Posts about Catherine Hudgins
Transit
Jaffe, McCartney talk Metro safety, "budgetary blackmail"
For the anniversary of the Metro crash, Newschannel 8 interviewed former RAC Chair and Sierra Club transit activist Dennis Jaffe and Washington Post metro columnist Bob McCartney.
Unfortunately for those of you not on Windows, Newschannel 8 only provides videos in Windows Media Player format.
They discussed progress toward safety on Metro, the looming NTSB report, and Governor McDonnell's efforts to take WMATA Board seats away from Northern Virginia. During the safety conversation, it was particularly gratifying to hear Bob McCartney note the important and true fact that riding Metro is still safer "than driving on the Beltway."
As for the issue of Virginia's WMATA Board representation, the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission has prepared a detailed analysis (PDF) of the actual support the state gives to Metro. That shows state funds amounting to only 28.3% of Virginia's total, instead of the 50% Connaughton alleges.
NVTC also points out that the Governor of Virginia doesn't have half of the board seats in other transit agencies in the state, like Hampton Roads, where the Governor gets 1 seat out of 17, and where the state's contribution is greater (31.7%), but much less in dollar terms because Hampton Roads has so much less transit.
Fairfax County voted to send a letter criticizing McDonnell's move and his holding hostage the promised federal matching funds. The three Republicans voted against.
Fairfax's Catherine Hudgins and Arlington's Chris Zimmerman, Virginia's voting members on the Board, also wrote an op-ed pointing out that to get the federal appropriation in the first place, Virginia told the feds that they had already dedicated the money. Threatening to take it away risks unraveling the entire deal, which may not upset McDonnell that much.
Budget
Zimmerman, Hudgins pushed for public discussion of budget
The WMATA Board discussed proposed service cuts for Fiscal Year 2010 as a surprise addition to the agenda last week, but they almost didn't discuss it in public at all.
Photo by cacaphony76.
They will be reconvening on Thursday, January 7th to discuss the proposals. There is some urgency to make the changes since the longer Metro waits to cut, the worse cuts (or fare increases) must be to balance the budget in the time remaining. However, moving quickly doesn't necessarily mean moving secretly.
According to sources familiar with the Board discussions, the Board almost discussed the changes entirely within their executive session last week. Since this topic didn't appear on the agenda ahead of time, that could have meant the Board heard a presentation on budget issues and debated cuts entirely without any public communication.
Virginia's voting members, Chris Zimmerman of Arlington and Catherine Hudgins of Fairfax, objected to this, which is why the Board subsequently discussed it publicly. At that public session, Zimmerman urged Metro to make the various "tables" of budget information that explain the $36 million in cost reductions besides the $4 million of service cuts. Zimmerman also noted the unfairness of a policy that lets the General Manager cut bus service without Board approval but requires it for rail cuts.
Another asymmetry is that fare increases require public hearings but rail cuts below a certain size do not. Most commenters here prefer raising the fares on late-night rail service instead of reducing headways to 30 minutes per line. Did Metro choose the reduction instead of the fare increase primarily because they can do it without hearings?
The Board needs freedom to act quickly when necessary, but they should still seek as much input as possible. Debating key budget issues in executive session should be totally out. And Board members should provide some opportunities for people to weigh in even absent a formal hearing.
That can start with a public comment period at the special meeting, despite current practice of only having one at regular meetings. But most people can't show up at 11 am on a Thursday with the possibility of waiting until noon or later. DC and Virginia Board members at least have public email addresses, while Maryland members do not. We still have seen little sign that emails to BoardOfDirectors@wmata.com reach members' eyes.
The WMATA compact may vest decisionmaking in a small Board of Directors and give them powers to make certain changes without input, but that doesn't absolve them of the moral responsibility to listen to riders' opinions. Unfortunately, except for Zimmerman and Hudgins' insistence on sunlight, there was little sign of that in last week's meeting.
Transit
Zimmerman urges Metro to embrace "beta testing"
Metro is "more nervous than [it] need[s] to be" about opening up Web tools like NextBus to the public, said Arlington board member Chris Zimmerman at today's Metro Board of Directors meeting, but Fairfax member Catherine Hudgins isn't so sure. Metro staff still feel that closing off access to the real-time bus information tool until June's launch is the best policy. This debate really gets at a fundamental issue which technology firms, too, grappled with mightily in the 1990s.
Coming soon, but not yet.
The issue first surfaced a month ago when DCist and New Columbia Heights' Andrew Wiseman noticed that you could get into an unreleased beta version of the NextBus system. That system will tell riders, in real time, when their bus will arrive, like the digital displays do in Metrorail stations. Riders will access the information on the Web, via mobile devices, or by calling a hotline. Metro staff plan to release the service in June, but it's been working, and many riders had found it quite useful and most often accurate.
However, when Metro found out about the public access point, they moved to shut it down, claiming it's not yet accurate enough. Many riders argued that something is better than nothing, and they'd rather take the risk. Blogs and riders criticized Metro's decision, but staff and General Manager John Catoe arguing that the service was not ready and that opening it up would trigger a "flood of complaints" that Metro would need to answer.
This issue boils down to two simple questions. First, is it better for Metro to release something imperfect and essentially ignore complaints, or to wall off that imperfect thing so that nobody can access it and complain? And second, should Metro develop software based only on their own internal opinions, or collect input from a wider group before decisions are final?
RAC chair Diana Zinkl presented the issue to the Board today in her monthly presentation. The topic arose in response to the RAC resolution I introduced. Assistant General Manager for Information Technology Suzanne Peck explained Metro's reasoning to the Board. After listening to Peck's analysis, Zimmerman said,
I appreciate that very candid appreciation of the staff view. It's the first I really heard on any public forum. But I think that some of the running dialogue that's been going on, between a segment of the public that's particularly attuned to the use of Web tools and this organization, has been about the question of when is it okay to show something.The critique on the part of that segment, which in fact is now represented specifically by a member of the Riders' Council who offered that motion, has been that Metro's view is basically to not risk anything, to get everything perfect before it goes out. And I think we just heard confirmation of that. I think you heard an honest and sincere expression of that viewpoint, that Metro shouldn't put anything out until it's really really right and good.
The view of folks in this world is that, you know, it's really better to not try to do it that way because, in fact, on the Web you don't get things perfect until you have a lot of input anyway. If you try to wait until get it perfect you'll never get it out there, and that's why Metro is slow in implementing a lot of these things.
I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think that's a valid criticism. I can see for certain things that's true, particularly where safety is actually involved. [But] it's hard for me to see what the risk is that I might go onto the Web, look into some site that's supposedly predicting when the bus is going to arrive, and it could turn out to be wrong. Especially when, right up front, I'm not getting in through the main Metro web site because it's not ready to be there yet. I have enough sophistication to have found out how to get in. And whatever I do there, it tells me this is being tested, we don't promise that there's anything accurate about it.
The worst that happens is my bus doesn't arrive when it said it was going to arrive. And when I'm standing there at the bus stop now, I dont have anybody telling me when the bus is going to arrive. I just know it's not arriving when the schedule told me it was going to arrive. I don't really see that there's a risk here.
I think we're more nervous than we need to be. And I think I now understand a little bit better the nature of this discourse.
Fairfax member Catherine Hudgins agreed that Metro ought to be engaging the public in the development process. However, she also echoed Peck's concern that opening it up in the meantime would trigger a "firestorm of complaints of innacuracy," distracting staff from the real task of finishing the real service. Hudgins said,
We want to convey that we want our public involved ... [in] developing the scope of what you're going to do. But I think there is a fallacy in the fact that you can put things up and assume that it will do no harm to Metro, because it means that our staff will need to respond and will need the time to respond, and will be putting out fires that they should have put out in the closure of their development process.Hudgins, Peck, and Catoe are right that launching the service for real is more important. We don't believe staff ought to launch it now and immediately start spending time answering complaints. That would clearly interfere with the main task. However, riders aren't asking for that. They're asking for Metro to open it up and explicitly disavow any responsibility for its accuracy or for supporting it.
If someone waits for a bus which doesn't come, they might complain to Metro. More often, they don't, and silently curse Metro. If they could access an unsupported service, then it might help improve their ride. Or, it might give wrong information. If it's wrong, maybe they would be more likely to complain. But would it be so bad if Metro told them, "sorry, but this is unsupported, and while we appreciate your input, we aren't ready to handle complaints yet"?
