Category: CSG in the News

Metro fare hikes, service cuts move a step closer to reality

Posted on by Arielle Moir

The Metro board finance committee voted Thursday to raise fares for bus and rail riders, but also approved last-minute amendments to save a slew of bus routes that were slated for cancellation or reduction.

Board members advanced the proposal despite numerous concerns, including whether raising fares would accelerate a ridership decline that has contributed to the transit agency’s financial stresses. There was one dissenting vote.

Metro is facing a $290 million budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year, and General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld has said he is essentially out of options to further reduce operating costs. The transit agency slashed 500 positions last year and aims to cut another 500 jobs this year.

[Metro moving forward with fare increases for coming year]

Under the proposal, rush-hour rail fares would go up by a dime, and off-peak and bus fares would jump by 25 cents. Trains would arrive every eight minutes in most of the system, with higher frequencies in the core — but riders would see fewer trains overall on most lines.

Malcolm Augustine, a board member representing Prince George’s County, was the lone board member to vote against the proposal. He warned of the potentially disastrous impact of raising prices at a time when riders appear to be fleeing the system. Ridership is down about 100,000 trips overall from 2009 peaks.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” said Augustine, an alternate member who does not have a vote on the full board. “That is a bad business move.”

But Jim Corcoran, a board member representing Virginia, argued that the fare hikes would help stabilize ridership in the long term — because a stable budget helps pay for safety and reliability improvements that would win back riders in the long run.

“I think this is a very good business decision to improve the product,” Corcoran said, “because an improved product will bring back riders.”

Others said the fare increases were painful but necessary. Christian Dorsey, who represents Arlington on the Metro board, said Metro could stem the ridership losses by adhering to promised wait times.

“If we can deliver on what we say we’re putting out there, that would be an improvement,” he said.

Aimee Custis, deputy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group, disagreed with the idea that the new headways could bring riders back to the system.

“The thing that will eventually bring people back is frequent, reliable service, and we are headed away from that,” she said.

Board members from the District, Maryland and Virginia also made 11th-hour amendments to save bus routes that were slated for elimination.

The District rallied to save routes B8 and B9 — the Fort Lincoln Shuttle Line — and to modify the H6, which runs between Brookland and Fort Lincoln.

Virginia board members offered a series of changes that they estimated would cost about $500,000 in subsidies for the year. Their list included the full restoration of the 3T in Pimmit Hills, the 1C in Fair Oaks, and the 16G/H/K/X routes that run along Columbia Pike, from Columbia Heights West to Pentagon City.

They also approved some changes to local routes meant to help serve riders affected by the cancellation of the 28X, 7X, 17A and 17F lines.

Maryland members of the board pushed an amendment that would fully restore the following routes: T14 (between Rhode Island Ave. and New Carrollton stations), F1 and F2 (running along Chillum Road), C8 (between College Park and White Flint stations), and the J1, J2 and J3 routes (operating between Bethesda and Silver Spring stations).

Maryland also persuaded the board to allow Metro to continue to operate the J7 and J9 buses through at least October. Those are express buses that run along Interstate 270.

Maryland board members did not offer details on how much those revived routes would cost to operate and who would be paying for the service.

Dorsey praised the amendments for ensuring the agency doesn’t harm Metrobus, “relatively the shining star of Metro at this point,” he said.

Immediately following the vote, Metro Board member Corbett A. Price — who was not at Metro headquarters — chimed in from a conference calling system.

“You may record my vote in favor of it, reluctantly,” said Price, who represents the District.

The proposal is up for a full board vote March 23.

Click here to read the original story.

Metro Board Approves Fare Hikes, Service Cuts Effective July 1

Posted on by Jack Smith

Despite already plummeting ridership, Metro’s board on Thursday gave preliminary approval to a package of fare hikes and rail and bus service cuts. Final approval of the austerity budget, little more than a formality, is expected on March 23. The changes will take effect July 1.

Base rail fares will go up 10 cents for rush hour and 25 cents for off-peak travel times. The maximum rail fare will reach $6. Bus fares are increasing by 25 cents to $2, but the weekly bus-only pass will remain at $17.50, a break for low income commuters.

Fares for both rail and bus service will be going up under Metro's new budget.

Fares for both rail and bus service will be going up under Metro’s new budget.

The wait for rush-hour trains will grow to eight minutes at outlying stations across all six Metro lines; more trains in the system’s core will drop the wait times to three to four minutes closer to the system’s core. At off-peak hours, trains will continue to run at 12-minute intervals.

Supporters of general manager Paul Wiedefeld’s “reality check” budget voted yes reluctantly because riders have been fleeing the system in droves and the remaining loyal customers will now be asked to pay more for fewer trains and buses. Only one board member, Malcolm Augustine of Prince George’s County, voted no, venting his disgust in the process.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” Augustine said. “It’s just a bad business decision.”

But asking commuters to share the pain is a gamble the transit authority must take, said Christian Dorsey, who represents Arlington.

“This board had to take the responsible step and do what good governance institutions do, which is to make these difficult choices,” Dorsey said. “The process of arriving where we are today has been to try to mitigate the pain in ways that are sensible. No one likes raising fares, but I think overall the fare increases are necessary.”

