Government
MWAA: A public authority in even more need of scrutiny
This afternoon, DC Council Chairman Kwame Brown is holding a roundtable on the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and Gray's nomination of Warner H. Session and Shirley Robinson Hall as 2 of DC's 3 members of its board. Below is a draft of my testimony.
Photo by dsearls on Flickr.
Mr. Chairman,
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known as WMATA or Metro, has gotten the lion's share of scrutiny for its governance practices since its June 2009 crash. That attention was indeed deserved and has already led to some meaningful improvements at its Board of Directors.
However, we must not overlook another very important transportation agency with even greater governance problems: the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, or MWAA. While MWAA's problems have received little scrutiny, this agency also holds great power over residents' everyday lives, yet operates with a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability and in many cases makes decisions distinctly damaging to the District of Columbia.
I hope that you will ask the District's nominees to the MWAA Board of Directors how they will increase transparency and ensure that the interests of the District are better safeguarded than they have in the past.
On transparency and accountability, the MWAA Board is one of the worst in the region. The times, dates, and locations of their board meeetings are not posted online. Agendas are not made available to the public, nor are minutes of their meetings.
Certainly no recordings are available via streaming audio or video or on cable TV. Contrast this to the DC Council, the WMATA Board, and many others which post their schedules, agendas and actions and broadcast their meetings.
Furthermore, the MWAA Board makes most decisions in executive session, behind closed doors, then emerges only to ratify those decisions publicly. This contravenes guidelines and possibly even laws concerning eligible topics for executive session, offending good governance practices.
In years past, the authority only operated the airports themselves. Their revenues came entirely from airline fees. Their actions thus only affected our everyday lives when we took an airplane trip. They had a clear, narrow mandate.
Today, however, the authority controls the Dulles Toll Road and thus is collecting money from everyday commuters. They are building the Metro Silver Line, and contributing to bus service and road projects in the area. Their decisions reach far beyond the airports themselves.
For example, in 2010, the authority announced it was going to take funding away from the Fairfax Connector buses. These buses serve commuters going to Metro stations for trips into jobs in DC, and for DC residents who work in Tysons Corner and elsewhere in the corridor. Therefore, they do benefit DC residents and DC employers.
Instead, MWAA wants to spend the money on a freeway loop along Virginia route 606 stretching around the back of Dulles Airport. This will benefit almost no DC residents at all because it doesn't help people go to or from DC. Rather, it will speed up travel between Loudoun County and Prince William County, driving housing and job growth in these sprawling areas and encouraging more residents and employers to locate in parts of our region very distant from the District.
The airports authority should not be making these transportation decisions. They are not doing this in concert with COG and the TPB. They did not solicit input from residents in either Fairfax or the District. They are, instead, trying to push a specific economic development plan being pushed by a small subset of Northern Virginia business leaders and which is definitely not in the best interests of the District or even most Northern Virginia residents.
DC's several members of the MWAA board have not discussed these issues publicly with the Council or with residents of the District. They haven't held forums to hear from residents. We expect our Metro Board members to communicate with the public about key decisions from that agency and our Councilmembers communicate on important decisions they make. Our MWAA directors should do the same.
On the Silver Line, MWAA is making decisions that will have long-term effects on WMATA's ridership and costs long into the future. For example, moving the Dulles Airport station farther from the airport would save money now but could decrease ridership, meaning higher costs for area governments in the future.
Which is better? There can be debate about this, but if the debate only happens behind closed doors and with people solely concerned about the Airports Authority's narrow and immediate interests, we could all end up paying for a century or more.
When Mr. Session and Ms. Hall come before you in this hearing, I hope you will ask both of them what they will do to push for greater transparency and accountability from the MWAA Board, such as opening up meetings and using new technology.
I also hope you will ask them how they will involve residents of DC, elected Councilmembers, and regional bodies like COG and the TPB in the far-reaching, regional decisions that MWAA is making not just about the airports themselves but about how commuters travel to and from DC and around Northern Virginia.
