problem anyway...).

Plus, the multi-year rebuffing of the recommendations of the Tri-State Oversight Commission is an indication of systemic managerial failures.

2. That the management issues with WMATA these days have to do with its transition from a construction and development organization (building and creating the original system) to a full time operator. (I don't have a quote handy, but I have seen this sentiment expressed in a number of outlets.)

The reality is that the rail system is projected to reach capacity in the next decade.

To address this, more capacity needs to be added.

It's also an economic and land use issue. For example, the separated blue line proposal wouldn't only add necessary and needed capacity and redundancy at the core of the system, it would also provide service to areas that would support high ridership levels, further improving transit and transit use, as well as significantly reducing vehicle use, especially in areas of particularly high congestion (such as Georgetown).

While getting WMATA's operations right are of fundamental importance, it would be a big mistake to jettison any possibility of significant expansion, which is important for many many reasons.

3. While I understand the sentiment of Jonetta Rose Barras, the Examiner columnist, that something must be done to improve WMATA on many dimensions ("Leaving the Metro station") looking to the federal government, expecting munificence and wisdom first of all, and second of all to save us--in this case, WMATA, is a losing proposition.

Congress runs against Washington. Congresspeople are here but they are not "of here." When asked to put money into their districts or to put money in Washington DC proper, for the most part, they will always choose their district, as the great AP story on the National Mall discussed ("the article" is discussed in this blog entry Let's Go to the Mall).

The cost of a MARC train and other issues

Every so often, MARC (Maryland Rail Commuter) executives set up tables at places like Penn Station in Baltimore and Union Station in DC and open it up for dialogue with customers. I had been meaning to write to them about a bunch of issues, and yesterday (nice since I caught the right and fast bus and had an extra 20 minutes to kill) they were set up at Penn Station, so I talked to them about:

- no recycling bins at Penn Station (really this is Amtrak's problem)

- no recycling bins at Union Station in the train area (Amtrak's problem + the management of Union Station)

- the disgusting pro-smoking area immediately adjacent to the entry at Penn Station so that often you have to walk through a gauntlet of heavy smoking to get into the station (Amtrak's problem because they own and manage Penn Station)

- that Amtrak ought to be more responsive to MARC and MARC riders on these points (MARC and riders as Amtrak customers) since they lost the contract to provide service to VRE ("Va. commuter rail operation rejects challenge" from the Post). On the other hand, since Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor dedicated trackage, MARC has no alternatives but to buy from Amtrak.

(- note that there is dedicated bicycle parking in the parking garage at Penn Station, but there isn't in the parking garage--not managed or owned by Amtrak--at Union Station. Although yes, there is the Bikestation.)

- since MARC cancelled their 10pm hour departure from Baltimore to DC, if I have to work late I am screwed (I need to sign up forGuaranteed Ride Home from Commuter Connections so that they have to pay for me to come back to DC after MARC's last train, mostly I just pay a premium to ride on Amtrak, but I could probably take a Zipcar overnight from Towson U or take the light rail to BWI and take the WMATA B30 bus to Greenbelt, or I could crash at a friends place in Baltimore...), I asked if they could work it out with Amtrak that MARC monthly and weekly ticket holders could ride between Baltimore and DC on at least one of the trains that stops in Baltimore between 9:30 and 11pm.

On the last point, I was told that it costs MARC just as much to pay for privileges to have riders on Amtrak trains as it does to run a train.

The rough metric is that it costs one train $1 million annually to run between Baltimore/Perryville and DC and back (one round trip). The cost works out to be $2,000 for each leg or $4,000/round trip, for 250 days of service.

... and that the late train from Baltimore was cancelled only because of budget problems and that if the budget ever improves, they intend to restore train service at this hour.

This makes sense as the MARC Growth and Investment Plan is about expansion, not contraction.

Some other parts of the conversation:

- He said that the charges from Amtrak are high, but then it's costly to maintain the Northeast Corridor, buy electricity, etc.

- That maybe it would be cheaper if the various states would go in together and buy the Northeast Corridor from Amtrak.

- I said we can't even get Maryland and Virginia to create one combined railroad service (which I call RACER, for Railroad Authority of the Chesapeake Region, see "Regional transportation planning and fixed rail service" and the original piece, "A regional railroad passenger transportation vision for DC, MD, VA, WV and parts of PA") so how soon could we expect that?

