Category: News

Union dissent highlights difficulty of enacting Wiedefeld’s rescue plan for Metro

General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld’s ambitious rescue plan for Metro drew a generally positive response Thursday, but a bitter dissent from the agency’s largest union was a sign of the formidable obstacles he faces.

Wiedefeld’s recommendations are “bad for riders, bad for workers and bad for the region,” Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 said in a statement. The union, which represents about 9,200 Metro workers, said Wiedefeld’s plans to outsource services and provide less-generous pensions to future hires aim “to balance the agency’s budget on the back of [Metro’s] hard-working employees.”

Overall, however, elected officials, transit advocates and business groups praised Wiedefeld for offering what many called a “reasonable” plan that deals head-on with the tough challenges facing the transit agency.

Although many disagreed with individual details, and the region’s top Republican officials were distinctly skeptical, most welcomed Wiedefeld’s call for new taxes or other dedicated sources of funding to channel an additional $500 million a year to Metro. The money would go to buy new rail cars, buses and other equipment, and perform the maintenance necessary to restore service quality after decades of underinvestment.

“This proposal appears to be a realistic and responsible contribution to the regional discussion about how best to fix Metro,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said.

Wiedefeld’s plan “is the best we’ve seen to date,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the pro-transit Coalition for Smarter Growth. “His statement is bluntly honest about the situation, and we generally endorse his proposals.”

Despite the applause, no one underestimated the political difficulty of extracting union concessions and winning support for higher taxes from multiple jurisdictions in the District, Virginia and Maryland. Many politicians and analysts said it will be necessary to go further than Wiedefeld’s proposals, by restructuring the Metro board of directors and adopting other reforms in how the agency is governed.

“I think you need some governance changes to show that the people who will be spending the money will be doing a good job,” said Maryland state Del. Marc A. Korman (D-Montgomery), co-chairman of a work group of Annapolis legislators focused on Metro issues.

Business groups such as the Greater Washington Board of Trade and the Federal City Council, and politicians have proposed to shrink the 16-member Metro board and apply new membership requirements to streamline the panel’s work.

“Governance changes are necessary to enable Paul [Wiedefeld] to make the changes necessary to return Metro to the world-class system it once was,” said Terry D. McAllister, chairman of the Greater Washington Board of Trade.

Wiedefeld said it wasn’t appropriate for him to propose reforming the governance structure above him. But he also expressed concern that such changes — which would require amending the Metro Compact, or governing document — could delay agreement on urgently needed funding.

“If we get into a whole thrashing of some of those issues, I just think it could drag out for years. I don’t think we have years,” Wiedefeld said.

Thursday morning, after having spent the previous 24 hours briefing more than 50 government officials and other regional leaders about his plan, Wiedefeld readily acknowledged the difficulty of his task.

“It’s going to be an extremely heavy lift,” he said at a news conference.

But Wiedefeld said he was optimistic that the region could overcome its differences on taxes, labor relations and governance because so many people see the need to save the transit system.

“I think the agreement, if you step back, is that they all want to try to do something to get this right. So that’s a good place to start,” Wiedefeld said.

Wiedefeld is about to launch meetings with Metro staffers, elected officials and private groups around the region to explain his plan further and try to win support.

Described in a six-page “White Paper” and 27-page PowerPoint presentation, the proposal explains why Metro needs $15.5 billion in investment over the next 10 years — an average increase of nearly 30 percent from its previous plan — to keep the system safe and reliable.

To allay concern that Metro spending is headed out of control, Wiedefeld also proposed to cap the annual growth in jurisdictions’ annual contributions for operations and investments at 3 percent. That’s separate from the new $500 million capital fund and a new $26 million “rainy day” fund Wiedefeld has proposed.

In a related effort to hold down costs, Wiedefeld proposed major concessions by Metro’s unionized workforce. A key part of the plan is to amend a federal arbitration law to strengthen management’s position in contract disputes.

His proposal to outsource operations — a form of privatization — drew particular opposition from unions. As an example, Wiedefeld suggested Metro’s unions might have to compete with private contractors for jobs on the second phase of the Silver Line, which is scheduled to open in 2020.

OPEIU Local 2, which represents many of Metro’s IT staff, engineers and contract administrators, doubted the plan would achieve significant savings. It also expressed concern that the quality of work would decline.

