Posts by David Alpert

As Michael explained 3 years ago, WMATA is basing this decision on a 2 DC district court cases, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice and Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Defense, where courts denied "news media" status to these organizations in 2000, 2002 and 2003.

WMATA's Public Access to Records Policy (PARP) says that it follows the federal FOIA, meaning that this law clarifying FOIA also applies to WMATA's PARP.

The WMATA denial, which just copies the previous one from 2009, claims that, "A representative of the news media must itself disseminate the information not merely make it available."

But, as Michael Perkins notes, the Open Government Act of 2007 clarified a broader interpretation of "news media" as:

any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.

And:

These examples [newspapers and broadcast radio or television] are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities.

Greater Greater Washington "disseminates" information via the web, email, Twitter and other means. Some people, like the subscribers to our daily email, do get it "delivered" directly (though electronically), while others request the information via the web. Newspapers today also do the same; some people get a copy on their doorstep, others get a daily email, while others go to the website.

Back in 2009, the media relations team wasn't sure they should talk to blogs such as Greater Greater Washington, but since then, that group has started to treat us as "news media" and help answer questions that will go into articles. Perhaps they should speak with the legal department.

If you can help us formulate a more detailed legal argument to make to WMATA and, if they don't see the light, pursue the matter in the courts, please email info@ggwash.org.

Here is the full text of their email from Keysia Thom at WMATA:

Dear Mr. Perkins,

This acknowledges receipt of your request for a copy of the survey, results, and weights used by the JCC to determine the fare model for the Metrorail rider survey. This also responds to your request for a fee waiver and requires an advance payment by May 16, or your request file will be closed. Your request is being processed pursuant to the Public Access to Records Policy (PARP), which can be viewed on our website at http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm, under the section marked, "Legal Affairs." Generally, we aim to issue decisions on a request for records within 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request.

We note that you requested a fee waiver for search time because you are an author for Greater Greater Washington. Pursuant to federal regulations, a representative of the news media is any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public. 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (b)(6) (2012). Examples include television and radio stations broadcasting to the general public, publishers of periodicals that disseminate news to the general public, and freelance journalists who can demonstrate a solid basis of publication through a news organization. Judicial Watch v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 99-2315, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19789 *9-12 (D.D.C. August 17, 2000). Your request consists of a conclusory statement that you are a member of the news media, but does not provide any details about your editorial skills and how you intend to distribute the records to the public at large. We have viewed Greater Greater Washington's website and it appears to be a blog. Judicial Watch, an organization that promotes transparency in government and operates a website that includes news on that topic and its activities (including those reported by the media), has been found not to qualify as a representative of the news media. Judicial Watch v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 99-2315, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19789 *9-12 (D.D.C. August 17, 2000). A representative of the news media must itself disseminate the information not merely make it available. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept of Justice, 185 F.Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2002). For these reasons we have denied your request for a fee waiver under the media category.

...

We estimate that it will cost $261.00 for 3.0 (5 hours of staff time - the first two hours of staff time, which are provided free of charge) to retrieve and review the records that are responsive to your request for exempt material. Please remit a check for the full amount made payable to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to my attention by May 16, 2012. The records will be provided as soon as possible after receipt of payment, along with reimbursement of any excess payment or request for additional payment. If we do not receive the payment by May 16, we will close your request file.

From their writeup:

"Great neighborhoods are not necessarily what we thought they were," Wells says. "We used to think we divided ourselves in sections…you put schools over here, housing over here, stores over here. And what we found was that in order to get anywhere and to do anything, you had to get in your car…And the more that we lived in our cars and in this sort of a sectional, stove-piped community, the more we didn't see each other."

Wells gave a name to the type of lifestyle for which he advocates: "Five-minute living." Being able to walk, bike or take public transit to one's destination as opposed to driving further away offers innumerable benefits to the community, Wells says. It makes for healthier lifestyles, keeps money in the local economy and supports the growth of strong traditional neighborhoods.

In Ward 6, Wells has spent much of his time emphasizing the need to break down barriers to change and to better connect sections of the city.

Email spreads myths

The latest email makes 4 charges:

Attack 1: Under proposed new commercial and residential zoning rules, increased building height + density, lot occupancy, and use could fundamentally degrade your home's environment and value.