From the IT staff's point of view, complaints about bus service which don't go to them are less intrusive than complaints about a beta tool which might go to them. But from a savvy rider's point of view, it's better to get the information at their own risk and decide for themselves whether to trust it. As Zimmerman pointed out, being frustrated with Metro because the real-time information is wrong isn't really worse than being frustrated with Metro because the schedule is wrong. And while not completely accurate, the real-time information is definitely at least more accurate than the printed schedule.
The other reason to open up the data involves Metro's ability to get useful input. Their IT staff are very intelligent, I'm sure, but more heads are always better than fewer. They're not going to see every use case. For example, if you go to wmata.com and enter information into the trip planner, get a trip, then hit the Back button to change it, the Javascript on that form clears it all so you have to start over. Why didn't they notice that? It's not really their fault; there are always things you don't notice. However, the bigger question is, why didn't they let some people try out the site before it was finished, accepted and paid for, in order to find and correct these flaws? Now, it's slower and more expensive to make changes.
At the RAC meeting, member Kenneth DeGraff pointed out that for people living on bus lines with multiple numbers, like the 90s, the old system required requesting next arrival for each line individually. That's time consuming. Did Metro think of this when outlining requirements for the new version of NextBus? We don't know, because we can't see how the new one works. Who knows how many sticking points there are that we won't find out until some people start using it?
Peck talked about the way Microsoft does structured beta testing with large numbers of people. Hudgins added that Metro lacks Microsoft's resources, and added that she doesn't want unfinished Microsoft software. That's true. However, there's a huge difference between Microsoft and the Web. When Microsoft ships a version of Windows, that version is out there for years. It runs on millions of computers with their own different hardware and software. It's complex, and very time consuming for them to update it. Until recent years, they couldn't even automatically update it at all. On the Web, on the other hand, the site controls everything. The software isn't on my computer, it's on their Web server. They can change things daily, and the best companies do. Microsoft has to step carefully before releasing something. A Web site, however, can simply turn it on and then change it.
In the 1990s, the technology industry grappled with this dilemma. Everyone was used to writing software on a "release cycle" of months or years. Microsoft would release one version of Windows, then start on the next for a few years later. But with the Web, that became far too slow. Web companies couldn't spend months collecting requirements, building a priority list, changing things, testing, and launching. Competitors would have left them in the dust. Instead, companies like Netflix launch a feature, see what happens, then improve it or delete it. Google always tries out new features on a small subset of users before launching them for real. These companies gain valuable insight that they could never have figured out by just sitting around a conference table talking about the product or from a focus group.
To her credit, Peck agreed to involve the RAC in reviewing the NextBus system. So far, while we received a presentation on the general details, we haven't gotten to try it out and give specific feedback. I'll work with Peck and Zinkl to set that up. I'd like to enable a subset of readers and bloggers to attend a meeting and review it as well in a sort of focus group. It's not as good as letting everyone try it out and harnessing the "wisdom of crowds," but it should help Metro staff avoid some larger pitfalls they might not have seen.
NextBus will be out in only a few months, and while it's too bad we can't all use it in the meantime, those months will pass quickly. However, there will be many more IT projects in the future. They needn't work out like NextBus or the WMATA Web site. Involved riders should be able to weigh in at the very start, when Metro is working out the scope of work for the project and before contracts are signed. Then, at least some people should participate throughout. And finally, when possible, Metro should turn on the new feature in an unofficial way, with explicit refusals of any support, to reality test the product before it's set in stone.
Roads
Breakfast links: It's the 21st century
Union Station Bicycle Transit Center rendering. Image from DDOT.
Toronto's TTC also beta-phobic: Toronto riders discovered a publicly available test of their own NextBus implementation-in-progress. And just like here, the transit agency asked NextBus to pull the link. (Toronto Star)
Wake up, VDOT, it's not 1950: Under orders from the Fairfax Board of Supervisors, Cathy Hudgins voted to reinstate the I-66 widening in the region's plan. However, the compromise resolution only allows the first of three phases until VDOT completes the promised multi-modal analysis. BeyondDC calls it a "wake up call" forcing VDOT to "take multimodalism seriously".
