1: I love the mobility the system offers. It makes the region very easy to get around. However, I feel that the bus division has often been neglected at the expense of rail.

2: Single change? Expand the service span and frequency of buses, especially those in the near suburbs.

3: If cuts can be avoided, I would prefer fare increases.

4: I am transit dependent, so I'll never completely stop using Metro, but I will certainly use it less if headways go down. I just won't make discretionary trips.

5: I think the federal government needs to take a greater role as an advocate for transit in general (not just WMATA). I would love to see greater operating assistance ($$) and perhaps a national plan for targeted transit expansion.

6: I would love to see a regional government, like Portland's Metro, but I understand that would be difficult here. It might also fall more under the purview of MWCOG rather than NCPC.

by Matt Johnson on Feb 22, 2010 3:01 pm  

1. I like it best when Metro functions as a true big-city rapid transit system. It enables me to move quickly and efficiently from one side of the city to the other, from Maryland to VA, etc. I like it when this level of rapid transit service enables the kind of urban environments and walkable lifestyles that we've seen emerge and flourish in DC.

2. Operationally, the single thing I'd change would be train frequency. I want frequent service at all hours.

On the capital side, I want to see a clear and aggressive vision for Metro expansion - both in terms of adding core capacity but also in addressing the challenges of an aging system.

3. Again, the level of service is paramount. Fare increases are less than ideal, but so far the proposed increases are far more palatable than the rather severe service cuts that have been floated around.

4. Beyond decreased frequency, decreasing reliability would make me seriously consider alternatives. At the same time, I don't own a car - that alone is my sign of investment in the very idea of Metro.

5. I would like to see the feds take a long-term view - hopefully something that can be on a longer timeframe than the other board members who are often beholden to other political considerations in their home districts. I also hope that the individual members can be persuasive in getting their colleagues to think likewise - so that we might have the kind of vision and leadership that enabled the creation of this system in the first place.

6. I would like to see the NCPC work to help coordinate the federal and local elements of the city a little better. This recent snowfall and the lack of shoveling on NPS properties is a key example. Likewise, the condition of the Mall is another. Issues like opposition to wires for DC Streetcars strikes me as rather minor in the grand scheme of things, particularly with perfectly reasonable and viable hybrid solutions - I'd like to see a more pragmatic approach on some of those issues.

by Alex B. on Feb 22, 2010 3:15 pm  

I'd also add - regarding train frequency - even without the current cuts, Metro's current train frequencies often leave a lot to be desired outside of peak hours. The recent discussion of Vancouver's automated system and frequent headways during all hours of operation is what I'm talking about.

by Alex B. on Feb 22, 2010 3:17 pm  

1. What do I like about the system: It runs frequently during rush hour periods. Local governments have directed growth and development around the rail system. It's convenient during rush hour.

2. Metro needs to be more open to the public. Catoe said at the blogger roundtable that he hears all the time that the service is lousy. He took us through a number of reasons why that is so. Metro needs to say to the public very clearly why it is that the service has been terrible and what they're doing about it. There's a big public perception problem that Metro is full of incompetent losers that don't know how to move trains down a track. From the folks I've met at Metro, I'm not convinced this is the case. If Metro communicated more directly with the public, acknowledging their problems and communicating what they're doing to fix their problems, the public could be more sympathetic. Right now, a lot of the public feels that Metro has little empathy for the problems the service's unreliability causes their riders. When the riders complain, the responses are not adequate or never show up. Metro needs to embrace a customer service culture, and a big part of that is communicating with us.

3. I receive a transit subsidy. Fare increases for my normal commute do not impact me. I know there are a lot of people that don't enjoy the same benefit. The increased costs of running the system need to be shared between riders, who benefit directly, and the regional funding partners, who benefit indirectly. If I were on the board, I would balance the budget by passing a mix of fare increases, subsidy increases, capital spending deferrals and service cuts, but I would choose service cuts that can be quickly reevaluated and rolled back once the economy recovers. Metro needs to avoid doing damage to its long-term ridership by cutting service too much. Any service cuts should be a last resort and should be kept to a minimum.

4. It would be a tough call for me to start driving instead of taking Metro. We only have one car, and my wife and I both commute by Metro so that our babysitter can use the car during the day. So a switch to driving would require the purchase and storage of an additional car. If both of us were to start driving it would require my wife to start paying for parking and for our babysitter to start driving to our house instead of taking Metro. This would be a significant lifestyle change and would cost us a lot of money. Because parking at my work is first come, first served, I would have to adjust my working hours, which has an impact on child care. I would likely look into carpooling with a co-worker.

5. I hope that the Federal representatives bring an outside, transit expert perspective as well as operate as a neutral voice between the often parochial views of the three jurisdictions.

I don't really have an answer for 6.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 22, 2010 3:24 pm  

Dear Mr. Acosta,

Thank you for taking the time to ask our thoughts. As a native Washingtonian, this is the first time that anyone at any level of WMATA has personally solicited opinions from the public beyond the required public forums. It is truly a (needed) breath of fresh air.

1. Best and Worst: Accessibility. The DC area, particularly the District itself, has built a transportation system that allows me to get around without owning my own vehicle. Traditionally, consistent service allows me to take Metrorail and Metrobus nearly everywhere I wish to go. This is truly an accomplishment that should not go without praise.

However, this is also the system's downfall. Metro has become increasingly inconsistent. I used to be able to go to a Metro station with a reasonable certainty that a train would be along in short order (say, 15 minutes or less). There was never a need to check the (often erroneous) Metro website for delays and train arrivals. However, those days appear to be over. Today I avoid taking Metrorail for fear that I will be stuck on a platform greeted by a screen that only gives false hope instead of accurate arrival times. The only thing consistent about Metrorail has become the constant track work delays, trains breakdowns, and other rail mishaps.

2. Providing Metro with dedicated funding. Metro's reliance on going cap-in-hand to local jurisdictions begging for funding is ridiculous. I know dedicated funding is not the silver bullet to financial sustainability but continuing to allow three jurisdictions with competing priorities to fund a piecemeal agency is and will forever be a recipe for disaster.

3. Much like the District government in the 1990s, I personally believe that Metro is already in a death spiral as a result of the inherent flaws its institutional structure, poor leadership, and lack of dedicated sources of revenue. I fully in favor of placing WMATA in federal receivership (as happened to DC in the 90s) in order to rehabilitate and restructure the agency into something that is more sustainable and regionally focused.

4. I stopped taking Metrorail because of the constant delays. I have since switched to taking the bus, which is also far from perfect but a tad more consistent and comfortable than Metrorail. At least while I'm waiting at a bus stop I'm reasonably certain that the crowds will not push me into the street; I can't say the same for some Metrorail platforms. However, as soon as the weather clears up, I plan to biking to work thanks to DDOTs new lanes and new bike storage at my work.

5. As I stated in answer 3, I fully support a greater role including a limited-time takeover of WMATA by the Federal government and the creation of a new regional compact.

6. I would like to see NCPC let up on some of its restrictions on streetcars in the old L'Enfant city (particularly overhead lines). The District is moving forward with a plan to provide its residents with greater transit options as the regional transit authority is currently unable or unwilling to take them on. Therefore I would like to see greater NCPC support of such projects.

Thank you again for taking the time to solicit public input! I look forward to your tenure on the Board.

by Adam L on Feb 22, 2010 3:27 pm  

1. I like that it can save me money, and that it has such a broad reach (especially with the bus system) in the region.
2. I'd force the local governments to contribute more money to Metro.
3. Raising fares is probably the best way to deal with this. The service cuts that are called for make Metro very inconvenient.
4. Lack of service. I depend on Metro, frequently catching the first train out. Being without a car I have no idea what I would do if I couldn't leave early in the morning.
5. Holding the local counties and cities responsible for the Metro system's finances.
6. I'd like for the commission to become more focused on letting the DC region make its decisions with regard to federal planning, and trusting that the citizens of DC know best what their city needs.

by Joshua Davis on Feb 22, 2010 3:27 pm  

6. I'd like the see NCPC abolished, how's that? Short and sweet. It's one of the multiple alphabet-soup planning agencies (the Commission of Fine Arts is another) that provide no value-added and one we can easily do without.

by Paul on Feb 22, 2010 3:38 pm  

1. I love the fact that the system has strong, instantly recognizable brand identity, and that it is very reliable and clean (although that has deteriorated in recent years). I (really) dislike the many (if not most) metro station managers who treat customers like crap.