Through a series of amendments, the board voted to restore bus routes that were on the chopping block in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, but not all will be spared. Metro received thousands of public comments through surveys and other means, many of which pleaded for the restoration of bus service in areas with few, if any, transportation alternatives.

Bus line changes

Metro’s average weekday rail ridership is at its lowest level since 2003, in part because the SafeTrack reconstruction effort has severely disrupted the timely arrival of trains. Bus ridership is also dropping, although customer surveys show bus riders are generally more satisfied with service levels than people who take the train.

Even as they approved the $1.8 billion operating budget, board members expressed a sense that Metro is in a danger zone from which it may not emerge.

In remarks to reporters, Wiedefeld said the system is not heading toward the so-called transit death spiral, a term used to describe an irreparable loss of riders fueled by higher prices and less robust service.

“The way that we bring back ridership is through basically more reliable service,” said Wiedefeld, who has launched multiple initiatives to repair aging track infrastructure and railcars.

By running fewer trains, Metro believes it can deliver on timely service that is “right sized” for dwindling riders. But some analysts say this approach is akin to managing the system’s demise, not turning it around.

“I think there is something wrong with the idea that riders have to share in the sacrifice to close the budget gap,” said Steven Higashide, a senior analyst at Transit Center, a New York-based research foundation. In his view, Metro is in a death spiral.“Riders have already been sacrificing for years, and it is now at a point where many are no longer willing to sacrifice and they are fleeing the system,” he said.

The new rush hour headway of eight minutes at outlying rail stations makes Metro an outlier, Higashide said, compared to most major mass transit systems across the nation.

“In cities like Boston, Chicago, and New York it’s not unheard of to wait eight or even ten minutes during the early rush at 5 or 6 in the morning, but most transit customers in those cities aren’t going to be waiting more than five or six minutes for a train at the height of the rush,” he said.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group, said Metro’s contributing jurisdictions should have ponied more money — beyond the $130 million they agreed to add to Metro’s budget — to avoid fare hikes and service cuts. The regional governments’ latest additions to Metro bring subsidy to close to $1 billion in a $1.8 billion operating budget.

“The data has shown over and over again that the way to get people riding transit is frequent, reliable service. Fare hikes and service cuts are neither frequent nor reliable service,” said Aimee Custis, the group’s deputy director.

“The money should be coming the local jurisdictions that are part of the WMATA compact,” Custis added.

But Wiedefeld said the jurisdictions could only be asked to cover part of the shortfall.

“The jurisdictions have lots of other financial issues they are dealing with, and I had to take that under consideration,” Wiedefeld said.

Today’s vote comes close to capping one of the most difficult budget seasons in memory, as Metro was forced to close a projected $290 million shortfall. The general manager is in the process of cutting the workforce by 1,000 positions and cracking down on absenteeism, but in the end it proved impossible to completely avoid raising fares for the first time in three years.

Moreover, Metro’s financial problems will not be erased through a single austerity budget. At this time next year, the general manager and board expect to grapple with another massive shortfall because ridership is not expected to rapidly recover.

When asked where he will find the money, Wiedefeld declined to offer a specific solution.

“We are going to work through it with the region to deal with those issues. We have to,” he said.

Establishing dedicated funding through a new, regional sales tax is one of the most commonly discussed solutions to Metro’s structural operating deficit and long-term capital needs – at least when it comes to revenue.
When it comes to Metro’s growing labor expenses, some controversial ideas are gaining traction amid suburban jurisdictions wary of escalating subsides and among lawmakers in Annapolis and Richmond, namely privatizing aspects of WMATA’s maintenance and operations.

But Wiedefeld is not ready to endorse privatization yet.

“I am not there yet, but I think we have to, as we start to look to future of funding this, take a broad look at all aspects of the business,” he said.

Any proposal to privatize Metro would run into ferocious opposition from Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, which represents 8,500 front line employees. The union is currently negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with management, and has condemned Wiedefeld’s budget proposal.

 

Click here to read the original article

Metro committee approves service cuts, fare hikes

Posted on by Jack Smith

WASHINGTON — Metro’s Finance Committee approved fare increases and service cuts Thursday and advanced the transit agency’s budget to the full board.

The committee also restored some bus service in D.C., Maryland and Virginia that had been slated to be cut.

The plan would reduce rush-hour service. Trains would leave the end of the lines every eight minutes rather than every six minutes that current train schedules call for. It would also raise rush-hour fares by 10 cents and off-peak fares by 25 cents.

In addition, the service change would increase scheduled rush-hour service on the Blue Line from every 12 minutes today to every eight minutes by cutting the Yellow Line “Rush Plus” service between Franconia-Springfield and Greenbelt.

The changes would raise bus fares by 25 cents.

A final budget vote by the Metro Board is expected March 23. If the board approves the plan, the fare hikes — which would begin around July 1 — would be Metro’s first fare increase in three years.

A number of transit advocacy groups worry that the combination of fare increases and service cuts could cut people off from crucial transportation and dissuade other riders from using the system.

“While we understand the fiscal crisis the agency faces, and the General Manager’s intention to close the gap by sharing the burden between staff, riders, and jurisdictions, further fare hikes and service cuts will only exacerbate ridership declines and financial challenges,” wrote Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth’s executive director, in a letter to the Metro Board last month.

“We urge the Board and leaders in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to come together and close 100 percent of Metro’s operating gap with jurisdictional funding.”