“He [Wiedefeld] thinks that contracting is a way to save money,” said Eric Starin, the union’s chief steward at Metro. “There might be rare incidents where that is true, but there are also an awful lot of incidents where it costs more money to contract work out.”

Wiedefeld’s privatization plan mirrors a similar strategy employed by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston. In the past year, the MBTA has outsourced warehouse and money-room operations, efforts that are projected to save an estimated $177 million over the next 10 years.

The agency also used threats of privatization to reach a new, money-saving contract deal with one of its biggest unions. Brian Shortsleeve, MBTA chief administrator and acting general manager, said he met with Wiedefeld this year to offer advice on how to employ the same strategies in Washington.

Republican lawmakers in Congress and the Virginia General Assembly — and some Democrats in the region — have said Metro must curb labor costs before they would be willing to consider giving the agency more money.

Wiedefeld needs congressional support to extend the program under which the federal government grants Metro $150 million a year — and the three local jurisdictions match it — for investments.

But his plan got off to a rough start with a key House member, Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), the only Republican in the local delegation in the GOP-controlled Congress. She complained Wednesday that she didn’t receive an adequate briefing about Wiedefeld’s plan, saying she heard only about the “huge price tag.”

Wiedefeld tried to patch things up Thursday, saying he already planned to meet with Comstock next week.

“I will work with her very closely to get her more comfortable with at least understanding what we’re trying to do,” Wiedefeld said.

Comstock said Thursday she still lacked enough information to comment about the specifics of Wiedefeld’s plan.
“I have asked for far more details on Metro’s operating and capital costs and the justifications for them than we have received to date,” Comstock said in a statement.

Wiedefeld’s plan also drew a tepid response from Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R). Hogan’s office said it had not seen details of the plan but reiterated the governor’s position that it is up to local leaders in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties to pursue dedicated funding if they choose.

“A statewide tax is a nonstarter,” said Amelia Chasse, a Hogan spokeswoman. “One question our administration does have is why this proposed plan does not call for an increase in federal funding, when approximately 40 percent of Metrorail riders are federal employees.”

Elected officials will be pressing for abundant details about Metro’s spending before supporting taxes or other dedicated funding.

“We need to know, for sure, what the cost is for what,” Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chair Sharon Bulova (D) said. “We need to be assured that labor issues have been addressed. We also need to know that governance issues have been addressed.”

Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said such questions would be considered by a panel headed by former U.S. transportation secretary Ray LaHood, which is to study Metro and make recommendations in the fall.

Wiedefeld’s plan “gives us a very, very good basis to make a political case along with the review that Secretary LaHood’s doing,” Layne said.

Metro Board Chairman Jack Evans stressed that there will be political cost for anyone who resists making concessions to make the plan work.

“Nobody’s going to look kindly on any party that says, ‘I’m not compromising,’ ” Evans said. “I think they’re going to find themselves left out in the woods.”

Click here to read the original story

 

When commuting in the D.C. region, distance doesn’t tell the whole story

If you work in downtown Washington, don’t have a car and want to keep your commute to under an hour, you could live in Gaithersburg, Md., or Reston, Va., both about 20 miles away.

But you’d have trouble doing the same from just across the Anacostia River in neighborhoods such as Bellevue, only seven miles away, or close-in areas of Prince George’s County, Md.

Metro, local bus systems and regional commuter rail combine to form an elaborate and expansive transit network for the Washington region. But data shows that wealthier neighborhoods and suburbs have an easier time tapping into it, while residents of poor and lower-income neighborhoods on the eastern side of the District and, farther east, across the border in Maryland face longer and often more-complex commutes.

A Washington Post analysis of travel times across the region illustrates stark differences in the commuting experience for transit users around the nation’s capital. Most striking, commuters in some areas in Southwest and Southeast Washington and close-in Prince George’s have longer trips to get downtown than more transit-connected locations dozens of miles away from the White House.

That problem will only be magnified in the coming months when Metro adopts truncated operating hours that will shut down rail service at 11:30 on weeknights. Those hours will hinder access from the downtown core to the wider region for an estimated 2,600 daily late-night riders, many of whom are low-wage workers, according to data.