False. No zones allow taller buildings than they do today. No zone's lot occupancy will change at all. The only change to lot occupancy removes an incentive to fill in courtyards and side yards, thereby leading to less density rather than more.

No floor-area ratios (FAR), the standard measure of density, increase in any zones outside downtown. None of the height limits in any zones outside downtown will increase. There's a small change to how to measure heights, which will more often make the height rules more restrictive than the reverse.

Opponents seem to have assumed that the zoning update is massively upzoning their neighborhoods, and speaking on that basis, even though it is not.

Plus, this statement seems designed to alarm rather than inform. Who says "your home" will have its value degrade? One of the changes which is genuine, allowing accessory dwellings, will likely increase the value of most homes because people will be able to rent out a garage, bringing in income, which they can't do today.

Attack 2: Redevelopment on or adjacent to a bus line—designated a "transit zone"—could substantially exceed building allowed today.

Again, false. "Transit" zones only vary from non-transit zones in 2 ways, neither of which allows larger buildings and one of which is more restrictive. Also, single-family house zones, the ones "Neighbors For Neighborhoods" is trying to agitate, won't be "transit zones" even if they are right next to transit.

In non-SFH zones near transit, new buildings will not have minimum parking requirements, but there will be stricter limits on driveways. If a commercial or mixed-use property backs onto an alley, in a transit zone it will have to use the alley for any driveway instead of a curb cut in the front. That's because around transit lines, the design of the buildings should better accommodate pedestrian traffic.

Attack 3: New code standards would be "matter of right", i.e. implementing new rules would require no review nor allow citizen comment.

This sounds like something a person would say who doesn't understand any zoning laws, anywhere. Any zoning code allows some things "matter of right," other things after a hearing (in DC, by "special exception"), and some things not at all unless a zoning board grants a "variance" after a more rigorous and difficult process.

The new zoning code continues this. A few things which need special exceptions do become matter of right, such as an accessory dwelling. A few things which require variances become special exceptions. But rather than argue against any specific changes on policy grounds, this email tries to frighten residents by implying that all building would suddenly happen without any public review.

Attack 4: Overlays designed to protect some communities from inappropriate development or uses would be removed.

Entirely false. Overlays will not exist in the new code as such, but all of the rules of the overlays remain. Right now, up to 3 separate and sometimes conflicting sets of rules can apply to a single piece of land. For example, my house is in an R-5-B (row house) zone under the Dupont Circle overlay. To understand my zoning, I have to look in 2 places, which have different standards.

Under the new code, I will live in an AT-4-B zone. All of the rules of the Dupont Circle overlay are part of AT-4-B. People not in the Dupont Circle overlay instead will have their property zoned AT-3-B. The advantage of this system is that a property owner only needs to look in one place for the rules about setbacks, FAR, and so on, instead of two or more.

For example, one end of my block is in an SP-1 zone. A building owner recently proposed a new exterior stair which I originally thought violated zoning, since the SP-1 zoning requires a 12-foot rear yard setback and "egress stairs" can only break into the rear setback by 4 feet. As it turns out, that's because the Dupont Circle overlay is more permissive with rear yards in SP-1 zones, but that wasn't clear enough when I looked at the SP-1 text in the old zoning code.

When I read the new zoning code, it was far more clear. The area will be an MT-2-A zone, where the Dupont Circle overlay rules apply. In the text for MT-2-A, it listed the different rear yard measurement standard right there with the other information for MT-2-A. There was no need to remember to look in 2 places; it's all in one.

The Office of Planning has posted a table listing all of the current zones and overlays and what designation each will get in the new code. The authors of the alarmist email, who claim OP hasn't provided enough information, must not have looked at that table.

Brown repeats myths

Councilmember Michael Brown's letter, sadly, falls for much of the same misinformation. The letter warns against nonexistent goals of the zoning rewrite and repeats opponents' charge that a 5-year process with hundreds of community meetings, and most of a year or more left to run, is "moving too fast."

He says, "A one-size-fits all approach doesn't seem right for our city, with its rich history of unique neighborhoods, but that seems to be the direction we are heading." The draft zoning code has 94 different zones and myriad different paragraphs that customize rules for each neighborhood. It's hard to seriously conclude that this is any kind of "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Brown writes that "The code should not be used as a blunt instrument to drive unsupported social change," but doesn't specify how a zoning update which takes great pains to change very little in single-family neighborhoods is either a "blunt instrument" or one driving "unsupported social change."

Below is the full text of the email, which went to the Cleveland Park Citizens' Association listserv.

CPCA members might be interested in a new group addressing the comprehensive changes proposed for the DC Zoning Code which the Zoning Commission will adopt later this year or early next year.

Neighbors for Neighborhoods (N4Ndc) is organizing to alert DC residents to the need to respond to the proposed new regulations. Beginning with chapters in Chevy Chase DC, 16th Street Heights, AU Park and the Queens Chapel area, N4Ndc is forming new chapters in all neighborhoods. N4Ndc is a multi-neighborhood effort to make positive zoning changes for DC residents citywide.

Fathoming details of the proposed new Code requires persistence, fortitude and imagination, but here are some generalities:

• Under proposed new commercial and residential zoning rules, increased building height + density, lot occupancy, and use could fundamentally degrade your home's environment and value.
  
• Redevelopment on or adjacent to a bus line—designated a "transit zone"—could substantially exceed building allowed today.
  
• New code standards would be "matter of right", i.e. implementing new rules would require no review nor allow citizen comment.
  
• Overlays designed to protect some communities from inappropriate development or uses would be removed.

While N4Ndc is building awareness of potential zoning changes in DC's diverse neighborhoods, individual residents are encouraged to inform the Office Planning and public officials of particular concerns. N4Ndc can help you pinpoint your concerns and tell you where to direct your emails. Do not expect CPCA nor any other group to represent your specific concerns: you have the power of the pen, and you possess the right to speak up.

Recently, At-Large City Councilmember Michael Brown has aligned with N4Ndc's goals in a letter to the Zoning Commission. He urged that more outreach is necessary before the new regulations are adopted. He said, "This code has to 'make sense' to the public before adoption, not after [and] should not be used as a blunt instrument to drive unsupported social change. And we should not take for granted the hard-earned tranquility of our residents." He warned particularly about allowing Accessory Housing Units in all residential neighborhoods and expressed concerns about greater development in "transit zones."

The lane uses a "mixing zone" to handle drivers turning left and cyclists traveling straight. About 140 feet before an intersection, the separator between the bike lane and the other lanes will turn into a dotted line. Drivers will merge (after signaling and carefully looking for cyclists) into the shared lane.

Some worried that the drivers would then take up the entire shared lane space and make it hard for cyclists continuing straight to get by. To address this, DDOT created a 4-foot wide bike space at the right edge of the mixing zone, which they will paint green with bike symbols. This should make clear to drivers that they should stay to the left and let cyclists pass to the right.

Also, DDOT has modified the plan to include flexible posts between the left turn lane and the other lanes. This means that drivers will have to merge back where the mixing zone starts, instead of waiting until the end.

At the meeting, several cyclists said they are still nervous about the mixing zone concept. They worried that drivers won't take enough care when merging to the left. Many cyclists like the cycle tracks because they create a feeling of greater security; WABA Executive Director Shane Farthing expressed concern that the mixing zones would eliminate that comfort factor.

However, DDOT's Mike Goodno explained that they can't replicate the layout on 15th, where the leftmost car lane is a left turn lane with a special left turn arrow. That would leave L Street with only 1 through lane outside rush hour. Also, the study of the existing lanes showed weaknesses in that arrangement on 15th. Many cyclists still go through the intersection when left-turning cars have a green arrow, and the setup on 15th makes both cyclists and turning drivers wait much longer, said Jamie Parks from Kittleson, the consultants behind the study.

A few participants asked if DDOT could continue the green paint through the intersection. Goodno noted that an an intersection, the many vehicles driving across would quickly wear away the paint. This will be DC's first foray into green paint on bike lanes.

The 15th and Pennsylvania lanes required cyclists, drivers and pedestrians all to adjust to slightly different behavior. People, even the occasional DC Councilmember, complained, but these lanes have all settled into a working pattern. With L Street and the mixing zones, there will be some more adjustment, and after some time passes, we will be able to judge whether the mixing zones work well, or not.

Other elements of the bike lane plan

At intersections that allow right turns, bike boxes will let cyclists cross from the bike lane in front of waiting cars to the right side of the road. On our post, commenter egk suggested instead placing the bike boxes on the cross streets, so that a cyclist moves left and then waits in front of the drivers on that cross street:

Goodno said that he thought that was a good idea and investigated it. However, a bike box in that location blocks the curb ramps, and DDOT can't move them without far more extensive construction work.