2. Allow for bikes to ride on front and end cars during rush hours. Even if you only allowed it on 8 car trains, it would make life a lot easier for some people.

3. I believe we should begin a dialogue about the best way to index fares to the cost of a basket of goods in the DC area. There is no reason WMATA should have to "do more with less" as a result of mere inflation.

4. I rely on metro during severe weather (or extreme cold) and to commute around town during the day (which happens quite frequently). I bike to and from work. That won't change.

5. I'm not informed enough to comment, but perhaps use the position to not only engage the board, but report to the federal government about best practices.

6. Bicycling is huge. It's going to get bigger. I'd make a note of it :)

by JTS on Feb 22, 2010 3:43 pm  

1. I like how late it stays open. I am often out in the evenings and would be riding metro much more infrequently if it wasnt running until 12pm / 3am. I wish it ran more often in non peak hours, particularly evenings. i would be fine with running with only 2 or 4 cars,if it came more often.

2. I used to think Metro is pretty consistent with its schedule, etc, but that seems to be going to the wayside -- there seems to be more safety issues and delays as a result. This makes me almost embarrassed for my city.

3. i think that there should be taxes on roads and drivers to support metro -- they should support the fact that there is much less traffic, because others are off the roads. there should also be dedicated funding from all jurisdictions. I am fine with fare increases, and VERY MUCH against service cuts.

4. I use metro for almost everything, from work to social events to errands. I often just run out the door without checking on when the next train is coming -- if i had to wait for too long, too often, that would make it too much of a hassle for me and i would start just driving to things.

by beesknees on Feb 22, 2010 3:50 pm  

1. What I like most about Metro is that I don't have to own a car. I've lived in the region since 2002, and every time I've looked for housing I've only looked in areas within walking distance of a Metro stop, because it's cheaper and easier than dealing with an automobile. What I like least are the things that make it less usable--long headways and delays. Overcrowding at the height of rush hour, especially in the morning, also sucks.

2. The change I would make is to increase frequency, especially late at night; I'd also like to expand service to areas like H St. NE and Logan Circle that aren't really close to any individual rail line.

3. The service cuts that are on the table are simply unacceptable--I would basically stop using Metro outside of rush hour. Further fare increases wouldn't be fun, but would be preferable to the service cuts, especially to the Yellow Line. I would strongly urge local jurisdictions (incl. DC, where I live) to increase their contribution, even at the expense of tax increases or decreased spending on other areas.

4. Already, I've noticed an increased willingness to pay for a cab home after going out to restaurants, bars and concerts, rather than take Metro--waiting 20 minutes for a train sucks, especially when there's a transfer required (I live by Waterfront station, on the green line). If service gets even worse, I might be forced to buy a car just to be able to get around on weekends, and once I did that, it would open up the possibility of moving to areas that aren't Metro-accessible.

5. I think that as a federal representative, the temptation will be to focus on rush-hour commuters (i.e. federal workers), but I'd urge you to take a broader view. Getting all the local jurisdictions to work together and compromise with the greater good of the whole region in mind would be the best thing you could do--for example, in the medium term (e.g. next 15 years), a separated Blue Line running through Georgetown and crosstown would not only help DC but the whole region, as more people gain access to greater amenities and less traffic. In essence, anything that makes Metro more usable helps the whole region--I'd love for the federal representatives to see themselves as stewards of the whole system and its use for all people, not just federal employees or tourists.

6. I'd love to see the NCPC give up its attachment to overly-strict zoning and planning regulations, especially in areas outside the monumental core. There are areas where overhead wires are inappropriate, surely, but they don't include places like Chinatown or H St. NE, even if they are in the L'Enfant City.

by Dan Miller on Feb 22, 2010 3:54 pm  

1. What I like best about Metro is I feel safe in my person once on board. This is a clean system with little crime. What I like least is crowding.

2) A single change? I'd push for bigger picture thinking and planning. Metro isn't going to start overloading in the decades to come; it already has. Trains are cattle-car tight at rush hour. I've had train operators close doors before people had finished *unloading*, let alone loading.

3) I fear I am in the minority here, but I am willing to pay more for Metro if that's what it takes. If the organization itself is suitably lean and well-run, I am prepared to pay more for service and rely less on subsidies (i.e, reducing the percentage of subsidization, even if the dollar amount stays the same). Metro should measure *everything*. This will help it decide where it can most easily make spending cuts. Right now I make two daily Metro trips at $1.80 each (I think). If this went up to, say, $2.10 or maybe $2.20 each way, I'd be okay with that.

4) Overcrowding makes me not take Metro. I've been stuck on trains I didn't want to be on. I've had to wait for two or three trains to come before I could board one at rush hour. Conversely, at non-peak times, long headways make me not want to take Metro. I'd gladly pay peak fares if it meant Metro ran more often.

5) As a federal representative, you can be instrumental in pushing longer-term planning for the Metro. The federal government provides most of the Metro riders at rush hour; therefore it has a vested interest (not just an obligation) to ensure it works well and grows properly.
I have confidence that you will find a way to deal with the issues confronting the system currently (including overcrowding), but please don't forget to focus on making sure people can get to work without watching multiple full trains go by in five years. Or ten. Or twenty.

6) Can't think of much at the moment; good luck!

by J on Feb 22, 2010 3:56 pm  

Did anyone else immediately think "In Soviet Russia, Marcel Acosta interviews you!"? No? Ok, moving on:

1: Accessibility has to be the #1 best thing about Metro. Between bus and rail there's almost nowhere I want to go that I can't get to without having to resort to a car. As far as negatives, I'd have to say that the trains running on manual control is my biggest problem with Metro that WMATA is responsible for (funding problems really aren't WMATA's fault). Not running on ATC is annoying to customers both in ride comfort and headway consistency.

2: Funding aside, changes must be made in salaries, for both a cost-cutting measure as well as a morale/discipline issue. Too many stories on DC blogs these days feature apathetic, or flat out dangerous, employees. These people are languishing in jobs that others would love to have at half the salary in this economy. On the flip side, there are stories of employees being extra helpful, considerate and polite. These people deserve to be rewarded. Apathy of the front line employees is more damaging to WMATA's image than any issues at the board/HQ level.

3: There is no reason why fares should not have increased alongside inflation since the system opened. Now WMATA is playing catchup. Fare increases are tough to sell to the public, but now is the time to get riders used to the idea that inflation exists and it affects transit trips just as much as anything else they buy. Annual re-evaluation of fares should definitely be in the works.

4: Lower levels of service would make me stop using Metro more than increased fares. Getting from my office to a meeting would be impossible on Metro if I miss the first train because NextTrain is not accurate and I have to wait 20-30 min for another train.

5: Federal representatives should act as the voice the riders have never received on the board. Since government workers are a large share of ridership, their efficient commute helps reduce costs to the taxpayers (like if they'd been able to get to work better in Snomaggedon).

6: The National Mall is rather embarrassing. It's easy for us to forget, living in this area, that DC is our nation's capital and it is a showcase to visitors from across the county and around the world. While DC deserves it's autonomy for issues regarding it's citizenry, the National Mall is really a national concern and should be taken care of better than it is.

by kidincredible on Feb 22, 2010 4:03 pm  

1. The (previous?) ability to get around the city without a car, but more importantly, not even worrying about whether or not I needed one.