And Metro’s largest union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, said in a statement that the budget plan and the risk of additional cuts next year illustrate the need for a new regional, dedicated funding source for Metro.

“We stand with the riding public and continue to encourage the leadership at WMATA to reject this death spiral budget,” the union said.

The union and Metro have been squaring off in contract talks, which have spilled out into vocal public disputes since late last year.

Theses bus route changes were included in the budget plan the committee passed on Thursday:

Airport bus fares for the B30 and 5A would rise to $7.50 (other bus fares would still rise 25 cents rather than 50 cents).

In D.C., no bus routes would be eliminated or changed.

In Maryland, the C11 and C13 Clinton routes would run less often. The B30 to BWI-Marshall Airport would only run once an hour and only on weekdays.

The J5 bus between Silver Spring and Twinbrook would be eliminated. The H11, H12 and H13 between Marlow Heights and Temple Hills would run less often.

The J7 and J9 I-270 Express Lines would continue until October 2017. The T2 River Road line would run less often. The W19 Indian Head Express would be eliminated.

The P17, P18 and P19 Oxon Hill-Fort Washington lines and the W13 and W14 Bock Road lines would now end at the Southern Avenue Metro Station. The Z7 Laurel-Burtonsville Express would run less frequently.

In Virginia, routes 18R and 18S would be eliminated, but some service would be added to Route 18P to Burke Centre.

Route 28X would be eliminated, but some service would be added on Route 28A, which also travels Leesburg Pike.

Route 15K and 15L would serve East Falls Church, not Rosslyn Metro.

The Route 5A bus to Dulles International Airport would run less frequently. Route 7X would be eliminated, but some service would be added between Lincolnia and Pentagon on route 7W. Route 13Y service between Reagan National Airport and Union Station on weekend mornings would be eliminated.

Route 2T between Tysons Corner and Dunn Loring would be eliminated. Routes 17A and 17F to Kings Park would be eliminated with some additional service on a newly truncated route 17B (Route 17M would also remain in service).

Richmond Highway Express REX buses would run less frequently, but on an extended route. And the 2B Fair Oaks-Jermantown Road Line would run less frequently at rush hour.

Bus service changes removed from the budget plan:

In Maryland, the J1, J2, J3 Bethesda-Silver Spring line would remain in service as would the C8 College Park-White Flint Line and the F1 and F2 Chillum Road Line and the T14 Rhode Island Avenue-New Carrollton Line.

In Virginia, Route 3T in Pimmit Hills would remain in service, Route 1C Fair Oaks-Fairfax Boulevard Line would remain in service, as would the 16X Columbia Pike-Federal Triangle express route. Routes 16G, 16H and 16K would also maintain full service levels.

 

Click here to read the original story

Metro board advances fare hikes and service cuts, advocates warn ridership decline will worsen

Posted on by Jack Smith

The Metro board finance committee voted Thursday to raise fares for bus and rail riders, reduce train frequencies and slash some bus routes, advancing the agency’s austerity budget to a final vote — but not before slipping in three last-minute amendments to preserve a slew of bus lines that were slated for cancellation or reduction.

Board members approved the $1.8 billion operating budget in the face of numerous concerns, chiefly: whether fare hikes and fewer trains would accelerate a ridership decline that has driven the nation’s second-busiest subway into financial distress.

Metro is facing a $290 million budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year, and ridership and parking revenue losses — exacerbated by the year-long SafeTrack maintenance program — make up about a third of the shortfall. As board members cautiously advanced the spending plan, Metro General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld defended the cuts, which have drawn the ire of riders and transit advocates.

“The way that we bring back ridership is through basically more reliable service,” Wiedefeld said at a news conference after the board meeting. “We have not been able to deliver what we said we were going to deliver. So I think it’s more important to the customer [to] ‘just tell me what I’ve got and then deliver it.’ ”

[Metro moving forward with fare increases for coming year]

Rail ridership was down 12 percent compared with a year earlier, the latest figures showed, and has fallen by about 100,000 trips from its 2009 peaks. Metro estimates that the fare increases will result in a total loss of 10 million trips during the 2018 fiscal year. But even with the ridership loss, Metro estimates the fare increase will boost revenue by $21 million.

Rush-hour rail fares would increase by a dime, with $2.25 as the new minimum and $6 as the maximum one-way fare. The plan increases off-peak rail and bus fares 25 cents. The frequency of trains, most of which are scheduled to arrive at least every six minutes, would be reduced to every eight minutes, with more service in the system’s core.

The full board is expected to approve the budget March 23, and the fare increases and service changes would go into effect July 1.

There was little debate over the need for drastic cuts. Wiedefeld, who has eliminated 500 jobs and is in the process of cutting 500 more, has said there are few other sources of savings left for the beleaguered transit agency.

But board member Malcolm Augustine said the fare increases and service cuts are the wrong approach. The lone dissenting vote, he worried the changes would only hasten the ridership decline.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” he said. “That is a bad business move.”

Wiedefeld, however, called the changes a “strategy” to improve performance.

“If we provide consistent reliable service then that market will come back,” he said.

[Metro riders, officials fear communities of color may be targeted in service cuts]

Aimee Custis, deputy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, an advocacy group that promotes pro-transit policy, said it’s illogical to think riders will return with Metro offering less service.