DDOT will also be adding a more traditional bike lane on L between Pennsylvania Avenue and the start of the cycle track at 22nd Street.

Drivers will not experience much more congestion. At the most, some segments decline by 1 letter grade in "level of service," such as from B to C. The double left turn on 18th Street at rush hour will have to become just a single left turn lane.

When the lane goes in, DPW will step up enforcement on L Street to ensure that the rightmost lane stays clear for through traffic during rush hours. Drivers of cars and trucks will be able to park there off-peak, but today that lane often gets blocked even during the peak by trucks making deliveries.

Belgian group Responsible Young Drivers organized the stunt. Somehow they apparently managed to make some new drivers think they were going for a real driving test. The examiner claimed that a new law requires them to demonstrate they can text while driving to pass the test. Several insist it's impossible; one says he feels "like an idiot who can't drive" and "will stop driving" if the law goes into effect.

Video from Responsible Young Drivers via the Oregonian.

Performance parking money goes to neighborhoods and bus priority

Mayor Gray had proposed ending the practice, which the original performance parking pilot zones established, of putting some parking money toward projects in the local neighborhood. The committee restored that in part. Now, if a performance parking zone raises extra mone over its "baseline" revenue from before performance parking, half of that money can go toward transportation projects in that neighborhood.

In other words, if DDOT extends meter hours or raises rates, half of the extra revenue from that change can go to local projects. Before, just setting up a performance parking zone meant that 75% of the total revenue, including the preexisting revenue, went to the neighborhood (though, in some cases, some of that revenue had to pay for new meters). The neighborhoods with performance parking got to spend some money right off the bat, even if DDOT never tweaked meter rates and hours. And in some of the zones, DDOT took a painfully long time to do so.

What about the other half of the money? The committee's budget probably dedicates that to bus priority improvements.

While DDOT needs to do its utmost to make the H Street streetcar a success and lay the groundwork for future lines, streetcars won't go everywhere and won't magically solve all of DC's transportation problems. The District spends $190 million per year to subsidize on bus service, yet many buses spend a lot of time in traffic and many people don't want to ride a bus that's not the Circulator.

Reducing bus delay could save a lot of money and draw more riders to the bus system. The many Metrobus line studies came up with countless recommendations for how to make service better: moving a stop across the street, changing a turn signal to help buses through a rough spot, improving enforcement to avoid illegal loading, adding a bus lane, and so on.

Funds depend on DDOT implementing performance parking

A dedicated pot of money will push DDOT to move ahead with these important changes. These projects won't have to compete with others for money. That assumes there is money, though. Before any money goes to bus improvements, WMATA gets about $30 million for existing bus operations. The CFO's office estimates that DC's meters today will almost cover that. DDOT is upgrading old meters to newer ones with better technology that break less and therefore are less likely to lose revenue; the WMATA payment also assumes that those upgrades continue.

If DDOT goes ahead with the upgrades and then starts managing its curbside space more efficiently, the meter revenue will surpass the $30 million mark. Local neighborhoods and bus priority projects will get funded. If the meter upgrades get delayed and DDOT doesn't tweak rates and hours, it could fall short, and both neighborhoods and bus priority could end up with nothing for the year.

An amendment from Tommy Wells at the markup specifically asks DDOT to make bus priority improvements on downtown segments of H and I streets a top priority for the money. WMATA has said that this congested area forms a major bottleneck for bus routes from all parts of the District; bus lanes here could do the most to reduce delays. A consultant is currently studying traffic operations along H and I, and their report will help DDOT design the lanes to best move bus traffic and minimize the amount of extra delay for drivers.

To help get performance parking moving downtown, the legislation specifically instructs DDOT to work on performance parking with DC Surface Transit, the business-led group that was been instrumental in bringing in the Circulator and promoting the streetcar. DCST and downtown businesses have been eager for performance parking.

Other changes in the budget

The budget also takes steps to restore the pedestrian and bicycle enhancement fund, which pays for a number of smaller pedestriand and bicycle infrastructure projects. In addition, $100,000 comes from the Committee on Libraries, Parks, Recreation and Planning to fund a new volunteer Trail Ranger program, similar to one in Denver. The money pays for a grant to an organization like WABA to manage that program.

The committee asked DDOT to use federal funds to redo the streetscape on Florida Avenue between 2nd and 10th Streets NE. Florida Avenue is wider here than elsewhere, but the sidewalk is far too narrow even though it adjoins the growing NoMa district and Gallaudet students often walk along the road. DDOT has already acknowledged in an earlier study that the sidewalk needs to be better here.

Finally, the budget takes a little bit out of transportation to fund a few of Cheh's other priorities, including a program encouraging food stamp recipients to buy food at farmers' markets ($50,000), help fund the Office of Campaign Finance ($100,000), and a tax break for a homeless services organization ($10,800).

A good budget gets better

Mayor Gray's original DDOT budget was an excellent proposal. It funded the streetcar, preserved Metro service, and took the very significant step of pushing for performance parking citywide. Gray made it clear that he stands behind initiatives that enhance walking, bicycling, and transit.

The way the budget used parking meter revenue was the biggest issue council staff had with the budget. The Mayor's proposal sent all parking meter revenue straight to WMATA. It's great to fund transit, but the problem with this approach is that DC doesn't just give more or less to WMATA as money is available; its commitment gets set in the WMATA budget.

Far more money comes from the general fund for WMATA, and a small amount from meters. As meter revenue increased, it would just have replaced general fund support. That would have only fueled the criticism that performance parking is just a way to raise money.

Perfromance parking is best when local neighborhoods also get a benefit from meter changes, and when money goes toward improving the other ways shoppers, diners, office workers and others can travel to an area besides driving and parking. The commitee's budget restores that nexus. Money DDOT raises from changing parking will directly help fund programs that make neighborhoods either easier to get to or more attractive.

This budget recommendation will next go to the entire council as part of the overall budget debate. The council should preserve what the committee has done.

In addition, parents pushing for a children's playground downtown are a lot closer to getting their wish. The new budget allocates $500,000 to plan and build a playground, which should be enough to get it built. The National Park Service still has to select a site and give DC jurisdiction to build the playground.

For many years, few to no people lived downtown, so DC's many downtown parks only served office workers eating lunch, the homeless, and otherwise little more than decorative backgrounds to drivers on major thoroughfares. Now, more people want to use the parks at all times of the day.

NCPC just released a a video about an effort by federal and DC agencies to renovate Edmund Burke Park, where 10th and L Streets NW meet Massachusetts Avenue.

Franklin Square represents the largest opportunity for downtown parks. It covers an entire city block, yet doesn't see the kind of use and programming as similar spaces in other cities, like New York's Bryant Park. DPR will get $300,000 to work with the Office of Planning to plan a renovation for Frankline. Since NPS controls this park as well, they will need to give DC jurisdiction here as well before any actual changes can come.

Most of the money for these priorities comes out of a $16 million project ($8 million in the next fiscal year) to create a new DPR and DYRS headquarters at Gibbs School. The committee doesn't think that's such an urgent need, as DPR just moved into offices on U Street. The budget retains $550,000 for them to continue planning for their office needs. The 4 staff working on parks will come out of 60 existing vacant positions at DPR.

The committee also assigned $500,000 out of $5 million which Mayor Gray had set aside to implement the sustainability plan. Parks and recreation are a key part of the sustainability plan, so this money will still contribute to fulfilling the plan, only in a specific way the Council chose.

Kenilworth-Parkside residents are hanging in limbo after DC tore down their old recreation center only to find out that contamination on the site prevents building a new one. It'll likely take 7-10 years, say committee staff, for NPS to finish its environmental study, for DC and NPS to negotiate over who has to pay for remediation, and then design and build a facility. The Council instructed DPR to use some of the money it already has budgeted for Kenilworth-Parkside to find a short-term option for residents.

The show was famous for many things, but one is the long "walk and talk" or "pedeconference" shots where cast members walked through numerous rooms and corridors, having long conversations and even being joined by new people, while the camera followed without a cut.

Sadly, it's clear that in this video they didn't have quite a large enough set to do the kind of massive walk and talk from the show or its antecedent, Sports Night, but the good news is, people can walk much farther at a stretch in most places around the country.

We all know walking is good for health. I haven't seen any studies on the health benefits of talking at the same time, though.