For example, with Union Station as a starting point for a non-Metrorail commute, only the far reaches of Northeast Washington, a slice of Northwest Washington, and close-in Arlington County, Va., will be reachable within an hour by remaining transit.

“If you’re trying to get home from a job that lets out at 1  a.m., you work at a bar or a restaurant or something like that in downtown and you need to go to Southeast, you can’t do it in under an hour,” said J.D. Godchaux, co-founder of NiJeL, which describes itself as a “data storytelling” firm specializing in maps and data visualizations.

Howard Jennings, managing director of Mobility Lab, the research and development branch of Arlington County Commuter Services, said that on the basis of the Post analysis, Metrorail’s earlier closing represents a “severe curtailment” of transit service.

[How a National Transit Map could connect ‘transit deserts’ to the grid]

“This is cut back substantially,” he said. “People who are used to being rail riders, who are not bus riders, you’re going to have a real shift there in awareness of options. The onus is really going to be on providers of information.”

Others said the analysis points to the necessity of commuting alternatives for transit-dependent workers.

“What we’re confronted with, and there’s no easy answers, is how do we make sure that late-night labor can get home from work in an affordable way that allows our late-night economy to function?” said Adie Tomer, a policy fellow with the Brookings Institution. “This should be a motivator for us to think of a kind of set of alternatives for late-night laborers returning home, some kind of credit for them to use — in particular for [ride-hailing or taxi] services.”

The disparity in the region’s commuting experience might be illustrated most strikingly with the example of Shady Grove, Md. — a 28-mile drive from the White House. It is in a transit-rich corridor with substantial access to the wider region, with a footprint that roughly follows Metro’s Red Line.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Botanic Garden’s greenhouse complex in Southwest Washington, near the southern tip of the District, at about eight miles is physically much closer to the executive mansion. But the animated map, integrating real-time transit data, shows the greenhouses might as well lie 20 miles outside D.C. city limits. Because the commute from that part of Southwest requires a bus ride and rail transfer, the commute from Shady Grove beats the ride in from Southwest by several minutes. The Southwest example mirrors the experience in much of the District’s Ward 8.

Further contrasts are illustrated by King Street in Alexandria, Va., and Largo Town Center in Largo, Md., which are seven and 11 miles from the White House, respectively. Despite only a few miles’ difference between the locations, commuters from King Street have access to a wide swath of the region — including Arlington and Fairfax counties in Northern Virginia, the District, and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland — within an hour by transit. Commuters in Largo can reach only the District and Prince George’s, with the exception of some isolated pockets elsewhere in the region.

Still, Jennings said, the data illustrates that the Washington ­region is a model for transit usage. Arlington, where Mobility Lab is based, presents a stark contrast to communities on the eastern side of the Anacostia River, which are far less connected.

[Metro late-night service hearing features scathing criticism, pleas and protests from riders, advocates]

“People focus a lot right now on the ridership drop on Metrorail, but they’re also failing to remember there’s still a huge ridership there,” Jennings said. “It’s the second-largest system in the country. . . . It’s not a failing, dying system by any means.”

At rush-hour peaks, nearly the entire region is accessible within an hour. But the transit footprint shrinks as the day goes on and service is reduced, until the District is essentially isolated from the wider region late at night, analysis shows.

Ward 8 residents, who live in Southeast and parts of Southwest Washington, have the longest average commutes in the District, with trips taking about 46 minutes, according to districtmobility.org, an initiative of the District Department of Transportation.

“That is astounding,” said Godchaux, observing a comparison between the Ward 8 commuting footprint and that of Montgomery County. “These folks are in the District, but they’re definitely more disconnected from downtown than these folks in [the suburbs].”

The analysis is also a dramatic illustration of an “east-west” divide in the D.C. region’s transit network, according to Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the pro-transit Coalition for Smarter Growth.

“Part of it’s wealth and the ability for the jurisdictions on the west side of the region to spend more money on local bus service,” Schwartz said, “and provide local coverage to all income levels of their population.”

[Developers are making billions off Metro. How that could help save the system.]

Schwartz said the data underscores the need for increased transit investment in the region’s eastern reaches. He pointed to a performance analysis of the 2015 National Capital Region Long-Range Transportation Plan, which showed that many areas, “mainly on the eastern side of the region,” will see automobile accessibility decline even further as more jobs are concentrated in the western half of the region between now and 2040. As a result, investment in transit needs to be bolstered, he said.