2. Increased frequency of trains/buses. Metro had a great opportunity after the snowfalls to boost capacity and encourage individuals to take buses and trains. However, service was severely hampered. My wife was furious when it took 2+ hours to get from Georgetown to Mt. Pleasant in the evening because there were so few buses - and this was 7 days after the last major snowfall. It's these great headways that are driving us away from relying on Metro..

3. Please increase fares and consolidate redundant routes as much as possible before considering frequency cuts.

4. Decreased frequency

5. Have board members rely solely on Metro to better understand what the users of your product face.

by Rob on Feb 22, 2010 4:06 pm  

1. Best: because of Metro I don't need to own a car, and can easily go to offices, shops, and events in Virginia and maryland. Worst: Once the original plan was completed with the Green Line, leaders failed to create a master vision for the next phase, and instead are working piecemeal with various plans.

2. Add a new line downtown.

3. I don't trust Metro to spend wisely. Hire an outside firm to recommend cuts. Is it true that some bus drivers make over $100,00 per year? Yikes. Also encourage jurisdictions to have parity in how they fund roadds and Metro.

4. If my job or home were not close to a line I'd have no use for it. So, encourage TOD!

5. Ensure federal jobs are located near existing or future rail stations.

6. Someone should take a comprehensive look at how the monumental core is lit at night. (The Castle should not be so dark!) And all of the "little" monuments (like those in traffic circles) are completely unlit.

by Michael on Feb 22, 2010 4:07 pm  

1a.BEST: Metro gives me an option other then driving to many destinations including National airport.
1b.LEAST: The infrequency of service during off-peak.

2.CHANGE: increase frequency of service during off-peak

3a.I would MUCH rather pay higher fares to experiencing decreased service.
3b.Sell 1 month unlimited use cards good for train or bus. This card should be based on date, not number of rides or money left like SmarTrip and not limited to only train or bus and not limited to distance/cost of trip like the other weekly, fast and bus passes. Make it available in 1,3,6 months and 1 year increments. Metro could make money on this and it would add convenience for users.

4.Diminshed frequency of service already affects my choosing metro on weekends sometimes especially if I need to change trains. I've had some painfully long combined waits. Instead I drive or bike (busses are bad on weekends too). Its not worth an extra hour in a dimly lit tunnel (making it difficult to read) with nowhere to sit down. 30 minute headways on busses during weekday working hours (non-rush) is pretty bad too. Sometimes the 30 minute headway begins even while 'peak' fare is still being charged for the train.

5. See other people's comments above

6. Does the NCPC have a relationship with MD-NCPC? If yes-then please help convince MD-NCPC to treat bike trails, any bike trails but especially those within 3 miles of metro train stops as the commuter routes they are. Currently these trails are 'closed' at dark even within a half mile of a metro stop, i.e. West Hyattsville. This is patently stupid. During winter its dark during 'peak' hours.

Thanks for asking!

by Bianchi on Feb 22, 2010 4:18 pm  

1. Rail: It's cleaner and at least feels more safe than other US transit systems. But the network is inadequate and the decline in quality of service has been palpable over the 10 years I've been here.

Bus: I actually think the route network is pretty good. The new buses are great, too. However much of the rolling stock is still too old, reliability is dismal, and there's a general lack of professionalism among drivers (speeding, running stop signs, arbitrarily bypassing stops, unnecessary hard braking, and talking to passengers are all commonplace). NextBus helped a bit with reliability (even if the buses were still 10 minutes late, at least you knew beforehand), but about half of drivers now fail to activate their transponders making it next to useless.

2. I'd hold the unions accountable by junking their contracts at the first possible opportunity and restarting from scratch. There's a clear lack of professionalism among the ranks and this contributes to most of Metro's problems. I'm not convinced that unions themselves are the problem - plenty of European transit agencies do just fine with them - but Metro's current union contracts have clearly failed at holding people accountable and upholding a culture of professionalism.

3. Raise fares, especially for rail. Rail is a premium service and most riders can absorb much higher fares. (Our rail fares are very low by both US and international standards. Start with a $2.50 base fare and go from there.) Bus passengers tend to be poorer so they should be spared dramatic increases, but there is probably room for bus fares to go up as well. It would be nice to raise more money from jurisdictions and the feds but some realism is in order with regard to fares.

4. If bus reliability gets much worse, I will definitely stop riding for my daily commute. Metro's communication during the recent storm was extremely poor - many bus routes, including my own, were truncated for weeks on end with no notification on the website. When they did restart they ran at completely arbitrary times of day, again with no notification. I am lucky enough to live relatively close to work, so I can always walk or get a good commuting bike.

As for rail, I take rail on the weekends whenever possible, but if the proposed weekend service cuts go into effect I will also stop taking rail. I can just drive to the suburbs for my shopping and take the Circulator or a cab when I go out at night.

5. Of course "get more money from the feds" is the obvious answer, but I'd also like to see you advocate for greater federal oversight of Metro and perhaps even a federal takeover. The current governance structure is broken and Metro is an interstate system that plays a key role in the federal government's operations so it is a logical move.

6. Not familiar enough with the regional planning bureaucracy to answer this one.

by Phil on Feb 22, 2010 4:19 pm  

1. I like the multiple transit options within the system and connections to other bus and rail services (though some of the maps could do with a makeover to improve their readability). But I really dislike the fact that outside the District and the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, Metrobus service apparently all but shuts down after 9.00 PM on weeknights and even earlier on weekends. I've had to leave Friday evening concerts at the Library of Congress halfway through the performance because I was afraid that I would miss the last 2B bus in Fairfax if I stayed until the end.

2. WMATA needs to do a much better job about tailoring its weekend and evening schedules to major events in the District. One example: on Cherry Blossom Festival weekend last year, a time when Metrorail should have been the obvious choice to reach the District, a group of friends and I drove into the city and parked near the Pentagon because we knew that the trains would be a nightmare running on the normal weekend schedule. As we drove under the bridges at Vienna Metro, the line of people waiting to enter the station was, quite literally, out the door. That's not exactly helpful to locals or tourists, especially as the summer months approach.

If I could have a second request, I would like a little more honesty from the train drivers about delays involving possible fatalities on the tracks. I know I would be a lot more patient if I heard, 'There will be a delay because of a person under a train at Farragut West' rather than 'There will be a delay because of a problem at Farragut West'.

3. Please raise fares rather than cut service. I used to live in London, and paid its very high transport fares, but in return I knew I was getting a system that could function (for the most part) 24 hours a day.

4. I don't have a car and do not want to buy one (I use Zipcar when a car is unavoidable), so I'm stuck with Metro win or lose unless I decide to leave the area entirely.

5. The post-snow Friday 'commute from hell' showed that WMATA and the federal government need to have a lot more communication about system use and system capacity. Federal reps should have a much more long-term perspective on the system, looking ahead years or even decades to evaluate the possible repercussions of short-term decisions.

by sg on Feb 22, 2010 4:20 pm  

I would like to second JTS's comment about allowing bikes on trains during peak.

by Bianchi on Feb 22, 2010 4:24 pm  

So as to not to beat a dead horse, I will limit myself to two of the questions.

#2) Better and more constant communication. Best example is during the "snow emergencies." WWMATA simply gave up trying to communicate and then would release a PR at the end of the day about the next. Most were confusing and did not illuminate the bus situation nor did it explain what was taking so long. Rumors and blog posting seems to indicate it took them a few days to uncover the equipment to clear the tracks. Why couldn't someone have explained that from the first moment? Then throughout the weekend, every few hours give a short status check on where you were. Metro needs to understand that limiting themselves to "official" channels gives the official or real impression that they just don't care. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But I want them to care - communicate!!!