“The thing that will eventually bring people back is frequent, reliable service, and we are headed away from that,” Custis said.

But other board members agreed with Wiedefeld, saying the measures are necessary to balance the agency’s budget.

Board member Jim Corcoran said the fare hikes will help stabilize ridership because a stable budget helps pay for safety and reliability improvements that will win back riders in the long run.

“I think this is a very good business decision to improve the product because an improved product will bring back riders,” he said.

Echoing Wiedefeld, board member Christian Dorsey said Metro could stem the ridership losses by adhering to its promised wait times.

“If we can deliver on what we say we’re putting out there, that would be an improvement,” he said.

Meanwhile, board members from the District, Maryland and Virginia scrambled to insert last-minute changes into the budget to help their constituents. The 11th-hour effort to save bus routes around the region was an about-face for the members, who arrived at the meeting with printed amendments detailing the list of bus routes that they planned to rescue from the chopping block — causing some to question whether the move was an act of long-planned political showmanship.

[‘Where is the light?’ frustrated Metro board member asks of system’s grim outlook]

The District rallied to save routes B8 and B9 — the Fort Lincoln Shuttle Line — and to modify the H6, which runs between Brookland and Fort Lincoln.

Virginia board members offered several changes that they estimated would cost about $500,000 in subsidies for the year. Their list included the full restoration of the 3T in Pimmit Hills, the 1C in Fair Oaks, and the 16G/H/K/X routes that run along Columbia Pike, from Columbia Heights West to Pentagon City.

They also approved some changes to local routes meant to help serve riders affected by the cancellation of the 28X, 7X, 17A and 17F lines.

Members representing Maryland pushed an amendment restoring the following routes: T14 (between Rhode Island Avenue and New Carrollton stations), F1 and F2 (running along Chillum Road), C8 (between College Park and White Flint stations), and the J1, J2 and J3 routes (operating between Bethesda and Silver Spring stations).

Maryland representatives also persuaded the board to allow Metro to continue to operate the J7 and J9 buses through at least October. Those are express buses that run along Interstate 270.

After the meeting, finance committee chairman Michael Goldman said he believes Maryland will be able to pay the approximately $2 million necessary to retain some of those local routes, because there appears to be extra money in the subsidy appropriated by the state legislature to Metro for next year’s bus budget.

Goldman said Metro staff has been asked to come up how much it will cost to save those routes, and the state will pay for them if the cost falls within what it can afford.

[Proposed bus cuts ‘might actually harm Metro in the long-term’]

“If it fits within the wiggle room, all those services could be restored,” Goldman said.

Dorsey praised the amendments for ensuring the cuts don’t adversely impact riders of Metrobus, “relatively the shining star of Metro at this point,” he said.

Augustine was afraid increasing the bus fare a quarter, to $2, would have a dramatic impact on Metrobus ridership and target low-income and minority riders.

In the original version of the fare increases proposed by Wiedefeld last fall, Metro came close to failing a Title VI analysis — a federally mandated statistical test to ensure that low-income and minority riders are not disproportionately harmed by changes to transit fares or service. Metro said Thursday that the agency’s decision to preserve the $17.50 price of a weekly bus pass was aimed at helping it steer clear of civil rights violations.

Augustine, however, pointed out that only a small percentage of Metrobus riders use the weekly bus-only pass. Following his lone ‘no’ vote, it was announced that the budget had been approved.

But a brief moment of confusion ensued when board members realized they hadn’t heard from member Corbett A. Price, who was looped in via conference call. Perhaps a sign of the general discontent with the situation, Price chimed in: “You may record my vote in favor of it, reluctantly.”

 

Click here to read the original story

Let’s build more homes near transit

Posted on by Arielle Moir

A coalition of affordable housing advocates, faith groups, business groups, tenants’ groups, developers, and over 250 residents have unified to support more housing, more affordable housing, and targeted support for communities as DC rewrites its Comprehensive Plan. One of those priorities: Best utilize areas near transit.

The coalition, which includes Greater Greater Washington and many other groups, has agreed on a statement of ten priorities. In a series of posts, coalition members will go through many of the priorities to explain what they mean, why there’s a problem, and how the group reached agreement. Do you support the priorities? Sign on today!

What “Best utilize areas near transit” means

The coalition says:

Best utilize areas near transit.​ When redevelopment occurs on blocks surrounding Metrorail stations and priority transit corridors, the District should, through the Comprehensive Plan, permit and encourage mixed-use developments of medium to high density. To the extent feasible, redevelopments involving increased zoning should include affordable housing in excess of what is required by inclusionary zoning.

Put plainly, building housing near Metro stations, bus lines, and streetcar service makes it easier for people to live in the District without owning a car. And that means less congestion and pollution as well as a stronger local economy.

As the District of Columbia continues to grow to historic population levels, our transit corridors and stations offer the best opportunities for creating places to live and work that are more sustainable, accessible, and affordable. Helping more people live close to transit, enabling more jobs near transit, and creating attractive places near transit are all essential to well-managed growth.

The consequences of not creating these opportunities near transit is spread out, sprawling development.

Pushing growth away from cities, towns, and transit lines means converting more farms into subdivisions and strip malls. This generates ever more polluted stormwater runoff and carves up working agricultural lands.