BeyondDC's sketching of opportunities for a regional railroad system.

- He thought that a combined service on the part of Maryland and Virginia (with a modicum of DC participation) is not out the question in our lifetimes. We didn't discuss the RACER ideas, which derive from ideas first laid out by Dan Malouff, which include connections to Pennsylvania and Delaware (although the latter is covered in the MARC Growth and Investment Plan), although I did mention the paper I wrote about this and I should probably send it to him. (Not that most of the ideas haven't already occurred to them.)

The commuter parking lot at the Halethorpe MARC station fills up fast in the morning. Commuters park on nearby streets, leading to clashes with residents. (Sun photo by Amy Davis / June 19, 2008).

- Finally, we talked about circulator type bus shuttle services to complement train service, to bring riders to stations without their having to drive, and without having to provide big parking lots.

Anne Arundel County is developing a circulator bus service to serve the Odenton train station as well as various facilities in that area, including Fort Meade and the NSA. These facilities get a lot of ridership from the DC region, which MARC likes because their service structure is "unbalanced" as 65% of their ridership is people going to DC from various points in Maryland.

MARC favors that idea, but probably doesn't have the money to help subsidize it. I mentioned the possibility of doing this at other stations. He said it really depends on what's around the station, if commercial facilities and/or government agencies were to locate at more stations (note the polycentric and sprawl aspects of this idea, even though it intensifies service possibilities and transit-centric mobility simultaneously)... that Halethorpe in Baltimore County isn't really a candidate for a circulator, because most of its riders get to the station using I-695 (the Baltimore Beltway) from various points in the region, that they don't live near the station, it's just convenient to use. So a circulator wouldn't get used and wouldn't reduce the need to provide parking there.

The real lesson of the special elections

... including yesterday's in Boston, see "Brown upsets Coakley in Massachusetts race" and "Election dramatically alters the trajectory of Obama's agenda" from the Washington Post, is that you can never take an election for granted, that you always must have great candidates, that every office matters if you are to succeed with your agenda.

The disconnect is that the nominating process is one shaped more by the "throughput" public, while the "deciders" are the people who vote, in this case they are the "output" candidate.

-------------------
A long time ago, I read the book Strategic Marketing for Not-For-Profit Organizations by the U of Michigan Social Work professor Armand Lauffer. One of the concepts that has stuck with me over the years is that organizations have three publics:

1. The input public that provides the organization with resources;
2. The throughput public that does the work of the organization; and
3. The output public to whom the organization's activities are directed.

It happened then that I was a volunteer on the campaign of Dean Baker for Congress (Dean is one of the directors of the Center on Economics and Policy Research). Since the campaign was out of Ann Arbor, of course a big chunk of the message was about U.S. military involvement in Central America, which mattered little to aged residents of Western Wayne County who cared more about social security and other issues.

I realized, because I was reading the book at the time, that most of the campaign's messages were directed to the volunteers on the campaign--the throughput public--not the output public, the people who needed to be motivated to vote.

To get them to vote for Dean Baker, the message needed to be targeted to their interests, not the stated interests of the campaign.

(Also see the paper Public Will Building by the Metropolitan Group's Eric Friedenwald-Fishman.)

-------------------

So the throughput public being satisfied doesn't matter in the end, because they are not the ultimate audience that you are trying to reach (and change).

Who gets elected really does matter, as positive transportation and land use planning in the State of Maryland shows, between the election of Robert Ehrlich (over a consensus candidate, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend), and then Martin O'Malley in 2006.

And timing matters too.

Now the economy sucks and it's very difficult to find the money to spend on positive transportation and land use initiatives. The money was there during the governorship of Robert Ehrlich, but little happened on that score, because it was counter to his agenda.

For me the lesson of the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia isn't necessarily that the Obama Administration is on the run, but that it hasn't focused adequately on the conditions necessary to maintain momentum.

Something that I have started to realize very much over the past couple years, is that in planning, a "completed" plan isn't the endpoint of a process, it's just the beginning, because then the implementation and realization phase starts in earnest.

If you don't provide resources for implementation and for maintenance of the factors that get you there, all the effort on creating a plan has been wasted.

The same goes in politics and governance.