Further, the analysis showed that some of the region’s least-accessible areas also are the most transit-dependent. Northeast and Southeast Washington contain census tracts where more than 40 percent of households are both transit-reliant and lower-income, the only such corridor in the region.

These census tracts east of the Anacostia River are home to roughly 145,000 residents, most of whom are black and more than half of whom live in households making less than $35,000 a year, according to census data. And while Metro stations are fewer and farther apart in these areas, two stations — Anacostia and Southern Avenue — were among the stations where the most passengers exited late into the night.

The Anacostia and Southern Avenue stations, which border the District, are two of the 10-most-exited stations on average between 11:30 p.m. and midnight on weekdays, according to data provided by Metro.

Schwartz said the “building out” of transit stations on the eastern end of the system will play a part in easing the divide in the coming years. He pointed to development in Prince George’s, investments stretching from New ­Carrollton to College Park, both in Maryland, to the planned Prince George’s regional hospital near the Largo Town Center Metro station, as potential drivers of growth.

Prince George’s officials have flirted with the idea that the hospital could be a perfect impetus for a mass-transit line from Charles County and Southern Maryland to connect to Metro and MARC trains, but no serious proposal has been made.

Even as regional officials debate ways to better connect the region, the wide disparities in the region’s network are clear, policy experts said.

“It is a serious equity problem; there’s no question,” Jennings said.

Click here to read the original story.

Metro’s GM: The System Needs $15.5 Billion and A New Business Plan

Metro’s general manager is calling for $500 million each year in dedicated funding for capital projects and other major changes to the business model for the transit system, which has been hemorrhaging riders and has seen incidents ranging from disturbing to catastrophic in the past few years.

The system “is aging under our feet. Major infrastructure like this does wear out, and we have to replace it,” Paul Wiedefeld said on the Kojo Nnamdi Show today. “It is about what are the financial realities that we face and how do we start to attack them.”

In a six-page document released yesterday, Wiedefeld outlined his proposals, knowing full well that they would kick off a major debate. Among them are major labor changes, including less generous pensions for future employees and opening up some projects to competitive bidding from contractors, and a significant increase in annual spending on infrastructure projects.

On the job for about a year and a half, Wiedefeld has won respect for making tough decisions, like shutting the system for the day, and his candor in articulating a vision for the future of the transit system. He’s seen some noteworthy successes, including bringing various regional partners to pull off the yearlong maintenance plan known as SafeTrack and handling the Women’s March on Washington, Metro’s second biggest ridership day after Barack Obama’s first inauguration.

But with operating expenses growing at twice the rate of revenues and infrastructure investments that have been neglected for years, his new plan is significantly more far-reaching and ambitious.

Things like adding wi-fi and painting typically inspire a round of commentary along the lines of “they should be making service reliable first.” The truth of the matter, though, is the cost of those things account for drops in the yawning financial bucket.

Wiedefeld says the system has $25.5 billion in unfunded capital needs. He is pushing for a $15.5 billion plan—$1.5 billion a year for the next decade—that he believes would be more feasible technically and politically, and it calls for a third of those funds to go specifically to infrastructure investments, so they don’t get re-appropriated for operating expenses.

And while Wiedefeld is advocating strongly for a dedicated funding source, he isn’t making recommendations about exactly how that should come about. “We want to stay in our lane. Our lane is to define the needs, justify the needs, and talk about what we would do” with the funds, he said on the Kojo Show.

At the top of the list of challenges is bringing the region’s governments together to agree on a plan. For some context, Virginia and Maryland didn’t get their act together to create the framework for a new Metrorail Safety Commission until after the federal government followed through on its threat to withhold millions of dollars from the transit system.

Wiedefeld acknowledged that extremely difficult decisions lie ahead, but said that the ongoing string of incidents and attention on the issues are working in their favor. “I think that has woken up everyone,” he said. “We have to start to address these issues—we cannot continue this path.”

Right up there in terms of difficulty will be convincing the union and labor groups to go along; they have already emitted a howl of protest that seems unlikely to diminish.