Thank you.
 | 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
by Redline SOS on Mar 7, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
The real scandal is how is letting the Silver Line blow up to $6 billion, with no source of public funding for the second half of the project.
by charlie on Mar 7, 2011 1:40 pm • link • report
If it's not too late, maybe you can add something about the Washington Flyer monopoly and its pernicious effects on competition, commuters, and the environment...
by Gavin on Mar 7, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report
Is this right? Do you mean to say moving it further rather than closer...?
by M.V. Jantzen on Mar 7, 2011 1:46 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Mar 7, 2011 1:48 pm • link • report
If I recall correctly, the MWAA chartering legislation said that it is subject to the sunshine laws of Virginia. Of course, since it's not an agency of any state, what recourse do citizens have to complain about violations of the sunshine law? I guess you'd have to go straight to the Virginia legislature and/or DC Council, but hell if they care.
by Tim on Mar 7, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
Thank you, I was about to ask the same question.
@charlie
There is source of public funding for phase II, the public funding will not be coming from the Federal Government. From what I understand WMAA will sell bonds to pay for what would have been the federal grant. The bonds will be retired from various revenues generated by WMAA operations.
by Sand Box John on Mar 7, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report
by Tim on Mar 7, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report
by charlie on Mar 7, 2011 2:26 pm • link • report
Except for, you know, DC being a party to the interstate compact that created MWAA in the first place. Since DC and locally-oriented Federal decisions (like those that built National and Dulles in the first place) are essentially synonymous, I'd say there's a pretty big interest for DC, no?
by Alex B. on Mar 7, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report
I think the example of the buses is poorly chosen. It pits DC residents' interests against Loudoun and PW residents' interests. I would think that as editor of GreaterGREATERWashington, you should oppose such tactics are recognize that we need to collaborate more, not fight with each other. That is, unless your view is that what's good for DC is good for all. But that would be BS.
by Jasper on Mar 7, 2011 2:33 pm • link • report
MWAA including DC is a historical oversight. Both airports are now in Virginia and properly run by Virginians. Kick Maryland off as well.
If DC was a proxy for the federal government, I would understand.
If Obama had a sense of humor, he's make McDonnel buy the airports and then lease them out.
by charlie on Mar 7, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report
Are you denying that DC and Maryland have an interest in the operations of DCA and IAD?
by Alex B. on Mar 7, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
Personally, I'd prefer MWAA stick with its airports mandate... if roads, rail, or buses relate to the airport: great; but if they've become more commuter route than airport service, then perhaps it's time to see about transferring such services to other agencies. If the service really is that vital, then it'd be up to the potentially more-applicable DOT owners to decide such.
And if DOTs are strapped for cash but MWAA is floating in it (I'm not sure how true that latter is), then perhaps delving into how to transfer funds might also be in order.
But I do agree that all such discussions should be occurring in the open... so that people like me -- with little knowledge or relationship with the issues at hand -- can offer their input :)
by Bossi on Mar 7, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
Can we kick Virginia and Maryland out of the NCPC?
by Steve S. on Mar 7, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report
NCPC is federal. I'm sure you might have noticed that DC benefits from being the federal capital. As we've read on GGW recently, you have the lowest tax burden, the highest number of rich people, the best schools, and a majority white rail system. In other measure of livability DC apparently is the best, so keeping it as a federal appendage seems to make a lot of sense.
by charlie on Mar 7, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
If DC had home rule then, I can just about guarantee that they'd have been asked to chip in. It probably would have involved the creation of some sort of entity like MWAA from the start - but when you're the Federal government and you're taking on local tasks, that kind of operating entity would be redundant.
by Alex B. on Mar 7, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report
What a huge waste of resources to have an EMPTY cab ride back from IAD to DC.
I refuse to take Washington Flyer anymore and will call Red Top cab and have them meet me at the valet stand.
by TGEoA on Mar 7, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report
Among other fees and tariffs that MWAA has the power to levy.
by Sand Box John on Mar 7, 2011 7:55 pm • link • report
by Anon on Mar 7, 2011 10:02 pm • link • report
Additionally, another possible funding mechanism is to implement a Metro fare surcharge for passengers traveling to and from Dulles and Reagan National airports. Over an extended period of 20 years or so, millions in revenue will be generated from a modest $2 or $3 airport-station fee. If such a surcharge is kept low, passenger grumbling will be minimal. Ridership levels, too, should not be affected to any great extent, as other transportation options will, in all likelihood, remain more expensive. For those who work at the airports and regularly use Metro to commute, there could be a special gate with reduced fares. Or their commuting expenses could be subsidized by employers.
by Anon on Mar 7, 2011 11:10 pm • link • report
@charlie "Did DC put up any money, or land, or anything to build National? Or Dulles? No, the feds did. I'm sure DC and MD have "interests" but that doesn't translate into right to sit at the table."
At the time of DCA's construction DC's boundary went to the mean high water line adjacent to the VA side of the river. Part of the controversy was that the fill that National sits on is within the original mean high water line within DC and neither DC or VA claimed ownership. For all the messy details on DCA and IAD see excerpts from Nancy Knickerbocker's Ph.D. thesis on the CAAN website:
http://www.caan.org/natlhist1.html
by Contrarian on Mar 7, 2011 11:44 pm • link • report
Look, I'm not trying to be abstruse. But DC, as an entity, didn't put anything into the airports, and once the feds decided to get rid of the job of operating them, Virginia would do just as good a job as the current MWAA interstate compact. In fact, to tie it back in, I'd argue direct state control might be preferable in terms of openness than the curent quango structure.
@ Contrarian; exactly, which is why I refer to DC being on the board as a historical accident. Court decisions from 1608 shouldn't be the basis of DC being on the board and making decisions on Virginia commuters on the DTR.
@SandBoxJOhn; would phase II qualify for the proposed infrastructure bank set up by McDonnel?
by charlie on Mar 8, 2011 8:39 am • link • report
How can you seriously argue that DC has no stake whatsoever in the airports when the airports are there to serve the metro area for which DC is the anchor city?
As for your argument that DC "didn't put anything into the airports," DC as an entity able to put money into projects didn't even exist when the airports were built; but you're phrasing it as if DC somehow had the opportunity and passed - which is BS. Hey, Minnesota wasn't around when we created Congress, I don't think they should be a part of that either!
by MLD on Mar 8, 2011 9:21 am • link • report
And I am surprised to hear "DC" didn't exist in 1941 or when dulles was built (1963?). Of course it existed. It just was under indirect federal control. DC was been a seperate legal entity for quite some time.
For national reasons, the feds built the airports and owned the airports, and when it came time to disinvest them, they made a bad choice.
These interstate compacts are inherently anti-consumer, and as DA has posted, anti sunshine. I'd love to see Arlington and Fairfax/Loudon take over the airports vs. the commonwealth, but given the money I'm sure the state would rather run it.
Gain a vote in Congress, lose the airport seats on MWAA? that would be an interesting bargain.
by charlie on Mar 8, 2011 9:36 am • link • report
Look, I'm not trying to be abstruse. But DC, as an entity, didn't put anything into the airports...
Because DC, as an entity independent of the Federal Government, did not exist. Sure, it was legally separate, but not in terms of the kind of home rule authority to build airports. Had DC gotten home rule before the age of aviation, I can guarantee they'd have been asked to chip in - particularly for National (which, as noted, has murky jurisdiction thanks to the riparian boundaries of the Potomac).
Seriously. Show me a major city of DC's size where the core jurisdiction doesn't have a major say in operations. Even someplace like Baltimore (where the city sold the airport to the State) maintains more influence over BWI than you're proposing.
The City and County of San Francisco owns and operates SFO via complete control over the SF Airport Commission - despite the fact that SFO is well outside of the city's boundaries.
Gain a vote in Congress, lose the airport seats on MWAA? that would be an interesting bargain.
Wake me when someone actually offers said bargain.
For national reasons, the feds built the airports and owned the airports...
