I am glad to see the editorial, which "conforms" to my editorial judgment. It's a point I made about a year ago, in testimony at the public hearing in January 2009, reprinted in the entry "Testimony on proposed bus service cuts in the Washington region" as well as in testimony submitted this year. (And last year, Dr. Gridlock quoted my testimony in a column in the Post on the transit fares question, around the point that in constant dollar terms through 2009, the basic subway and bus fares haven't increased in over 20 years.)
When the transit operator underprices fares, they generate less revenue, and over time, this comes back in diminished quality and breadth of service. This is the place where the WMATA transit system is today.
On the other hand, it is not reasonable to avoid discussion of transit and equity issues. To the credit of DC representatives on the WMATA Board of Directors, they are concerned about equity issues and they make it the priority when it comes to making decisions on fare pricing.
Toronto takes the consideration of equity to a higher level than we do in the DC region. For example, in 2008, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission introduced a new concept, called “Transit City,” to shape expansion planning. As recounted in the article, "Toronto Plan rolls out new era in Transit," from the Toronto Star:
"Transit City is based on the principle that no one should be disadvantaged by not owning a car. (It) takes the high-quality transit service available in the core and begins to extend that to the four corners of Toronto," said TTC chair Adam Giambrone.This organizing principle changes the discussion when it comes to both system expansion and service cuts. If the principle is that no one should be disadvantaged by not owning a car, it means that service cuts and reductions in the places and geography that is served should for the most part be off the table.
Where my testimony from last year is deficient and is avoided in the Post editorial as well, is in making the necessary links between:
1. providing transit fare assistance to people in need;
2. disconnecting that responsibility from the transit operator (in this case WMATA);
3. connecting that responsibility to the local governments; and
4. creating a system to provide that assistance.
What that means practically is that instead of DC elected officials on the WMATA board voting against fare increases and for service cuts, they should vote to increase fares and maintain service. At the same time, as elected officials in DC, they need to show leadership and develop a system of "transit credits," comparable to how the earned income tax credit works at the federal level, to incentivize working while recognizing the somewhat regressive nature of social security taxes at lower levels of income.
(I have been advocating the idea of a transit withholding tax as a way to fund transit system improvements in DC. It could generate upwards of $200 million annually and is based conceptually on a similar tax that is assessed in the Portland and Eugene areas of Oregon. This could generate some of the necessary revenue to pay for transit credits, as well as system improvement and expansion initiatives. And unlike social security, the assessment would only be on employers, not employees.)
This gets back to a point that I keep making, that regional level of service and level of quality metrics need to be set by a regional planning authority, independent of the transit operator.
In testimony I submitted this year ("Testimony regarding Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Options to address FY2010 Budget Gap: Public Hearing #547"), I wrote:
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.
------
What is necessary is that the region rebuild its consensus about what transit is supposed to do and what it is supposed to accomplish.
My recommendation for how to deal with this is included in this year's testimony:
... 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.)
-----
We need a real, substantive, fundamental transit planning process that is metropolitan in scope, that goes beyond the perspective of the transit service operators (WMATA and the other transit services provided by the local jurisdictions), one that grapples with the tough questions that for the most part we seem to be avoiding notwithstanding the efforts of bloggers like myself--my entries tend to focus more on the systems and structures of governance, management, and planning as it relates to the region and to the transit operator specifically--and the many many entries of substance in Greater Greater Washington especially entries by Michael Perkins, David Alpert, and Matt Johnson.
No comments:
Post a Comment