Greater Greater Washington

Transit


DOT heads to take charge of WMATA governance reform

DDOT, MDOT and VDOT have been planning how to enact some of the recently proposed WMATA governance reforms. The plan highlights a good set of proposals for immediate action, but cuts out Northern Virginia governments in a way that could hurt the region and Metro.


Photo by veneman on Flickr.

The "implementation plan" (PDF) examines the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Riders' Advisory Council reports (PDFs). It rejects the somewhat unworkable idea from the Board of Trade to create a new super-board with members from DC, Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government to set standards for WMATA Board members, appoint a regional chair, and generally oversee the board.

Instead, it suggests that the DDOT Director and Maryland and Virginia Secretaries of Transportation work together as a less formal, temporary working group to set those standards, which makes a lot more sense.

The plan makes particular mention of a key element of the RAC report which BOT/COG glossed over: the importance of helping the WMATA Board focus on high-level policies and performance metrics instead of trying to get into the weeds of exactly how many cents SmarTrips should be allowed to go negative or which escalators seem to be out more often.

It also asks the working group to analyze one of the other major RAC recommendations, creating a better-defined public input process for board decisions.

Finally, the plan also puts off decisions on many of the specific BOT/COG proposals, some of which are sensible while others are unwise. The informal working group will evaluate those specifics over the next year and draft potential legislation to be introduced in the 2012 legislative session.

Unfortunately, this cuts Arlington, Fairfax, Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax City, Loudoun, Montgomery and Prince George's local officials out of the decisions about which BOT/COG or RAC recommendations to implement. It's particularly problematic for the Northern Virginia counties and cities, who are the ones that pay for Metro.

The state government has long shown a reluctance to help fund transit in Northern Virginia, and Governor McDonnell's recent "great time to build roads" transportation plan continues in that tradition. Will NoVA governments have as much incentive to put up their own limited money when a Secretary of Transportation who's from another party and has political ambitions of his own is negotiating on their behalf?

DC and Maryland officials who deal with WMATA communicated a feeling that it's easier to work with one single state government than an association of local governments. Projects sometimes have to be split into more pieces so that Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria can participate, and some decisions take longer because the three need to coordinate and talk with the smaller cities as well.

However, this ignores the political realities. The DDOT and MDOT officials are prioritizing the convenience of doing their own jobs over the fact that Northern Virginia has a regional interest that Richmond lacks. If the state government wants to start contributing more meaningfully to Metro and make a long-term commitment, then it deserves more of a role in the governance.

During the RAC's deliberations, riders expressed appreciation for having local officials making decisions. Local officials are more responsive to riders and more directly aware of the actual issues on the ground versus just the theories. State DOTs, on the other hand, are notorious for being out of touch with residents, as this video so hilariously points out. MDOT and VDOT, especially VDOT, have not been exceptions. While I can see why state DOT officials would find it appealing to make WMATA more like a state DOT, other officials and riders should view this effort with skepticism.

If the Northern Virginia governments had actually been the problem with Metro, there would be sense in suggesting a more centralized decisionmaking structure, but if anything they have been some of the best board members and the strongest advocates for a good system. Their localities have also done the most to merge land use and transportation planning, in Arlington's case for decades, and with Fairfax making it a priority with the more recent Tysons plans.

On another note, while the writers of the report acknowledge the Riders' Advisory Council report as well as the Board of Trade/COG task force report, the appendix only lists three bullet points where the RAC report makes recommendations not in the BOT/COG report. It omits the rest of the letter that was taken from, which also lists the areas the RAC disagrees with BOT/COG.

That could be misleading, and the RAC is putting out a press advisory to clarify the situation. It seems unprofessional to excerpt the letter in this way. If the authors didn't want to call attention to the opposition to some ideas, the report could easily instead have simply listed the original list of recommendations (PDF, page 7) from the actual RAC report, like it listed the Board of Trade recommendations.

The WMATA Board is already changing. At least 6 of its 14 members will be new this year, and likely several more as well. The new board has a great opportunity to start governing well. If they succeed, perhaps all of these changes to appointment procedures and the like will be unnecessary. If so, the question will be whether the Secretaries of Transportation can put their own political interests aside and avoid pushing for too many "reforms."

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

The subject of WMATA governance was extensively discussed at last week's Alexandria Transportation Committee meeting, and Alexandria as a general rule doesn't like ANYBODY's plan right now, because they feel it cuts them out directly.

I should probably write up a blog post on it.

by Froggie on Jan 10, 2011 5:11 pm • linkreport

I continue to feel that there is no need for yet another layer of quasi-legislative oversight on\at WMATA.

The fundamental problem here is the needed institutional evolution and maturation of the WMATA board, senior WMATA management, the constituent jurisdictions and the daily working relationship between those three.

WMATA need to evolve into a mature "middle age", multi-jurisdictional, multi-modal transit agency emphasizing operations, maintenancee and modernization, contrasted with what it still badly wants to pretend it is: a growing, principally design and construction-oriented, agency that is looking for newer, greener transit fields to conquer, so to speak.

The jurisdictions, for their part, need to accelerate this maturation process by putting people on the WMATA board who will, in fact, act out on a core recommendation of the RAC and Council of Governments\Board of Trade reports. That is that the WMATA board need to take a permanent "step back" from over-managing daily WMATA operations, and even short-term WMATA "tactical" planning, and concentrate on broader brush, region-wide truly strategic transportation planning and policy.

The time for sneaker-counting on the WMATA board has long since passed. I, for one, hope that the finalists for the general manager\CEO position there are being very emphatic with the board that whoEVER is finally selected as WMATA GM\CEO will have to have much broader "first tier" policy and strategic discretion than has been the past practice and tradition in the Jackson Graham Building.

FT this idea of some kind of "governors' board" overseeing, well, WMATA board oversight, I think the idea is overkill.

Any such "governors' board" ought to be short-briefed, given a definite sunset date to get its work done and should sit for no more than two years, if that. If there is to be serious discussion about a region-wide, even broader strategic transportation planning and policy vehicle 'round here, then we should revisit the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority that was proposed about six years ago by CMs Davis, Holmes-Norton, Moran and Wolf.

Harold Foster; AAG-ProfGeog, AICP
Acting Executive Officer
The Amériças Institute
Petworth, Washington
DC

by Harold Foster on Jan 11, 2011 11:03 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us

How can our region be greater?

DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC