If you were waiting for a big debate over eliminating late-night Metro service at Thursday’s WMATA Board meeting, you’d be disappointed. General Manager Paul Wiedefeld presented the same information he’d announced publicly, the board asked no questions, and that was it.

Officials definitely heard from riders loud and clear, however. Riders have sent over 2,400 emails through our petition to Wiedefeld, Chairman Jack Evans, and the board. You can still contact them using this form or just sign up for updates as this issue progresses here.

This wasn’t the meeting to really debate the (very bad) proposal. That would come later. Before any proposal would take effect, as I understand it, several things would have to happen:

  • Paul Wiedefeld would more formally propose the change as a board agenda item.
  • A board committee (presumably the Customer Service and Operations Committee) would discuss the issue further. This is where board members would hopefully ask the tough questions.
  • The committee would send it to the full board, which would also discuss it.
  • The board would have to vote to start the formal public hearing process.
  • Metro would organize public hearings around the region.
  • Separately, Metro would have to do a Title VI analysis to be sure the change doesn’t unduly burden lower-income riders. That’s far from a foregone conclusion — Boston’s MBTA is facing federal scrutiny for not doing this analysis before cutting its late-night service.
  • The board could then vote to cut the late-night service, if it chose.

One major hurdle: DC could veto this (as early as the first board vote). Under Metro’s compact, at least one vote must come from each of DC, Maryland, and Virginia for any proposal to pass. Both of DC’s voting members, Jack Evans and Corbett Price, have publicly stated their opposition. Unless one of them changes his mind, the cuts can’t happen.

(Meanwhile, Maryland rep Michael Goldman has said he’s for it. Goldman is also the same guy who refused to put money in a fund for retirement benefits, refused to pay Maryland’s share of the 5A bus to Dulles, and opposed using new 7000 series cars to make more 8-car trains.)

Here are the questions that need to be asked

The public needs and deserves much more information so we can weigh in before board members start debating this. It’s too bad some of the members didn’t take the opportunity of Thursday’s meeting to ask, but riders can, we can (and will), and board members will have more chances later.

There are three major questions right now:

  1. Why is closing the ENTIRE system necessary, as opposed to targeted closures? What are the other options here? Could Metro close one line, or one segment, early on each weekend (or, heck, close it all weekend) for repairs? Metro workers won’t be on every bit of track at once, right? So why does this have to be a blanket thing?
  2. What would be the best alternative? Let’s say Metro persuades us that ending late-night service is necessary. How can Metro still provide a way for workers and entertainment patrons to get home safely and affordably, without using rail? A robust night owl bus network whose routes mimic the rail routes as much as possible? Or what about companies that are trying to offer more flexible, on-demand shared van transit especially for low-ridership scenarios? Wiedefeld said he’s not secretly doing this to cut costs. But it’s true that running Metrorail late is expensive. With all or even just some of that money, what’s the best way to get people where they need to go?
  3. What about big events? Also, though, late night service is not always low-ridership. When there are sports contests, major concerts, and other big events on weekends, huge mobs enter the system at places like Navy Yard or Gallery Place at once. Rail can handle this; buses can’t. Will event organizers pay to extend service? Would Metro even allow them to, if closing the whole system every weekend is supposedly necessary for maintenance?

I, at least, don’t want to ever say “no way, I won’t hear it” from Metro about anything. But neither is “we need to, just because, and no we don’t have an alternative plan” sufficient. I hope before moving forward with any proposal, Metro officials will thoroughly and publicly study other scenarios for closing less, and alternatives that still achieve transit’s purpose if closing early really is necessary.

We’ll be doing more actions on this issue as it progresses. If you want to stay up to date on that so you can speak up at the right time, fill out the form below.

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.