#6) I have no idea what your group does. But if you have some power to coordinate the work of the region, I would like to see more emphasis placed on putting new Federal agency offices near transit. I live near the new DoD building (Seminary and 395). I take the bus from the area to the Pentagon to catch Metro so there is some transit options. But it is currently a one-way trip with the flow of commuting traffic. Maybe we will get a reverse commute option but my anticipation is a lot more traffic around Seminary and 395. The are thrived with the construction of Metro and TOD. Why are we allowing the federal government and especially DoD to put these offices all over the region that are inaccessible except by car? Please stop it, it will cripple our region.

by timfry on Feb 22, 2010 4:38 pm  

1. Like - Dependable, takes me to places I want to go, safe, clean, open early and late.
Dislike - Very crowded sometimes, increasingly less safe, drab stations.

2. More stations, more trains, now and well into the future. Metro needs to expand.

3. I don't mind a fare increase.

Advertising seems sparse in stations. It seems that there could be more opportunities there.

Vendors in stations - You wouldn't want them in crowded areas but they could bring revenue in.

Closing some stations earlier than others. This is done on commuter rail lines all the time.

4. I commute on my bike or walk. I use metro on the weekends, to go to the airport, etc. My use of metro is mostly threatened by my love of biking.

5. Federal agencies like the military use metro extensively. These federal entities - as well as companies that benefit from metro - should become advocates and lobby for its support. Metro is important as a commuting tool but also as a way to move people around in an emergency such as during back-to-back blizzards. Its success is important for national security reasons.

6. Transportation is clearly one of the biggest sues in the DC area and, for all its problems, Metro is critical. So are other forms of non-auto transport.

The Chesapeake is on the verge of collapse. It is the dominant ecological feature of the area and if it is ruined the area will suffer greatly.

Building Regs - I live in Columbia Heights and outdated building regulations required DCUSA to build a parking lot far larger than it needed, costing tax payers and wasting resources. Also, we cannot build the kind of infrastructure that people want - ground-level retail with quality housing above - in many places. Regulations need to change to facilitate proper development that is not reliant on automobiles.

by kenyonstreet on Feb 22, 2010 4:46 pm  

I'll just focus on #2: If you could make a single change at Metro, what would that be?

The subway stations need more effective lighting! Nothing makes waiting for a train for tiresome than trying to read in the dim light of one of those stations where the lights are hidden underneath the overhangs. (And, might I add, those overhangs are turning into giant trash receptacles.) As far as capital improvements go, closing up the overhangs and installing lights that actually light the visible portion of the station would do wonders for improving the quality of our experience while waiting for trains.

by Tom Veil on Feb 22, 2010 5:14 pm  

1. The best thing about Metro is its robust support for central-core-of-DC service. The worst thing about Metro is consistent reliability issues coupled with constant failures to communicate (e.g., *why* don't Metro dispatchers have the ability to communicate directly with Metrobus drivers?).

2. I'll second the suggestion that Metro probably needs to go into receivership, coupled with an establishment of a dedicated funding stream. A steady source of funding by itself would not fix WMATA's systemic problems, which are every bit as pervasive as those that plagued the District government in the 1980s and 1990s (many of which have certainly been reduced during and following the receivership period).

3. The current cycle of increasing fares while also cutting service is clearly not working for Metro, as it historically hasn't worked in other large-city transit systems like SEPTA. It alienates current riders, and discourages new people from taking to transit.

If the system were more reliable in general, and more available during off-peak hours, that would bring more people back to the system. If it takes increasing fares to do that, then do it. Raising fares only just enough to scrape by isn't cutting it. Honestly, I think what might work best is to institute a rush hour congestion charge like London's - it would lead to greater use of transit and could be used to fund the improvements in the system needed to service that increased ridership.

4. If Metro raised its fares significantly without concurrent improvement in service, I'd have to look into alternatives, and as someone who lives in the suburbs, that would mean driving. Or finding a new job outside of the city.

5. A great deal of the load on the Metro system is directly attributable to federal workers. By sheer mass that tends to mean that WMATA's decisions about when, where, and how to spend Metro funds revolve around serving the needs of the federal government. As such, the federal government really needs to be putting more money into the system and be more mindful of how its actions affect the area's transit agencies.

I still can't believe that the federal government just opened back on up on Friday the 12th without seeming to have checked at all with WMATA or any of the neighboring transit agencies about how available their services were going to be. The federal government needs to bear in mind that it's not only setting guidelines for its own employees when making these sorts of decisions, but that its decisions in turn guide or outright dictate most government contractors' expectations as to how and when their employees can report to work.

6. The NCPC should take a greater interest in how the public can take advantage of the facilities/locations for which it is responsible. All the improvements in the world don't do the public any good if they can't readily access them. A comprehensive transportation plan, including things like a funded K Street Transitway, is something the NCPC should take an active role in bringing to fruition.

by Prin on Feb 22, 2010 5:24 pm  

My favorite part of Metro is the consistent station design and the intimate lighting. Metro stations were designed by Chicago architect Harry Weese, and are great examples of late-20th century modern architecture and brutalist design. We must remember that in 2007, the design of the Metro's vaulted-ceiling stations were voted number 106 on the American Institute of Architects' list of "America's Favorite Architecture". The film-noir quality lighting is a critical component of the design and has become as quintessentially Washingtonian as the Lincoln Memorial.

by Foggy Bottom / GW on Feb 22, 2010 5:39 pm  

1. Best? Well, it is attractive in a retro-future sort of way.
Least? No operating discipline in either the rail or
bus divisions, leading to unpredictable and unsafe service.

2. Single change? Metro has lots of long-term problems,
most if not all of which will require complex long-term
solutions. But an excellent and low- (or no-) cost short
term fix would be: GET RID OF THE ANNOYING RECORDED
ANNOUNCEMENTS in the rail stations. Waiting 15-20 minutes
for an overcrowded train is bad enough on its own, but the
messages just make the experience worse and the content is
100% useless. Similarly, the buses are reminding riders
about "upcoming" service changes that happened two months
ago in December.

3. Metro's costs are just as out of control as the rest of
the organization. The notion of a receivership,as expressed
above, seem attractive as a way to effect a turnaround.

4. Stop using the system? My daily commute is a multi-modal
exercise involving the MARC train, two Metro rail segments
and one bus line. It takes 40 minutes to travel 20.5 miles
on MARC and another 40 to travel 2.2 miles on Metro. As
soon as the snow melts off the sidewalks I'm going to cut
Metro out of the loop even though some of the neighbouhoods
are marginal at best - the chance of getting mugged in Shaw
is less alarming than the Gallery Place transfer.

5. Since the federal government is a major stakeholder,
representation on the board seems like a good
idea. For best results bring along some budget authority.

6. What could NCPC do? Letting the city string overhead
wire for streetcars would be a good start.

2. Sorry, I can't keep it to one suggestion.
Obviously you will be told in great detail about how the
failure of the rail control system requires the trains to
pull to the end of station platforms. For the most part this
is merely stupid and annoying, but at Gallery Place it
creates a daily hazardous condition that is intolerable.
I can't believe that nobody is smart enough to figure out
how to safely do a manual train stop in that one station.
Whatever you are told, don't believe it, and push back
until they find a way to do it right - at least there if
nowhere else.

by intermodal commuter on Feb 22, 2010 7:15 pm  

1. I like that, when working correctly, we know exactly how long until a train unlike other transportation systems. I dislike that I have to plan in discrepancies in schedules and long waits when planning on going anywhere, making trans portion by car much more preferable

2. This is broad, but I would make metro a much more central part of the Washington, DC experience for all, including workers, residents and tourists. This would be relationships with offices, apartment buildings, hotels, etc that create a network of feedback on both sides that allows metro to create a schedule and service that makes sense.

3. Ideally Metro could raise more funds from the suburbs and from localities/the government through taxes, but in terms of something metro has more control over, I might add a fee, 25 cents or something, to add money to your ticket/card. This could reduce crowds at the machines while raising funds from tourists and those who don't plan ahead while also forcing people to use metro more by putting more money on their cards at once.