Maryland officials explained that an outer Beltway isn't a priority and conflicts with smart growth and environmental principles. But they were the only ones saying that in the original article. They got scant attention. The broadcast audio paraphrased a few objections, but in nearly every case followed up with a sentence beginning with "But," implying that the arguments against the Outer Beltway deserve only rebuttal, not serious consideration.

The idea that arguments against the Outer Beltway are inconsequential is dangerously wrong. An Outer Beltway would primarily serve the large landowners in rural Virginia who want to fill their property with more cookie-cutter subdivisions. It actually won't help current commuters. VDOT's own 2004 study showed that 92% of drivers in the I-270 and Dulles corridors travel to and from the core, or along the current Beltway. An outer crossing wouldn't serve them.

Even for those who could use an Outer Beltway, a free or subsidized road would just induce its own demand, spurring new development in current farmland and filling up the road with new drivers stuck in new congestion. A toll road would have to charge a lot of money to pay back its costs. AAA would subsequently whine, as they are doing with the ICC, that it's too expensive and not enough people are using it.

The region needs better transit solutions between Bethesda and Tysons and the Metro lines in each corridor, not the failed Outer Beltway ideas of 50 years ago. The region has turned down these highways, over and over, because they simply won't solve our transportation troubles.

AAA is not a neutral source

It's not surprising that Bob Chase and AAA are still pushing an Outer Beltway as a transportation panacea, but it is disappointing when reporters fall for their pitch. Sadly, too many transportation reporters view AAA as some kind of neutral party.

AAA's helpful press releases on gas price trends and holiday weekend traffic let reporters fill column space without doing a lot of work. There's nothing wrong with those stories, but many reporters then fail to question when the organization's press releases attack officials on policy grounds, like AAA's broadsides against Mayor Gray's traffic safety camera initiative, or Governor Martin O'Malley saying that an Outer Beltway is not the priority for Maryland.

Bob Chase has a high-powered, expensive PR firm, Dewey Square, pitching far and wide his aggressive push for more and more highway lanes at the region's edge. Nonprofit advocates voicing alternative views, like the Coalition for Smarter Growth and Sierra Club, have to make do with much thinner resources. Good reporters put pitches from PR firms in their appropriate context and realize that they represent the interests of well-funded groups, not necessarily truth.

Unfortunately, we've seen several cases of journalists falling short on balanced coverage of late. WAMU stepped over the line recently with a brief morning story that only quoted AAA, and no pedestrian safety advocates, on traffic cameras. Reporter Armando Trull adapted an AP story which unquestioningly repeated the slant from The Washington Times.

AP reporters don't sign their articles, so we don't know who broadcast this biased story out on the wires without thinking. Besides WAMU, Fox5's Will Thomas also rewrote the traffic camera story, and the Washington Business Journal aggregated it, both without questioning its one-sided premise.

There's nothing wrong with opinion journalism—our articles are all opinions—but people know it. The Washington Times is mostly opinion, too, and so is anything from AAA, but many reporters and others mistake both. Running editorials on the Outer Beltway is one thing, but news reporters can and should stop regurgitating AAA's line on policy questions, and should look more critically at other outlets' stories when they don't.

WAMU worked to fix its mistake

After getting an earful from myself and a number of environmental and smart growth advocates on Friday, WAMU agreed with the criticism. Metro Connection Editor Tara Boyle told me on the record, "In looking at story a second time, we think the critique that we needed a bit more balance is real, and there is merit to these critiques."

The reporter, Martin Di Caro, spoke to Stewart Schwartz of CSG and myself, and added a section to both the audio and text versions with quotes from both of us. Di Caro has written many other, good-quality transportation stories in his 2 months at WAMU thus far, and I look forward to many more from him.

During our discussion, Di Caro mentioned that he's currently working at WAMU thanks to a grant. Their former transportation reporter, David Schultz, was also only at WAMU for a short time. It's terrific that WAMU is getting money to cover transportation issues, but it would be far better if they could rustle up more consistent funding to keep a single reporter more permanently. Transportation is not a trivial subject, and it's very helpful to have reporters able to develop some expertise in the beat. When a reporter is new, they're more likely to fall victim to AAA-itis or the related affliction, PR-rep-itis.

Meanwhile, WAMU deserves praise for looking at the story, recognizing that it was one-sided, and taking steps to do better with coverage now and in the future.