The proposal “is bad for riders, bad for workers and bad for the region. Instead of offering real proposals to improve the system and win riders back, Wiedefeld has, once again, pitted riders against workers in an attempt to balance the agency’s budget on the back of WMATA’s hardworking employees,” reads a statement issued by ATU Local 689 today. “His solution is to outsource services more and more of the system, which will make the system less safe, less reliable, more costly and demoralize the workforce in a race to the bottom.”

One self-identified employee called in to the Kojo Show to ask if Wiedefeld was trying to impoverish the workforce.

The general manager countered that one of the only other options would be service cuts, which would also mean job cuts.

Praise has come from other corners, including the Washington Post’s editorial board and some local politicians.

“GM Wiedefeld’s logical proposal for a long-term WMATA funding plan is worthy of careful consideration,” tweeted Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, had a similar take: “The general manager’s plan is the best we’ve seen to date. His statement is bluntly honest about the situation and we generally endorse his proposals—although we will need more information about some of them.”

Now that the plan is out in the open, the debate can begin in earnest. The open question is: will ever turn into action?

“If we don’t do something, we know the slide we’re on,” Wiedefeld said. “It will get steeper and deeper.”

Click here to read the original story.

STATEMENT: WMATA General Manager Paul Wiedefeld’s ‘New Business Model’ proposal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2017

CONTACT
Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth
(703) 599-6437
stewart@smartergrowth.net

Statement on WMATA General Manager Paul Wiedefeld’s ‘New Business Model’ proposal

WASHINGTON DC – WMATA General Manager Paul Wiedefeld released a proposal for a ‘new business model’ for Metro on Wednesday afternoon, to address operating costs and the $15.5 billion needed over the next 10 years for capital investments to make sure the system “remains safe and reliable.” Stewart Schwartz, the Executive Director of the pro-transit regional Coalition for Smarter Growth, responded to General Manager Wiedefeld’s proposal in the following statement:

“We have a lot of respect for the General Manager and his leadership. The General Manager’s plan is the best we’ve seen to date. His statement is bluntly honest about the situation and we generally endorse his proposals — although we will need more information about some of them.

General Manager Wiedefeld is providing critical recommendations for evaluation by the LaHood panel, which represents our best opportunity to develop shared facts and understanding about the challenges and best fixes for the system in time for legislative action on funding next year.

To be clear, General Manager Wiedefeld confirms that even with these major reforms, Metro needs additional revenue for both operating costs and capital needs. Metro is the backbone of our transportation network and regional economy, and as such, merits the funding needed to fully restore the system. For too long, our elected officials haven’t made Metro’s state of good repair needs a priority – year after year approving a regional transportation plan without fully funding Metro capital needs.

We hope that the unions will be full partners in the effort to fix WMATA and address rising costs. They know the system from the ground up and can offer much, but like riders and taxpayers, they too have to contribute to fixing the financial challenges facing the system.

We disagree with those who propose opening the compact which risks political gridlock and diverts the focus from the fixes we can do now and from the agreement we need to reach on dedicated funding. We agree with the General Manager and others who say that many reforms are possible without opening the compact.

We don’t think a control board, such as has been proposed by the Federal City Council, is necessary. Nor would major WMATA Board of Director restructuring be necessary to address the core operating and capital issues. A restructured board would still be responsible to the funding jurisdictions,” Schwartz concluded.

About the Coalition for Smarter Growth
The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading nonprofit organization in the Washington DC region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. With 24,000 supporters across the DC region, its mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make those communities flourish. Learn more at smartergrowth.net.

###

RELEASE: Tomorrow’s affordable housing crisis can be avoided with a permanent affordability commitment today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 22, 2017

CONTACT
Cheryl Cort, Policy Director
202-251-7516 (c)
cheryl@smartergrowth.net

Tomorrow’s affordable housing crisis can be avoided with a permanent affordability commitment today

Washington, DC — Today the Coalition for Smarter Growth released a report [PDF] demonstrating how the District of Columbia could stretch its investments in affordable housing and avoid future crises in expiring use restrictions by establishing an in perpetuity affordability commitment in exchange for public dollars.

“The city of Boston has been doing this successfully for decades. It requires that any city investment in affordable rental housing comes with a commitment to make that affordability permanent. DC has similar opportunities since it too is a high cost, strong market city,” said Cheryl Cort, Policy Director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, and author of the report.