4. Poor customer service, not being near a convenient metro bus or station (having to transfer more than once to get to my destination) and infrequent service would really hurt my chances of using metro. So would a series of frustrating experience, such as frequent delays while I'm on a train I don't have much of a choice to not use it, but I would probably buy a car.

5. The federal representatives should bring more federal money to metro. The government would probably have saved money by equipping metro enough to prevent those multiple closures and delays. You should also work with metro to create a relationship with the agencies in terms of providing support for commuters.

6. Make parts of the city more accessible and give us reasons to go there. Encourage zoning so that different metro hubs can be fun.

by DCDCDCDC on Feb 22, 2010 8:14 pm  

1. I like getting around without owning a car.

2. Lay another track downtown to avoid single-tracking delays. Remove seats from buses, to allow standing room. Fine "sick passengers" $22,000 an hour for halting rail service.

3. Raise fares, parking, fines, and subsidies to cover nearly everything. It will be hideous, but don't sugar-coat the death spiral.

4. Crowding or crime.

5. Broker agreement among the jurisdictions. Take the long view.

6. Focus federal development around transit. Restore functioning transit to the historic corridors that were built for it, such as Route 1 out to Laurel.

by Turnip on Feb 22, 2010 8:38 pm  

Thanks for asking these questions to gather input, Mr. Acosta! Here are my responses:

(1) Best about Metro: offers superior alternative to cars, especially with the addition of NextBus. Worst about Metro: communication, especially in emergencies or on stopped trains, but also a total failure to advertise Metro as the fantastic resource that it can be.

(2) Immediate change: GOOGLE TRANSIT. Metro has been inexcusably short-sighted and willful to refuse and then delay this FREE service that would immediately boost ridership significantly.

(3) First thing is to open the process as wide as possible to public input and allow ALL public contributions (the District's veto of Mr. Zimmerman's proposal in this last round was totally inappropriate and against the public interest). Second thing is to insist that all jurisdictions (including federal) significantly increase funding of WMATA as a matter of urgent public priority (and fairness, considering the gross subsidization of private vehicular transportation). Third thing is to draw a line in the sand that WMATA will NOT cut service and risk triggering a public transit death spiral of irreversible transit demand destruction.

(4) Availability of service and transit options are key factors; if these are reduced, I may not be able to use Metro effectively. I cannot afford car ownership. If Metro eliminates service, I would be forced to turn to Zipcar more often or rely on others for rides, and my quality of life would suffer considerably.

(5) I welcome federal representation on the WMATA Board. I would hope federal reps would increase WMATA's chances of project funding from FTA, better sustained funding from the federal budget (especially given the federal workforce's reliance on Metro), and perhaps even bringing best national practices of transit to the attention of regionally-based Board members?

(6) I would urge you and NCPC to be the biggest champions possible of returning streetcars to the nation's capital. Viewshed issues are easily handled, but NCPC should (if it is not already) be strongly supportive of including streetcars (and the overhead wires to power them) as a critical element of revitalizing DC and realizing the capital's full potential.

by Jeb Stenhouse on Feb 22, 2010 8:58 pm  

1. I love metro because it means that we don't have to blanket the city with parking lots and can just walk everywhere instead. I dislike the long headways at night and on weekends.

2. A rational bus system. The buses are useless to me. Without bus lanes, it is faster to walk, even miles at a time, during rush hour. Riding the bus almost always involves a transfer because the routes are so circuitous. And even with nextbus, the buses are so unreliable and infrequent, I can't ever use them to get to work because I've been burned too many times by waiting 30+ minutes at a bus stop that is supposed to come every 10 minutes.

3. I'm biased as a federal employee who receives a transit subsidy so rate hikes don't effect me. That said, it is pretty unpleasant to live in DC without a car, as I did for two years, with the current level of service. I can't imagine service being reduced anymore.
If metro own any land around metro stations that are filled with surface parking lots, it is throwing away money. There is so much demand to live right next to a metro station, but the space around stations is underutilized much of the time.

4. I stopped taking metro in favor of biking, for the exercise but also because I would get almost anywhere much faster. I also got a car when I could afford it to haul groceries and get out of town. But i still do ride metro quite a bit.

5. The federal government gets a free ride by not having to subside parking for millions of federal employees, but then not paying its share to fund the system. The transit subsidy is not enough because metro loses money on each ride. It should fund all the cost of all federal employees who take it. The federal government should also promote smart growth as an example to other cities, and to reduce greenhouse gases.
6. High-speed rail is vital to the region. If you have ever driven I-95, you know why.

by Tim on Feb 22, 2010 9:09 pm  

1. Best: The transit-oriented living experience that Metro makes possible. Least: The unreliability of the buses.

2. The one single change I would make at Metro would be to instill a culture of openness and civic participation. There are a lot of us riders who care passionately about making Metro a success. I'm sure there are lots of people who work at WMATA who care passionately about Metro. Let's talk.

3. I don't see how WMATA can avoid going to the federal government and the local jurisdictions (but mostly the feds), hat in hand, and demand more money. Without a functioning Metro that isn't hemorrhaging customers, the area will experience gridlock on a regular basis like it's never seen before. And there needs to be a predictable flow of money for the foreseeable future so that WMATA can plan.

4. I'm carless, so I'm in for a rude awakening if WMATA cuts service to the extent that it affects my ability to go where I want to when I want to. If that happens to a lot of us, the rationale collapses for transit-oriented development, and employers and retailers locating near Metro. Where is the tipping point?

5. Because you're not tied to a single jurisdiction, you have the freedom to speak and act for all of us and to focus on the long-term health and growth of the entire system.

6. I just want to echo the calls for greater regional cooperation, coordinated planning. Some of that is going on now, but there needs to be more of it, with more understanding from Richmond and Annapolis that ultimately a vibrant Washington metro area will be good for every inch of their states, and the more they can do to facilitate that the better.

by Matt W on Feb 22, 2010 10:01 pm  

1. I love that the system is comprehensive enough that I can live a car-free life. People complain about the lack of Metro coverage in certain areas of the city, but these people are an example of how under-appreciated Metrobus is. I dislike the complete chaos that is Metrorail service currently. I understand that ATC has been eschewed as a result of the Red Line accident and that has caused scheduled service to go by the way-side as well, but I think that restoring reliable scheduled service must be one of the top, if not THE top priority. In a fiscal climate like the one we're in, scheduled service makes service cuts, in particular reduced headways, much easier to stomach.

2. Metro has an image problem and they make it worse than it needs to be. I would tell the PR/Communications/Customer Service department to wake up. As a transit advocate who's well informed about the issues, I spend a lot of time defending Metro to friends, colleagues, family, and any anyone else because I realize the system is underfunded, beleaguered by aging infrastructure, etc, etc. I'm not paid for this, but supposedly there are people who are and they don't seem to do very well communicating 1)what the problems are 2)how they are addressed 3)the many things Metro is doing right. A little good will goes a long way. Oh, and the escalators. Talk about a blight on the agency's image. Every person I know who's visited DC knows Metro for its broken escalators. The first thing anyone sees of the system is broken 75% of the time. Not a good first impression. Replace some of them with stairs instead of rebuilding the darn things every other week.

3. Like most here have said, I favor fare increases over service cuts, but I'm concerned that the number of people like myself or Michael P who get transit subsidies or benefits who are relatively or completely unaffected by hikes will drown out the voices of those people for whom either option actually has impact, and especially those for whom fare hikes will have a more acute impact. Again, if Metrorail operated on a reliable schedule, longer headways on weekends or late nights would be more palatable because I can plan exactly when I need to be on the platform, rather than knowing regardless when I go that I might wait 1 minute or I might wait 29.

4. Like Matt J, I am transit dependent; I gave up my car in moving to DC because of Metro (you can quote me!). It would take quite a lot of fare hikes to make me stop riding considering the $600/yr in car insurance, $1200/yr in parking & $x in gas & maintenance I'm not paying for me go back to driving. Service cuts are also unlikely to force me back into a car, too. But while both will make me reconsider some discretionary trips I take, it's a lot easier to choose to take the metro home on a Friday night if it's actually running.

