by Lucre on Nov 24, 2010 9:12 am  

by Erik Weber on Nov 24, 2010 9:29 am  

Whatever the offer, Comedy Central didn't take it. If Metro simply offered to open early--that would have been unlikely to help and it would have been no wonder CC didn't take it. If it was to run more trains during normal service hours, I think it's still an open question whose responsibility it is to make sure there's enough service during normal service hours. Is there any precedent--outside of presidential inaugurations--in which private event organizers pay for more service during normal hours?

by thm on Nov 24, 2010 10:46 am  

A "normal" level of service that weekend would have even been more acceptable than what was offered during the rally. Thanks to maintenance, there were points in the day when trains were running on close to 10-15 minute headways.

The past two weekends, I noticed that Metro offered a *greatly* improved weekend service pattern on the Red Line by turning trains around at New York Ave, to avoid the single-tracking around the RI Ave Station. If anything, trains were running more frequently downtown than usual.

Even though it sucks for the people traveling through the effected areas, this seems like a much more sane way to do maintenance (no pun intended).

Metro needs to establish performance criteria. IMO, a 15-minute headway should *never* be an acceptable level of performance, unless customers are explicitly made aware of the fact beforehand.

by andrew on Nov 24, 2010 10:58 am  

Transit's role is to move people. Most large events in DC are fairly easy to track. Sports games are announced months in advance, and the same goes for demonstrations of any kind. WMATA should monitor that and adjust their service accordingly. It's their job. And it really can't be that hard to have some extra operators ready to ride some extra trains when trains fill up a bit more than originally planned.

I would encourage WMATA to engage more into selling event passes such as the Mass Pass when the pope visited. Why not sell special collector's items "Sanity and/or Fear" day passes for a buck or two extra?

And let me be very clear: I do think that organizers of events are responsible for all cost directly related to the event at the event site. It's easiest to describe this with the example of a stadium event. Within the stadium, organizers should be completely responsible for all cost, and in compliance with local ordinances and the law in general. Outside the stadium, it's up to local authorities. Authorities should realize those cost when they authorize the stadium and make sure they tax the stadium appropriately to offset that cost. Around a stadium, and around an event, I expect the organization and local authorities to collaborate, so that neither party gets blind-sighted. Most logically, organizers should tell local authorities the date and time of events and the expected crowds, so that authorities can deal with road closures and extra transit. Furthermore, local authorities should give appropriate feedback about safety measures to organizers. I'd say you need some more safety folks when organizing a "We love terror" event on Independence day than around a "Disney on Ice" show three weeks before Christmas.

Finally, we should realize that events in DC are good for all of us. Yeah sure, WMATA may have to pay for a few extra trains, but many demonstrators come and stay here, spending many trip dollars on local taxes, and creating (or maintaining) many jobs in the region. It is out of those dollars that WMATAs extra cost should be offset.

by Jasper on Nov 24, 2010 11:19 am  

I tried to find any detail whatsoever on the methodology of this "study" which of course most sources omit, as well as any reference to the actual study so skeptics can find out for themselves what really was done here. The details are slim but here's enough to reveal this study is a total joke:

"13 adult cyclists in Melbourne were given helmet-mounted video cameras and asked to film 12 hours of commuting each over a four-week period."

Can anyone out there imagine why this might be a problem?

Could the fact that the study participants were not only actively, knowingly involved in a study on bike accidents, but actually wearing cameras on their heads so they knew their every move would be recorded, possibly have influenced their behavior in any way? Beyond that the number of data points is vanishingly small.

Absolutely worthless "research." The fact that even 10% of the accidents were the fault of the cyclist is surprisingly high.

by Jamie on Nov 24, 2010 11:23 am  

Adding more money to the institutions that are critical to daily and long term economic survival --transportation (WMATA), welfare(endless contracts) and schools (DCPS), won't make any of those services better --that's been clear for anyone who has paid attention for the past 20+ years. Adding more money has simply allowed dysfunction to persist and grow. Paying the same people, the same amount of money to do the same job will not increase the quality of that job. The same is true for our schools.

As an adult, one who like most folks in the city, would be out on the street within the loss of two pay cycles, I can't support a candidate who wants to throw more money at a system without first having a plan to institute fiscal and process reform within the existing budgetary framework. Once reform is underway, adding additional money to fund additional services can be debated openly and honestly. However simply paying more for status quo, when status quo overshot it's predicted budget is unacceptable.

by Jim Bob on Nov 24, 2010 11:25 am  

Second, the amount of money brought into our economy by 200,000 people being here for a weekend is surely in the millions.

The idea that we should make people PAY to bring tourists into the city is just so typical of the backwards, Hazzard-county approach that DC loves to take when it comes to our bread and butter: the people who spend money here. Let's have a commuter tax! Let's put speeding cameras 395 right after the speed limit drops, even though there's no safety problem!

Can we please stop treating our visitors and workers like the enemy?

It should not be the job of event planners to help a city deal with an event that in DC is extremely common. It should be the job of WMATA to be prepared to ramp up service on-demand. And we, as a city, and a region, should be happy to fund WMATA at the levels it needs to deal with these things, since we make out like bandits every time a couple hundred thousand folks come to town and spend their money.

by Jamie on Nov 24, 2010 11:31 am  

So, surely when you want to defund WMATA, you also want to defund DDOT right? Because let's face it traffic is a mess in DC. Congestion everywhere, and let's not even start about the road and side-walk conditions.

by Jasper on Nov 24, 2010 11:41 am  

Nice strawman but no one called for defunding WMATA. What Jim Bob said is that any increase in funding should be tied to "fiscal and process reform" and I, for one, would love to see that standard applied to both WMATA and DDOT. Both agencies have serious problems (although I would argue that WMATA's are far more severe) which will not be solved by just throwing more money at them without any kind of accountability for how it is spent.

by Jacob on Nov 24, 2010 12:06 pm  

DC Statehood Now.

by Nate on Nov 24, 2010 12:08 pm  

Nate: How would Statehood resolve this? Loading up outrageous commuter taxes so people move businesses out, while adding a new layer of govt bureaucrats? Or do you honestly believe they won't just add "State" offices on top of the existing city ones?

DC Retrocession to MD Now!

by John on Nov 24, 2010 3:57 pm  

by Jasper on Nov 24, 2010 4:40 pm