Sprawl also makes it impractical to get around by walking, biking, or transit, forcing everyone to get around by car, which  fuels traffic congestion and air pollution. The cycle then continues, as the congestion leads to bigger roads that simply get congested again, all of which are built with money that gets diverted from transit and existing infrastructure.

Finally, when we sprawl out, low-income people disproportionately feel the negative effects of having no option but to drive.

We’ve missed chances to build near transit in the past

Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of lost opportunities to provide more  mixed income housing options at Metro stations in D.C. While some parts of the District have been growing, others— particularly more affluent ones— have not.

The reason for the lack of new homes is not due to lack of interest. Rather, local opposition that takes advantage of a weak and nebulous Comp Plan make it difficult to build new housing in neighborhoods where some existing residents are determined to stop it. That leads to exclusive enclaves with limited housing opportunities for residents of different incomes.

Under our current Comp Plan language, here are a few examples of what we’ve lost:

  • Abandoned: The single use, two story library constructed by the Tenleytown Metro station was supposed to be a mixed use building with affordable and market rate housing above the library. While the city spent extra money to strengthen the foundation to allow some apartments  to be built above the library in the future, the prospects for many affordable units is dim.

All these proposed projects offered below market rate and market-rate homes. They are all examples of the market responding to strong demand to live in the city close to transit by redeveloping sites close to transit.  They are also examples of how determined opponents can use contradictory language in the Comp Plan to stall, stop, and shrink the construction of much needed new homes and affordable homes.

Under the current Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which translates the Comp Plan onto a map, no Metro stations are designated for low density residential development. A reasonable update to these designations could be to take land that the FLUM categorizes as “moderate” density (row houses and low rise garden apartments) and make it “medium” (4-7 stories), and to change what the FLUM categorizes as “medium” to be “high” (8 stories or more).

Based on the experience of the last decade, it’s fair to say that the Comp Plan has not been as effective as it should have been in balancing the need for more housing, and more affordable housing, around transit stations. That’s especially true in affluent neighborhoods.

Looking into the future, it’s critical that the Comp Plan clarify that a good share of our city’s needed future homes should go to places well-served by transit. Rather than losing out to some neighbors’ objections about new homes, we need to address local concerns while committing to creating more housing opportunities that help more people live more sustainably, and help the city thrive.

Sign on to the priorities!

This is one of ten priorities where the coalition reached agreement. We’ll be following up with articles on more of the 10 priorities by a variety of coalition members.

(Note: While the coalition agreed on the priorities, this article is my commentary about one of the priorities, not an official coalition statement, and all members have not signed onto the specific wording here. The same goes for the other posts in this series.)

So far, 65 organizations and over 350 individuals have put their names on the priorities statement. Will you join them?

Sign the Priorities Statement!

Click here to read the original story.

D.C. Judge Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Major Affordable Housing Tool

Posted on by Arielle Moir

A federal judge has ruled in favor of the District in a four-year case over inclusionary zoning, a policy allowing developers to construct larger buildings than otherwise permitted in exchange for creating affordable units. The case was a touchstone of affordable housing issues in D.C.—leading some organizations to push for improvements to the city’s IZ program.

In December 2012, real estate developer Art Linde brought the suit, via one of his companies, over a 22-unit condo building at 2910 Georgia Ave. NW near Howard University. Linde’s company for the building argued that IZ requirements prevented the developer from making an “economically viable use” of the property. In fact, the building was the first to bring IZ units onto the the District’s housing market—a total of two.

Linde’s lawyers contended that the city’s Department of Housing and Community Development could not supply the developer with any qualified buyers for the two affordable condos. The 20 other condos sold within a few months. The LLC argued that IZ amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property rights as well as a denial of due process and equal protection rights.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court for D.C. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied Linde’s company’s constitutional challenge to the District’s IZ program. In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the company’s constitutional claims while acknowledging that D.C. may have indeed “‘fumbled and bungled every aspect of the IZ Program’s implementation,'” as the developer had stated in its complaint.

“The Court does not intend to minimize Plaintiff’s [2910 Georgia Avenue LLC’s] legitimate grievances with the District’s administration of the IZ Program, or to suggest that the District acted perfectly at all times,” the judge wrote. “The Court merely concludes that at no point did the District’s conduct rise to the level of a violation of the United States Constitution.” D.C.’s IZ program was first approved in 2007 and took effect in 2009, slow to start after the recession.

City Paper has reached out to Linde and his attorneys for comment and will update this post if we hear back. Meanwhile, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine‘s office says the ruling “is a major victory for the IZ program,” which requires that 8 to 10 percent of a new development’s residential space be set aside as affordable housing. Last year, the D.C. Zoning Commission lowered the income threshold for affordable units through IZ.

“We are committed to using all of the tools in the toolbox to protect affordable housing” via IZ and other legal means, Racine says in a statement.

Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion notes that IZ requirements did not stop the developer of 2910 Georgia Ave. NW “from earning a considerable profit from its property”—some $6 million from the sale of the market-rate units in the building, which resulted in a “20 percent return on their investments.”

Affordable housing advocates praised Kollar-Kotelly’s decision. Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, says IZ “has proven to be a reasonable program for developers and an important development to D.C.’s residents searching for more affordably priced homes.” And Claire Zippel, an analyst at the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, notes the District isn’t alone in enacting IZ regulations. “I am heartened but unsurprised by the court’s affirmation of inclusionary zoning, which has worked successfully with the private sector to create hundreds of affordable homes in D.C.—and hundreds of thousands of affordable homes in more than 500 jurisdictions across the country,” Zippel explains.

In January, a majority of the D.C. Council co-introduced a bill that would amend existing IZ law to reflect last year’s changes by the Zoning Commission.

Click here for the original story.

Ridership Losses, But Few Traffic Headaches, From SafeTrack So Far

Posted on by Arielle Moir

Metro’s chronic train breakdowns and track problems on top of the scheduled disruptions of the SafeTrack reconstruction program may have alienated riders over the last half of 2016, but the poor service did not result in a traffic nightmare on already congested streets and highways, according to new data compiled by the region’s top transportation planners.

Over the course of 10 “maintenance surges” from June 4 through Dec. 20, 2016, Metrorail lost 16,350 riders per weekday, according to a new study by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) on the first six months of SafeTrack. The number amounts to only 2.6 percent of daily boardings, but millions of total trips nonetheless.

The big picture

Eric Randall, a principal transportation planner at COG, said that overall traffic in the region “was not strongly affected,” by SafeTrack. “We saw traffic effects most strongly in the immediate vicinity to the SafeTrack surge areas,” Randall said.

The localized impacts were felt most during the first surge in June — 13 days of around-the-clock single tracking on the Orange and Silver Lines in Northern Virginia. Average vehicle trip times during morning rush hour climbed 20 percent, and traffic counts performed along Lee Highway (U.S. 29) near the East Falls Church Metro station showed a 5.5 percent increase in cars over the week prior to the surge.

The COG study also found that traffic on I-66, further along the corridor served by the Orange and Silver Lines, actually decreased slightly during SafeTrack surges 1 through 5.

Considering all the variables that can affect traffic on any given day, Randall said the results, while unexpected, were not entirely surprising.

“When a relatively small section of the Metrorail system has no service or reduced service but the rest of the system is by and large operating normally, there’s a ripple effect in that local area, but the overall system doesn’t see much variation,” he said.

Traffic impacts from SafeTrack appeared negligible on most days during surges two through 10, with average travel times actually decreasing during morning rush hour during five of the surges. Data from the study showed that many commuters didn’t trade rail for cars. Across the first 10 SafeTrack surges, five percent of travelers switched to Metrobus, and four percent to other local transit systems, including commuter rail, according to the COG data. The Capital Bikeshare system also saw trip increases during nine of the 10 surges compared to the week before each surge.

Benjamin Navarro,  Falls Church City to Farragut West
“I switched from Metro to car about a year ago. Even though I have guilt about the ecological impact of my decision, the improvement in my quality of life has been positive.”

During the ninth SafeTrack project, a 25-day shutdown of the Red Line from Fort Totten to NoMa, casual and registered users logged 350,000 bikeshare trips, a significant jump from the previous week (50,000 trips).

In all, the region’s transportation system proved resilient as Metrorail riders sought alternatives to squeezing into a train. Demand was intense, as “an average 32 percent of regular Metrorail riders decided to not make a trip” during each surge, according to COG’s report.

Giving up Metro for good

If SafeTrack was a temporary disruption for most riders, some saw a chance to make a permanent break with the subway.

“It’s kind of nice to just have your own car and listen to the radio and be in your own little bubble,” said Matthew Stuart as he steered his new Volkswagen Jetta in bumper-to-bumper traffic in Georgetown.

The 24-year-old is typical of many newcomers to Washington: young, single, living in a studio apartment, and car-free – at least until last September when his tolerance for rail delays expired.

What was supposed to be a one-hour train ride from Northwest Washington to his new job in Alexandria often lasted much longer. He was repeatedly late, irritating his new boss. And the final straw came one morning when his train was offloaded for a mechanical problem just two stops away from his destination, leaving him waiting 20 minutes for the next train to arrive.

“My commute is far more predictable with my car than with Metro, and it’s more comfortable. So how can you blame me?” said Stuart, who said he realizes his choice does not square with the region’s goal of reducing dependency on single-occupant vehicles.

Stuart said SafeTrack, far from assuaging his concerns about Metro’s safety and performance, was producing the opposite effect, by revealing more problems than general manager Paul Wiedefeld believed existed. Stuart said browsing #WMATA Twitter further undermined his confidence in Metro, citing @unsuckdcmetro as one source of consistently negative developments.

Melanie De Cola, McLean to Georgetown
“I opted out of taking Metro for the month of December to avoid SafeTrack surge #11. I found that it was much faster to drive…the Silver Line usually takes 1 hour (on a really good day) to an hour and a half, but two hours is not unheard of and one time it even took me three. I’ve been a loyal Metro rider since I moved back to the area in 2012 but my nerves are frayed and my patience with Metro is gone.”

“It seems to only be getting worse. I was reading an article yesterday about how they had to offload a train because there was a speedometer issue. And as they do the track work, more issues get uncovered,” said Stuart, whose 12-mile drive takes about an hour.

His monthly car payment is $260, more than he would pay for an entire month riding Metro, but he says it is worth it.

“There’s a long road ahead for Metro until it becomes consistent,” he said.

Toll lanes pay off

The commuters who reached for their car keys to avoid the repeated SafeTrack disruptions in Northern Virginia, were well served by the 495 Express Lanes, the high-speed toll lanes that upwardly adjust toll prices as congestion builds.