5. I disagree with many people that the role of the federal government in WMATA should be different than the role it plays in any other major metropolitan transit system. The federal government gets the same benefits from the Metro system as any other employer in the region, they just happen to be the largest employer. The Fed should not support Metro any more than the FTA already does, except in proportion to the benefits they reap for their employees and their productivity. But then if we want to peg contributions on those benchmarks, ask all of the other regional employees to pony up their fair share.

6. As Neil mentioned, the snow storm really underlined the problems of split jurisdiction throughout the district. The complete lack of coordination or cooperation between the DC government and the various federal entities which have jurisdiction over bits and pieces of the District is a vestige of early DC which has since gone from practical to obstructive. Let's break down the silos!

by Erik W on Feb 22, 2010 10:02 pm  

1. Best is the mobility. After living in Michigan for three years, I was thrilled to move to a city where I didn't need to use a car to get everywhere. Worst are the wait times--particularly late at night. If there are 20 minute waits and I need to transfer between two lines, I may be looking at a really long trip home.

2. I would fix the jerky, nausea-inducing way that trains have been driving. I know that trains are on manual control since the June accident, but that doesn't mean that they can't drive more smoothly. I'm not sure if the level of disruption is clear, but as just one example, I was on a Red Line train last Wednesday that came to five full stops between RI Ave and Brookland--and that's not to mention the other jerky slowing and accelerating. This really sort of thing has literally making me nauseous on many occasions--and I'm not unique in this.

3. Try to raise funds in ways that won't drive away customers. Yes, there are many feds and others who get their fares covered--but I have to doubt that's a majority of the ridership! The more that increased can come from those who are still likely to ride, the better--tourists come to mind as one major group (so long as Metro is still cheaper than cabs!). I also think that localities and the federal government really need to kick in more, as every driver and employer in the area benefits from the Metro in the form of reduced congestion, even if they never set foot on a train or bus.

4. I'm not sure about flat-out stopping, but even now, I often make cost-benefit calculations. How long would I be waiting for a train or bus at this hour? How's the weather, if I'd be waiting outside? Would it be better to walk or even take a cab? The longer the waits, and the higher the fares, the less benefit to taking Metro.

5. A major role. Primarily in safety oversight. The fatal accidents, killing both passengers and workers, simply must stop. It's a moral outrage, and that takes precedence. Beyond that, the federal gov can help in pushing for more federal money (Metro is, after all, essential to the government workforce), in using a bully pulpit to get more local and regional funding.

6. I'd love to see NCPC push smart growth, particularly along the Purple Line in areas like Langley Park, where development risks destroying local businesses.

by mistergoat on Feb 22, 2010 10:22 pm  

Now that I see the last comment from "intermodalcommuter" I have to second his motion. The Shady Grove bound Red Line trains at Gallery Place are an enormous commuter problem and safety hazard when they pull all the way to the end of the platform. In a station that is already poorly designed, Metro should not willingly exacerbate the problem!

by Erik W on Feb 22, 2010 10:22 pm  

1. What I like best is that I can get to work with a 20 minute walk followed by a 10 minute ride (and vice versa). What I like least are the poor communications that sometimes flow -- poor in the sense of being non-existent and/or inaudible. There are some exceptions to this -- some train operators that do an excellent job -- and those operators should give lessons to everyone else. I also hate it when people obstruct seats while others are standing, and I hate it when people insist on sharing seats when there are completely empty seats to be had. Not sure there's much you can do about that -- maybe some announcements?

2. I really hate it when I get to the Cleveland Park Metro in the morning, still during rush hour, and see that there won't be a train heading downtown for 10 minutes, but there are 3 going out to the suburbs empty in the next 5 minutes. Can't one of those trains be turned around before it reaches Shady Grove?

3. Raise the fares.

4. My other mode of transit is walking. I generally choose walking over Metro when a) I feel like walking (any distance); b) the distance is a mile or less; c) it's Sunday afternoon and I need a 30s bus and I know it's not reliable then so I walk bus stop to bus stop and get home before the bus comes.

5. I think, first, that you should ride Metro (including buses) regularly and speak from experience, not from some policy wonk station in the sky. And listen to your riders.

6. I would like all agencies involved to put more focus on the point that walking is a fundamental human right and that pedestrians should not be sacrificed on the altar of the church of worshipping driving.

by Eileen on Feb 23, 2010 12:28 am  

1. Like two minute headways along MetroRail at rush hour; dislike stuffed trains pulled all the way to one end of the station (limiting access to the remaining space in Car 1)

2. One change: leadership that can think long-term: the system is aging and it doesn't appear that the resources are available to rebuild it, as will increasingly be critical in the next decade or two

3. Budget: a business case has to be made to area governments and business interests that affordable transit is their lifeblood/growth sector...pitting operations against capital investments in a fixed-sized resource pie is doom...

4. I'd stop using Metro if it were unsafe either because of unaddressed crime or if it became an unreliable way to work. I'd drive instead when weather doesn't permit me to bike or walk the 2 mile trip.

5. Metro is a jewel in the Capitol's crown; it would be a shame and a considerable economic drag for it to lose its luster. Since the Federal Government contribution is to the capital (v. operating) budget, it would be wise for it to press for a sustainable (economically as well as environmentally) capital plan for Metro.

6. Nothing leaps to mind beyond supporting and promoting the best initiatives of area governments toward walkable, livable cities.

by Kim T on Feb 23, 2010 12:41 am  

1. I like the fact that there is bus or rail service at, or nearby, virtually all locations that I want to be at. I don't like that it may involve very long waits or not be available later in the evening.
2. Increased frequency.
3. I strongly prefer fare raises to service cuts or shifting away from the capital budget. Metro really needs to work on getting stronger financial commitments from the jurisdictions that are serviced or the federal government - it should be clear how much it benefits all of them.
4. Reduced headways at night would almost certainly cause me to switch to a cab vs. Metro (in particular, vs. Metrorail). Bus reliability is generally acceptable, but if that were to fall I would probably start walking or biking instead of taking the bus.
5. More advocacy for the system in general, more $, anything related to making transit a bigger role in our community.
6. Take better care of downtown/national mall. It quite often looks a bit shabby; yet this is supposed to be the symbol of the richest, most powerful country on earth to thousands of tourists from overseas.

by Matt on Feb 23, 2010 12:50 am  

The ONE thing I would suggest that would improve METRO would be to completely change the relationship between the METRO Rail Station Managers and METRO. The station managers are THE main face to the public. They are the eyes and ears of metro and are in a unique position to absorb input from the public to have issues such as maintenance, safety, security and improvements considered and acted upon. Currently there is no accountability by METRO to their station managers for any issues reported to METRO. These employees are left to deal with the public with little knowledge about what, when and how issues are considered and resolved. I think changing the positions and responsibilities of the station managers so they are part of an informed team at metro together with the people that provide maintenance, safety, security and quality initiatives would improve the bridge between the public and metro. Hopefully, the communication would be frequent and continuous amongst the station managers and metro support staff and staff management. Station Managers should have input into the priorities of what gets attention and have insight into the "ticket" system of issues that are being addressed including who is responsible for addressing problems and the expected completion date for resolving issues.

Many times I have had a station manager ask me to be the "squeaky wheel" to metro management and metro board members to get situations resolved because internal processes don't work. These are for simple situations like water leaks, non-working lighting, dirt covered signage, non-operating passenger information displays, abandoned bicycles filling the bike racks, etc. etc. You can see years of history of these types of items at this web site: http://northrosslyn.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/frm/f/6856007081

I wish you the best if you join the metro board and hope you can improve this wonderful and essential asset of the Greater Washington community.

Paul Derby, Board Member and Webmaster
North Rosslyn Civic Association

by Paul Derby on Feb 23, 2010 8:03 am  

1. I like most that the system is clean. I dislike most Metro's often-poor communications. This poor communication translates to a lot of different areas. For example, if there is a dangerous number of people crowding onto platforms at Rosslyn or somewhere, why not send out a text alert to everyone who has subscribed to alerts from that station? Communication.

2. If I could make a single change to Metro, it would be to fix the culture of disrespect for customers. (Station managers tend to be the worst about this.) If I ask where this bus is going, don't assume I'm an idiot to be talked down to. Be helpful and courteous, and try your best to help people get where they're going.

3. Let's be honest, here: there is *zero* chance that these fare increases are temporary. They're permanent. The way I'd try to address future shortfalls, though, would be to try to drastically reduce labor costs. No bus driver in the world should make six figures, even here. I'm willing to endure a few weeks of strike and reduced service if it means returning labor costs to a sane level. (Normally, I'm incredibly pro-labor, but Metro's CBA is just plain bad.)

4. What would get me to stop using Metro? More than anything else, safety. Second to that, though, is reliability. I'd rather have a train show up exactly every half-hour (...and accurately reflect that on the web site and info boards! See, communication!) than have a train show anywhere between 10 and 40 minutes with no indication about what's going on. One of the big benefits to public transit should be its reliability, and Metro may lose me as a customer if it continues to be unreliable.

5. Change whatever needs to be changed. There are no sacred institutions; proud nails should be hammered down.

6. I really like McMillan Two when you add in Neil Flanagan's suggestions. It seems to me that the NCPC is the only group that can pull that sort of thing together. I don't think the National Mall is being taken care of well enough.

by yatesc on Feb 23, 2010 9:19 am  

1a. I like that Metro is a system that provides good connections through the region and makes it managable to be car-free outside the downtown core; having cut my teeth on systems with poor-to-nonexistent night/weekend service or with strict hub-and-spoke setups, Metro as an agency excels at this.

1b. I don't like that Metro doesn't offer joint bus and rail passes or passes that are reasonably priced. I think the pass system should be overhauled for joint passes like all of Metro's peer agencies (MTA-NYC, SEPTA, MBTA, CTA, etc.).

2a. Unrealistically: Additional track connections to allow for interlining, I think one between the Blue/Orange and Green/Yellow would allow for some relief for rush hour trains heading into Virginia.

2b. Realistically: Expand Arlington-to-DC bus service, reestablish service across the American Legion and Wilson bridges (an NH2 running King St-National Harbor-Southern Ave would be a good way to restore the old NH1), try to cooperate with areas outside the WMATA compact for special service. I think it might be time to try Waldorf to Branch Ave again and take up the Annapolis to New Carrollton route MTA foolishly abandoned; Columbia, Leesburg, and possibly even a Saturday-only Woodbridge/Manassas route would also work, IMO.

3. More advertising on trains/buses/stations. Set up vendors in stations outside fare control (if Chicago and Montreal can sell food outside fare control and ban it on trains, so could DC). Put a surcharge on fares not on SmarTrip on the rail side. Like with many other things, this is another thing that many people under estimated when building the system that could be fixed.

4. If Metro cut service to the bone, I'd be looking for someone to help me get my driver's license. Past a certain age, it isn't easy. I've managed on worse than Metro before, I could do it again.

5. I think the federal representative should listen to the input of their constituents (i.e. Metro riders) to give input about how things really may be. Given the near-universal situation of most transit agency board members being non-riders, they might not notice things that riders see.

6. Part of me wants to say to prod Prince George's County, but to be serious to find a sane solution regarding overhead wires in the District. I can get trying to protect monumental viewsheds, but there are areas on the fringe on the L'Enfant city where an exemption on streetcar wires could be put into place (H St NE a big one). If there was an exemption put into place for the Northeast Corridor wires, I think some streets outside the core could get the same.

by Jason on Feb 23, 2010 9:23 am  

I commute by Metrobus. I use Metro trains to go to church on Sundays. My favorite thing about the system is its coverage -- I can usually find a bus or train that will get me where I need to go. Plus I can read a book instead of stressing over traffic. And it's good for the environment.

My one change would be to increase the frequency of bus service on more routes. At 15-20 minutes apart on many routes I'm at the point where I'm only riding because I am a strong believer in public transportation -- it would be much easier and faster for me to drive most of the time. I've spent some time using the system in London, where most major streets have bus service every 5 minutes (or less). To most people it's then a no-brainer to use the bus. Of course, there's also a daily fee for driving your car in London -- that doesn't hurt either in driving people to use the bus.

I'm willing to pay more for more frequent service -- the bus could get a lot more expensive before it's even with the cost of parking a car at work. But waiting 20 minutes for the J2 bus in the cold rain last night had me wishing I had paid the $8 parking. I am really concerned that with any service reductions more and more people -- possibly including myself -- would decide it's just not worth it to wait for the train or the bus.

I think local jurisdictions that build roads should have to dedicate some of their transportation funding to Metro. It's keeping people off their roads and saving them money. Maybe developers should have to kick in money too. People have to have a way to get around, and Metro has to be part of that solution or we'll all be sitting in traffic all day, every day.

by Elizabeth on Feb 23, 2010 10:12 am  

1 - I like that I can take Metro rail or bus to get around the region from where I live to most of the places I need to go. I purchased a condo near a metro station specifically for this purpose. I dislike the talk about service cuts and eliminations - specifically 30 minute trains and 6 car rush hour. Have you been on the red or orange line during rush hour??

2 - Unions and Pensions. These were great in the 70s and 80s. Lucritive benefits provided in the past that can't be sustained now need to be cut. I'll pay more at the farebox and I'll pay more in taxes so that jurisdictions can pay more for their share, but metro employees need to join the equation. I've gone 2 years without a raise and have had double % increase in healthcare costs. Have they?

3 - Fares have to go up. The off peak (er reduced fare) should be increased. Everyone should pay more rather than reduce service. Metro should also do more to show customers what our $ is paying for. All over DC you see signs that the road is being fixed through DC and Federal funds. Show us our money at work. And btw, why does an escelator take 2-3 months to replace? (Referring to the upgrades taking place at Gallery Place)

4 - Service cuts and the continued lack of safety and accountability would make me leave metro. I could take Circulator to work. My daily routine would require more expensive zipcar or taxi access.

5 - Federal representative should ensure that the federal metro funding match is applied towards capital projects that will lead to a safer, more reliable metro system that the nation can be proud of.

6 - Smart, green, growth - and metro is a key to this working!

by Chris on Feb 23, 2010 10:33 am  

1. The thing I like best is that I can get around, without having to use my car. I can travel from Virginia to Baltimore using public transportation for a minimal cost, if I want to spend the day doing it. The thing I like the least is the crowding, safety issues, and delays. I think the crowding is related to the delays and service interruptions. I can not stand on a crowded metro car for 30 minutes while I commute to work in the morning, I wish I could but I just can’t take the crowds.
2. I would have metro have a dedicated funding source by raising taxes so that services and safety could be increased and improved. More people would get off the roads and ride the metro system if the services were better.
3. Again, I’d get a dedicated outside funding source. It costs me more money to park at the metro station and ride the metro in than it does to drive in and park. I also think that WMATA should sell advertizing space in all its stations and trains and let vendors come into the system for fees. The stations could use some color and we could use the revenue.
4. I am the 3rd person in my office who has stopped riding metro, all of us have been riding metro for over 7 years and we found that the crowded trains and service delays are too much for us. One of my colleagues even went out and bought a car so she would not have to ride metro. I’ll ride it on days and times when it is not too crowded but seriously, WMATA needs to add more trains to the orange line during rush hour. We are all driving and adding to the congested roads and air pollution.
5. I think that you can use your connections to write legalization and advocate for more and better funding sources for WMATA.
6. Is it possible for NCPC to educate local officials and promote smarter planning policies? And controlled smarter development.

by Lucy on Feb 23, 2010 10:57 am  

1. The best points about the Metro system are its convenience and coverage. Sure, we still need to expand it, but a rider can get around plenty well without a car on the system, and that's a huge plus. Unfortunately, the system is also incredibly unreliable. It's difficult to rely on the Metro to commute when a breakdown could literally halt the entire line.