The report recommends that the District applies a permanent affordability requirement in exchange for public subsidies provided for affordable housing developments. The report shows how a permanent affordability requirement is a practical tool that DC could use to get ahead of tomorrow’s crisis of expiring use restrictions on affordable housing. For many years, another high-cost city, Boston, has successfully implemented a policy that requires that city funds used to create or rehabilitate affordable rental homes come with the commitment of in-perpetuity affordability.

“We commend DC Department of Housing and Community Development’s big step in this direction with the draft plan for funding allocation. Just as Boston did, DC is now incentivizing applicants to commit to an in perpetuity use restriction for their housing developments. Like Boston, we expect that DC will be able to attract proposals that take advantage of the incentive and make the permanent commitment to affordability,” Cort said.

The report addresses the main concerns that are often raised about very long term and permanent affordability – acceptance by investors, and uncertainty about attracting recapitalization funds at the end of the useful life of buildings and their systems. Boston has experienced no problems attracting investors. The city also ensures that an aging building receives the recapitalization it needs. Experts cite the similarity between Boston’s strong housing market and DC’s as the basis for attracting investors in affordable housing deals that require permanent affordability.

“This is a tool for high-cost areas,” said Leslie Steen, Senior Advisor, Wesley Housing Development Corporation, a local affordable housing developer. Steen continued, “Permanent affordability is a critical tool we need in DC to be able to keep our affordable housing stock serving low-income residents for the long term. Without it, we’ll lose more and more subsidized housing to high-priced market rates as the restrictions expire.”

Permanent affordability also helps more low-income residents become homeowners. Permanent affordability has emerged as a solution to preserve affordable for-sale homes and expand the opportunity for more lower income residents to buy. One of the key challenges in affordable homeownership program is balancing wealth creation for the homeowner while preserving affordability.

“Programs have managed to find a way to balance the legitimate desire of allowing people to get some equity while also allowing for preservation of affordability,” said Brett Theodos, Urban Institute.

Jim Steck, City First Homes, a DC-based permanently affordable homeownership organization said, “Over the course of the last several decades, the District has changed dramatically. Tools previously needed to combat disinvestment and the city’s need for growth and economic development need to be updated to respond to this reality. Permanent affordability is an important tool that can help encourage equitable development and mitigate the potential displacement of long-term residents as a result of the city’s uneven economic expansion.”

The report identified the need for the District to establish a clear shared equity policy for publicly-subsidized homeownership that balances the desire to provide the assisted homeowner with wealth-building opportunity while preserving the subsidy in the unit for the next assisted homebuyer.

“DC has the opportunity to build on solid experience from Boston, and community land trusts around the country and right here in DC. Our high-cost market demands better solutions for preserving our investments in affordable homes for low-income DC families. Bringing a permanent affordability policy to all our public investments is a practical and foresighted approach,” Cort said.

The proposed incentives for the Qualified Allocation Plan by DHCD for in perpetuity affordability terms follows the recent action by the DC Council to require in perpetuity affordability for all affordable housing built as a part of public land dispositions, and the DC Zoning Commission’s earlier ruling that requires all affordable inclusionary zoning units be affordable for the life of building.

About the Coalition for Smarter Growth

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington DC region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Its mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make those communities flourish. Learn more at smartergrowth.net.

###

Parking Pandemonium Hits Reston, Va.

Some store owners and shoppers in Reston, Va., are upset about new parking fees at Reston Town Center. Boston Properties, the town center’s managing company, introduced paid parking early this year modeled after urban transit-oriented centers. Kojo explores what’s at stake in the debate over parking in Reston and where it fits into broader discussions about “smart growth” in suburban communities.

Guests

  • Aaron Gordon Owner, Red Velvet Cupcakery; Reston Merchant’s Association; @RedVelvetReston
  • Cathy Hudgins Member, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (D-Hunter Mill)
  • Cheryl Cort Policy Director, Coalition For Smarter Growth

Photo courtesy of heffmike. Click here to read the original story.

D.C. wants employers to pay workers not to drive to work

D.C. officials and transit advocates are pursuing a shift in the way employers offer commuting benefits to encourage more biking, walking and transit over solo driving.