Nineteen of the toll lanes’ 21 busiest days in their four-year history were recorded between September and December. Four of the 10 busiest days took place during SafeTrack Surge 11, which ran from Nov. 28 to Dec. 20 on the Orange and Silver Lines.  Dec. 15 was the busiest day in the 495 Express Lanes’ existence.

The toll lanes’ operator suspects the Metrorail disruptions played a role.

“It is absolutely critical that we have a strong transit network, and what we’ve seen over the past several months really points to that,” said Michael McGurk, a spokesman for Transurban, a multinational toll lane operator behind the 495 and 95 Express Lanes.

The extra traffic drove up toll prices. The average toll of $4.59 surpassed $6.00 during the busiest days in December, when more than 60,000 cars passed under the electronic toll gantries, a third more than usual.

What’s next?

Transportation planners and transit advocates agree that the region’s ability to handle SafeTrack does not mean Washington and its suburbs can do without a functioning subway system. Working around short-term disruptions does not minimize Metrorail’s long-term importance; job and population forecasts foresee major growth and, with it, a lot more congestion.

Traffic congestion will increase by 60 percent over the next two decades, according to COG, as the influx of drivers outstripping local governments’ capacity to expand the transportation system.

“People will come back to Metro eventually, once the service rebounds. The question is, what will they do in the meantime? Certainly, some people will drive,” said Aimee Custis, deputy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Custis pointed to surveys that show transit riders are not impressed with frills like on-board wi-fi; they want frequent and reliable service, period.

“I think [Paul Wiedefeld] has been really honest that SafeTrack is just the first step in bringing us Back2Good,” said Custis, referring to Metro’s latest customer service campaign. “But the general manager himself has said it is going to be a long time, and SafeTrack alone won’t get us there.”

On Wednesday Metro released new statistics designed to show progress: railcar-related offloads were down 17 percent last year, railcar-related delays fell by 13 percent, and 31 new 7000-series trains were in service, replacing many of the oldest railcars in the fleet. Track delays also fell by seven percent in 2016, according to Metro.

Kevin Edward Flynn, Vienna to Navy Yard
“I typically commute by Metrorail, but switched to driving from July through December due to SafeTrack impacts. In theory, I’m an ideal customer for WMATA: my home and work are very convenient for a rail trip and I pay the maximum fare due to the distance covered. When I switched to driving, I learned that driving in the District during rush hour isn’t as bad as I had previously thought, and the price of driving and parking is actually cheaper than riding Metro.

These improvements may not be enough to stem the severe loss in ridership, especially with five more months of SafeTrack disruptions on tap.

Total rail ridership from July to September dropped “nearly 13 percent or 6.5 million trips compared to the same quarter last year. Ridership was down broadly across all time periods, days of the week, and individual stations. Consequently, rail revenue was down 15 percent versus prior year and was 17 percent under budget through the first quarter,” according to documents presented to Metro’s board of directors.

The hemorrhaging that occurred from October through December will be detailed at a public board meeting on Feb. 23, but it is expected to be severe, further undermining Metro’s bleak financial situation.

SafeTrack is scheduled to resume on Saturday with track work in Northern Virginia shutting down the Blue Line for 18 days, the first of five projects set for completion in June.

Click here for the original story.

Strange bedfellows: D.C. developers join nonprofits to advocate for affordable housing

Posted on by Arielle Moir

Several D.C.-area developers are joining with nonprofits and housing advocates to raise awareness of the need for affordable housing as the District works toward an update of its comprehensive plan.

The JBG Cos., Ditto Residential, Valor Development and EYA are among those lending a voice to a housing coalition, organized by the blog Greater Greater Washington.

“We hope the breadth of the coalition raises a few eyebrows,” said David Whitehead, GGW’s housing program organizer. “Developers and nonprofits working together — that does not happen every day.”

The D.C. Office of Planning is currently working to amend the comprehensive plan, a document outlining priorities for D.C.’s future growth and change. District planners will solicit community recommendations for plan amendments in 2017. A final amendment package is expected to go to the D.C. Council for review and approval in 2018.

The coalition is asking District officials to prioritize these issues in the updated comprehensive plan:

  • Meet the housing demand
  • Equitably distribute housing
  • Best utilize areas near transit
  • Include families
  • Prioritize affordable housing as a community benefit
  • Preserve existing affordable housing
  • Protect tenants
  • Support neighborhood commercial corridors
  • Clarify zoning authority
  • Improve data collection and transparency

EYA Senior Vice President Aakash Thakkar said his company, which specializes in urban residential, is involved because it wants to make sure that development can benefit the District, as well as people at various income levels.

“We acknowledge the District is a place for families of all income levels,” said Thakkar. “There is a pretty significant demand for housing, both market rate and affordable. I think the opportunity with the comprehensive plan is to create both of those. It is possible to build new housing, including a good measure of affordable housing, and grow the District’s tax base in a way that makes business sense and advances the public good.”

Mayor Muriel Bowser has made affordable housing among her top priorities, pledging at least $100 million annually to preserve and build new affordable units. The need is great: According to the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute (a member of the housing coalition), 26,000 extremely low-income D.C. households spend more than half of their income on rent, and local resources are not well targeted to the households in greatest need. Between 2002 and 2015, DCFPI reported, the District lost roughly half of its affordable housing stock.

Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said her group wants to emphasize the need for affordable housing in all areas of D.C., not just certain pockets.

“D.C. has become a very popular place to live,” Cort said. “There is tremendous demand here, and that is pushing up prices. We need more housing; we need more affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the city. There is a lot of language preserving the status quo, but one person’s stable neighborhood might be another person’s exclusive neighborhood. People need the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a neighborhood regardless of income.”

Others joining the coalition include All Souls Housing Corporation; Bread for the City; Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development; D.C. Policy Center; Enterprise Community Partners; Jews United for Justice; Jubilee Housing, Inc.; Latino Economic Development Center; Local Initiatives Support Corporation; New Legacy Partners; United Planning Organization; Ward3Vision; and City First Homes Inc.

Click here for the original story.

Councilmember Proposes DC Take Over Running Metrobuses-And Making Them Free

Posted on by Claire Jaffe

WASHINGTON – (WMAL) In a bold vision that would shake up the region’s transportation scene, D.C. Councilmember David Grosso is proposing the District take over operations of Metrobuses that run only within D.C., and to increase funding in order to eliminate fares.

“Instead of paying WMATA to operate these routes for our residents, let’s do it ourselves. We can task DDOT with running or contracting out the service, as we do with the Circulator. We could even brand them with the Circulator’s now-ubiquitous red and black,” Grosso writes on the urban planning website Greater Greater Washington. “Let’s take those millions of dollars we pay annually to WMATA, invest additional funds, and provide the type of transportation system that residents can rely on, one that is an attractive alternative to Metrorail.”

Grosso says it would give WMATA one less thing to worry about as they work to fix the rail side of operations, and would allow for additional investment that Maryland and Virginia may balk at otherwise. In making the buses free to ride, Grosso says it would also increase ridership, reduce the strain on Metrorail, speed up the boarding process, and reduce confrontations between drivers and passengers.

“To be clear, the city would not turn a profit under this scheme; we never have from our public transportation (or roads and highway projects for that matter),” Grosso writes. “But that’s not the point. What we’d get is something much greater.”

Some worry the proposal could further solidify philosophical differences between Maryland, the District, and Virginia.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Coalition for Smarter Growth Executive Director Stewart Schwartz tells WMAL. “There could be negative consequences in further fragmenting our regional bus networks. I worry it could distract from the regional conversation and regional commitment we need to have for the funding Metro needs.”

D.C. has been a leading advocate in increasing funding for Metro. Mayor Muriel Bowser has publicly called for the establishment of a new tax region-wide to serve as a dedicated funding source for Metro. The Governors of Maryland and Virginia have advocated for a more cautious approach, waiting to see if Metro can improve its operations and finances first before committing to more money.

Schwartz says the region’s ability to compete on a global level hinges on cooperation across borders around D.C.

“The more we can keep ourselves tied together through our transit system, and even other utility systems, and the more we can work together through regional bodies, the better for our region’s economic competitiveness.”

Click here for the original story. 

McMillan redevelopment blocked by D.C. Court of Appeals

Posted on by Charles Rudner

The D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the Zoning Commission’s approval of the McMillan Sand Filtration site redevelopment only one day after the groundbreaking, as reported by UrbanTurf. The court’s decision found that the D.C. Zoning Commission did not adequately address how the redevelopment would impact the nearby neighborhoods.

The ruling made by the D.C. Court of Appeals reads:

“In the first order, the Zoning Commission approved Vision McMillan Partner’s application for a planned unit development (PUD) on the site. In the other two orders, the Mayor’s Agent for Historic Preservation approved permits allowing [Vision McMillan Partners] to demolish certain structures on the site and to subdivide the site. Petitioner Friends of McMillan Park (FOMP) challenges these orders. Specifically, FOMP argues that the project is inconsistent with the District’s Comprehensive Plan and that the Commission failed to adequately explain its conclusions.”

In a statement, the non-profit organization, Friends of McMillan Park, described the ruling as “a great victory for our long efforts.” Friends of McMillan Park has stated that their hope for the property is to only construct a park.

Kirby Vining, treasurer of Friends of McMillan Park, told DCist, “The court is the first time that we’ve had an objective look at what the city is actually doing with this land.”

Despite the win for Friends of McMillan Park, the court doesn’t totally agree with the non-profit. According to DCist, the court believes that in certain cases high-density development could be justified for the 25-acre site..

The delivery for the redevelopment was slated for 2018. Plans involved 531 apartments and a 52,000-square-foot Harris Teeter from Jair Lynch as well as 146 townhouses from EYA. Plans also included an eight-acre park, 17,500-square-foot community center, and roughly 1 million square feet towards medical office space from Trammell Crow.

UPDATE: The Coalition for Smarter Growth Policy Director Cheryl Cort issued the following statement:

“The Appeals Court ruling is a disappointing setback to delivering the city’s largest new park for all of us to enjoy. The ruling also delays much-needed housing and affordable housing, a new grocery store, and the historic restoration of aging structures.

Whatever the next steps to win a mixed-use McMillan development, the Court’s interpretation of the District’s Comprehensive Plan underscores just how important it is for residents to get involved with the ongoing Comprehensive Plan amendment process to clarify the plan as our city’s vision for guiding growth.”

Click here for the original story.