2. RAISE FARES. Look, I don't like the idea of paying more for my commute than I do now, but the system desperately needs funding. My commute from Ballston to Metro Center costs me $2.70 round trip minimum, $4.40 during rush hour. But that's peanuts compared to what it would cost to drive (gas, wear and tear) and park (parking downtown is $250/month in one garage near my office). Yes, Metro should be a discount compared to using a car, but I think riders are willing to pay more to sustain and improve service.

3. Again, I'd point to raising fares. I don't think service cuts are sustainable. The Orange Line is almost always packed in the mornings, and cutting trains would just make that worse. I'm sure the Red Line is just as bad, if not worse. There are ways to raise revenue without an across-the-board increase, too - I very much like the idea of congestion pricing for the most-trafficked stations. An extra quarter, maybe, to exit at Farragut West, Metro Center, Ballston and some others should raise some decent cash.

4. If Metro were to be come so unreliable that I couldn't get to work on time, I'd stop taking it. This actually happened in 2008 - that summer, there were substantial delays all week (fire on the tracks almost every day) and I was regularly late. At the end of the week, I gave up and reserved a parking space at a nearby garage. Driving wasn't fun, but it gave me more control over my commute.

5. I'm not sure exactly what the federal representatives should be doing. With the federal workforce relying so heavily on Metro, I'm inclined to suggest that they should focus on sustaining service. The government can't run well if Metro isn't running.

6. None offhand, but if you continue to focus on smart growth and not being car-centric, I'll be happy.

by Michael on Feb 23, 2010 10:58 am  

1. Best - overall reliability. Cheaper than parking. Numerous downtown stations. Least - crowded trains / infrequent service / crowded buses and too many stops on many bus lines.

2. Increase frequency of trains.

3. I saw that fares had not kept up with inflation so I have no problem with raising fares. This is better than reducing service. If you're going to reduce service, why can't you at least then run longer trains when they do come? Please don't slash capital budget, this will only make things worse in the future. For the long term - is there any way to transition to a driverless system, a la Vancouver? I am generally not in favor of adding additional advertising to trains or stations. What about the discussion of adding services at stations as a way to add some additional revenue?

4. If my own income went up significantly, I might drive to work and pay the parking. If Metro fares went up significantly, I might drive to work if I was no longer saving much money by riding Metro (as compared to parking downtown). If the Orange Line began experiencing the persistent delays that the Red line has recently suffered through, I might be inclined to stop riding and either take a bus or drive. If breakdowns increased noticeably in frequency, I might be inclined to drive or take the bus.

5. A great question. Perhaps enforcing safety and maintenance standards. Auditing the system? Beefing up Metro's OIG or equivalent. Examining the finances and correcting any problems there. In general, I don't see a role for the federal government in running a local transit agency. But I guess this is a special case, being in the capital city....

6. Working with local jurisdictions to get them to adopt smart growth policies. Helping local jurisdictions to promote themselves as destinations (for economic activity, for tourism, as great places to live, etc.) Working with local jurisdictions to protect and enhance the natural environment.

by Josh S on Feb 23, 2010 11:00 am  

1. Best: It's still a relatively cheap way to get around.
Worst: Safety and other management-related problems.

2. Permanent, dedicated funding!!! We need to address the huge, long-term capital funding shortfalls.

3. In the short term, we're not getting a dramatic increase in funding, so there will have to be a combination of service cuts and fare increases. My hope is the service cuts will be so unpleasant that it will push the region to fix the long-term problems.

4. Continued breakdown in safety and reliability. I'd have to buy a car; it's the only other way I could get to work.

5. At this point I'm starting to think a Federal takeover would be for the best - that way Senators would have to stop grandstanding and the Federal government would have to acknowledge that by far the biggest problem is that the system is under-funded.

by Arnold on Feb 23, 2010 11:16 am  

Marcel! A voice from the past here, alum of Ed Uhlir's planning group at the Chicago Park District.

I was in DC three weeks ago and come out there periodically for work. I LOVE the Metro system (stations designed by that great Chicago architect, Harry Weese). And that, IMHO, is its greatest strength and weakness. Central area service is terrific, especially for a city as relatively small as DC. Yes the stations are too dim to read in for a long time but they're also...calm. No loud music, bad street musicians or visual noise either.

Even with the expansions and new lines developed over the past 40 years, the rail side of the system, the WMATA flagship, really, needs to expand further. The down side of that is the challenge of expanding a system that was expensive to begin with, both stations and rolling stock, in terms of startup cost.

The win-win - which is where your day job comes in, Marcel - is to do extensions that pay for themselves. Your hometown of Chicago has CTA access to both airports. Right now the blue line goes to National but Dulles is a convoluted Metrobus transfer. Chicago is building and express station in Block 37 to get you even faster to O'Hare from (what is now Macy's but really is) Marshall Fields and the Daley center on an express train. The plan as you know is to also have the Loop station offer TSA screened baggage check with dedicated baggage cars on the express trains.

Build an extension that runs express from Rosslyn to Dulles and treat it as a tollway, but make it a regular distance based fare when paid for with a monthly or weekly pass. Compared to $65 (or more) in a cab, you could add $10 to the Farecard charge to and from the Rosslyn station and no one would blink. The revenue stream from business and tourist traffic would be huge.

I have to miss the call, out of the office, but I look forward to reading it online this afternoon.

by Eric Davis on Feb 23, 2010 11:17 am  

1.) Best: very fast transport for longer distances, especially at rush hour
Worst: Unreliable bus service

2.) Focus on better management of bus service. Even achieving the current promised levels of service would do wonders. Buses frequently are too full to board, bunch together, and don't come at promised frequency. Buses often (at least once a week) fail to show up at all. On lines with 15-20 minute headways, that is simply unworkable.

3.) Raise fares, eliminate or reduce off-peak discount.

4.) Frequently walk, because bus service is so unreliable. Also drive.

by Daniel on Feb 23, 2010 11:31 am  

1. The entire network is a thing of beauty at rush hour. I like the ability to get across or into town, and know roughly how long it will take. A close second are the next bus and next train applications that allow more predictability, though they could be improved. Least - the weekend and evening long headways. Living on the Silver Spring side of the Red Line, I have to transfer to get home from anywhere beyond Dupont Circle, so the possibility of 2 20 minute waits usually equals a drive into the city (and certainly Virginia) on nights and weekends, even when I'd rather take Metro.

2) Better communication with riders - common sense steps like Google Transit, delay announcements that are in real English, instead of the same formula, etc.

3) Local contributions are key, but beyond that, I'd like to see underperforming bus routes either cut or brought to market rate, much like the Fairfax Connector did with their express routes. I also believe that MetroAccess should pay their fair share. If market prices were charged, it may be cheaper to use a taxi or other service in some circumstances.

4) Increased headways on both bus and rail, and decreased reliability.

5) I believe that the federal members should be a counterweight to the parochial interests of each state on the board.

6) Streamline, streamline, streamline. I believe it took 20 years to get the design of the blue directional signs downtown approved. Once again, bring back some common sense! I think this question is best for another post.

Thanks for the chat!!!!!!!!

by Joe in SS on Feb 23, 2010 11:53 am  

All,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments and advice. The observations about WMATA and NCPC are very constructive and I appreciate your willingness to share your views. If you haven't had an opportunity to respond to the questions, please continue to submit your answers as I will check this page over the coming days.

I look forward to future conversations about the future of Metro and planning in the nation's capital.

Regards,
Marcel Acosta

by Marcel Acosta on Feb 23, 2010 3:25 pm