A D.C. Council proposal would require employers who provide their employees with free or subsidized parking to give them the choice to cash out. With that option, workers would be more likely to ditch the car for a more sustainable mode of travel to work, officials say.

“I can much more easily rationalize hopping in my car and driving downtown when I got a free parking spot,” said Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), a lead sponsor of the bill. “But if my employer says, we are going to give you a parking spot or we can give you transit benefits or cash if you bike to work, then I have the flexibility to make the choice that is best for me.”

The change, he said, would address a fairness issue for the workers who sometimes turn down a valuable perk because they don’t drive or who are forced to take it because otherwise they can’t get the benefit any other way.

The Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2017 is one response to growing criticism that historically commuter benefits for drivers are better than those available to people who take other modes of transportation. For instance, a few years ago, transit agencies including Metro fought for parity in transit and parking in the federal commuter benefits program, which three years ago gave commuters the option to spend up to $130 on public transit pre-tax vs. $250 for parking. That started to change in 2015, and this year the cap for the transit benefit and the parking benefit is $255 per month.

Advocates for flexible benefits cite research suggesting that traffic congestion is associated with perks, such as free parking, and that financial incentives for non-solo drivers could help cities move toward more diverse commuting.

In the District, experts say a parking cash-out program could be part of the equation to achieve 75 percent of all trips on sustainable transportation, and it would benefit city residents the most because they are more likely to have easy access to other travel options, such as bikeshare, bus and Metro.

About 40 percent of D.C. residents drive to work, according to data from the District Department of Transportation, while 39 percent take transit, 15 percent walk and 6 percent bike.

“It reduces traffic and pollution, incentivizes a healthier commute, gives workers flexibility in their commutes, and is paid for with a parking space that’s not needed,” Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth said of the legislation.

In 2014, the District joined New York and San Francisco in passing a law requiring employers with 20 or more employees to offer commuter benefits, giving thousands of workers access to the federal tax break to pay for transit and parking. Supporters say the new proposal would take the city a step further by requiring companies who subsidize parking spaces to offer an equivalent benefit to non-drivers.

It is unclear how many companies offer free or subsidized parking, but a city survey of 191 employers in 2016 found that 34 percent offer free parking and an additional 18 percent offer a parking subsidy, according to DDOT. Free parking is the most common fringe benefit to employees across the country and in many cases employers offer free parking or nothing.

“People who walk or ride the bus get nothing. It is unfair,” said Donald Shoup, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, and author of “The High Cost of Free Parking”.

Research suggests that having access to subsidized parking ranks high in someone’s decision to drive to work, he said.  A survey of 5,000 commuters and their employers in downtown Los Angeles showed that free parking at work increased the number of cars driven to work by 34 percent, he said

“Employer-paid parking is an invitation to drive to work alone,” he said “The cash option rewards commuters who don’t drive to work alone. Parking cash-out therefore increases the share of commuters who carpool, ride public transit, walk, or bike to work.”

In California, legislation enacted in 1992 requires that employers with 50 or more employees who offer free parking must also give workers the option to take an equivalent cash allowance instead. But the law did not set any penalties for non-compliance.

As companies become more aware of the rule, Shoup said, they are realizing the benefits. Studies of firms in Southern California that offer parking cash-outs found the share of commuters who drove to work alone fell from 76 percent before the cash option to 63 percent afterward, he said. For every 100 commuters offered the cash option, 13 solo drivers shifted to another travel mode, he said.

That’s the kind of response the District is hoping for with its proposal. But it is unclear how the business community would respond. Supporters say they don’t anticipate any change for businesses  beyond administrative.

“When a commuter takes the cash allowance instead of free parking, the employer saves the cash paid for a parking space,” explained Shoup, who was instrumental in the creation of California’s parking cash-out law. “The employer’s avoided parking subsidy directly funds the commuter’s cash allowance, so there is no net cost to the employer when a commuter forgoes the free parking and takes the cash.”

The D.C. “cash-out law” would not prohibit or discourage employer-paid parking. It would simply require that an employer who offers to pay for parking for employees who drive to work also offer to pay the same amount to those who don’t. The District would be the first major city to have an enforceable program if the bill passes.

Read the original story here.

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

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

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

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