No, they built them for local reasons. Those local reasons just so happen to be because this is the National Capitol - but the act is nevertheless a local one.
by Alex B. on Mar 8, 2011 9:56 am • link • report
As for interstate compacts, they aren't necessarily "anti-consumer" or anti-sunshine. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for example, functions pretty well.
It's worth noting that Virginia didn't really give anything up for Dulles or National either. The land was condemned by the federal government and the landowners got fair compensation for it. Virginia didn't pay to build either airport. I just can't see what stake Virginia has in the airports that DC doesn't.
by Tim on Mar 8, 2011 9:59 am • link • report
Think Fannie Mae, or an independent commission.
You have a good argument re: Virginia didn't pay either. I'd agree with that. Lorton, for example, was owned and run by DC, wasn't it? I don't see what extraterroritality issues might apply. However, let's be clear: the big business of MWAA is taxing Virginia drivers for driving on their road, and it looks more like a tolling authority than an airport. The equities favor Virginia in this case over DC as the natural owner.
@alexB; actually, I'd argue you can't separate the national interest (promoting aviation, ensuring an airport for the president and other officials) from the local one. That is particularly true of national and hoover before it. Hell must look at the name. Dulles I will grant you was clearly built once people realized aviation was turning into a mass transportation solution.
by charlie on Mar 8, 2011 10:08 am • link • report
Ensuring access for other officials? That's true - but that's also a local concern. That's the whole point - there's a difference between the national interest and the interest in the national capital. I can guarantee that DC with home rule would be just as concerned about that access.
by Alex B. on Mar 8, 2011 10:23 am • link • report
Go read up on Hoover airport sometime, and how bad it was, and why FDR wanted a new "National" airport.
ad hominem attack on city planners: Is their belief in ugliness directly related to their lack any historical sense?
by charlie on Mar 8, 2011 10:40 am • link • report
I'm not saying the airport would look the same as it turned out. I am saying that there would be an airport. The combined civic histories of every other major city in the US says so.
Parking spaces for members of Congress? Really? That's all you've got? What does that have to do with the substantive improvements that National offered over Hoover Field - little things important to aviation like runways, taxiways, hangars, terminals, etc.
You don't think that a Mayor of DC wouldn't want to improve Hoover into DCA the same way that, say, New York improved LaGuardia because Floyd Bennett Field was inadequate - and how JFK came to augment LGA after that...
ad hominem attack on city planners: Is their belief in ugliness directly related to their lack any historical sense?
Ad hominem and non sequitir, too.
by Alex B. on Mar 8, 2011 10:59 am • link • report
Got it.
by MLD on Mar 8, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_District_of_Columbia
also:
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/history.pdf
If you're literate and actually understand the manifest dynamic of DC, it's pretty clear that the Federal Government maintained direct rule over DC up until 1977.
One point @Charlie that you're missing is that you seem to believe that the Federal/Local paradigm applies to DC. It doesn't. This is why Congress always has and continues to attempt to control the "local" goingson in the District. DC represents the bell-weather of what can be accepted through out the country because of its status as the national capital. Thus why DC v. Heller was such a big deal.
It is also why national priorities are intrinsically linked to local issues like the airport. While it's true that the transportation of Senators and Congressmen is the transportation of federal officials; these federal officials are traveling to a localized destination: DC. If it weren't for DC's existence as the Core city in the region, there wouldn't be a need for IAD or DCA; Northern Virginia wouldn't exist in it's present state. Can it be argued that Fairfax, Loudon, or Prince William would be booming housing markets for people commuting to Richmond? No. I don't believe so.
by Jeff Dailey on Mar 8, 2011 11:25 am • link • report
Oh, and members of congress obviously can't travel anywhere other than DC for official business like field hearings; those cities don't have airports or parking!
by Tim on Mar 8, 2011 5:38 pm • link • report
I have thought about that same idea, however there is a rub to that schema. The employees that work at the airport would end up paying the surcharge. There is a work around though, any round trip made that end or begins at either the National or Dulles Airport station within a 14 hour period would pay a round trip fare minus the surcharge.
by Sand Box John on Mar 8, 2011 11:07 pm • link • report
Add a Comment