DOT, HUD create livable communities task force: A new initiative between the federal DOT and HUD departments will coordinate transportation and housing policy to encourage "affordable housing near employment opportunities, more transportation options, ... and safe, healthy and livable communities." Ryan Avent is especially enthusiastic about the part where the agencies will produces useful research to help regional planning. (Yglesias)
Nominate an innovative land use project: The Committee of 100 may often disagree with us on land use, but they're still interested in your nominations for an "innovative" project, plan, or organization in planning and land use. Nominate something using this form.
On the calendar: Friday is Gabe Klein's confirmation hearing to head DDOT, rescheduled from an earlier date which coincided with the big snowstorm. Despite what the notice says, it'll be at 2 pm, right after our live chat with Zachary Schrag. ... Saturday evening, get gussied up for WABA's annual gala and silent auction at the German Embassy.
Roads
Breakfast links: on and on and on
Rendering via Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization.
Enough about the Apple store already: Roger Lewis thinks the 18-month process to approve an Apple Store design for Georgetown was way too long, and the glass facade of the original really would have been fine. (Post)
Go talk to that other agency: Mount Pleasant ANC Commissioner Jack McKay got stuck in "permit purgatory" when trying to get No Parking signs to take down a diseased tree. I've written before about the crazy process; McKay's experience was far, far worse, most of all because this time, the police actually followed the official procedure and made him get a permit. (DCwatch)
Now it's a "misunderstanding": Fairfax Supervisor Catherine Hudgins may vote for the I-66 widening at the Transportation Policy Board meeting Wednesday. But if she does, that'd be because VDOT now claims they'll finish this year that promised alternatives analysis they weren't going to bother to complete. With the previous vote, COG members were sending VDOT a message: don't reneg on your promises. (WTOP)
And: An Oregon legislator proposed a $54 bi-yearly registration fee for all bicyclists (Freakonomics, tip: John) ... Life in Mount Vernon Square is organizing to advocate for streetcars on K Street ... DDOT will revise a destination sign in Northeast Capitol Hill to point toward, local attractions like Eastern Market, not just "Downtown" ... and speaking of wayfinding, the Arlandrian mocks up some signs for their neighborhood.
Roads
I-66 widening vote increases ire in Eric Weiss's head
Whenever a local government makes a decision, some people are inevitably disappointed or even upset. When the disappointed people are drivers, Post reporter Eric Weiss is there to defend them with an article about how drivers and non-drivers are at "war" or "inflamed."
Photo by .Uvitra. on Flickr.
We have the one where pedestrian improvements in DC are a "war on drivers." Then there's the one where closing Potomac bridges for the Inauguration (to private cars, not pedestrians, bikes, or buses) told Virginians to "drop dead."
Now, Weiss wrote in Friday's Post, COG's vote to block I-66 widening "inflamed tensions between transit-friendly inner jurisdictions and auto-dependent outer counties." The headline writers got into the act too, titling the story, "Vote to Forgo I-66 Expansion Imperils Federal Funds, Increases Ire."
These incendiary ledes make for entertaining stories, but armies aren't going to be facing off on either side of the Beltway anytime soon. People in all parts of the region want something better than the endlessly sprawling public policy of the past. According to the article, Fairfax County's representatives, Supervisors Catherine Hudgins and Lynda Smyth, voted for Zimmerman's amendment to block the widening.
They made the right vote. By adding capacity in spots but not throughout, these lanes will only move the bottlenecks from one place to another. If they do smooth anyone's commute, new drivers will quickly fill the space, further worsening our region's air quality and sprawl. And with Silver Line construction starting soon, we're already improving mobility from Arlington to Tysons in a much better way.
More importantly, VDOT has relentlessly been working to ram this project through without public discussion or considering alternatives. They told commenter Geof Gee that they didn't even know the effect on traffic speed or safety. They promised to consider alternatives, like transit and Transportation Demand Management, but ignored that promise in their zeal to just lay pavement. Getting blocked on this project sends a message that our region no longer wants "build more lanes" to be the knee-jerk response to every transportation problem.
Unfortunately, according to Weiss, Fairfax leaders, led by new County Chair Sharon Bulova, pressured Hudgins and Smyth to change their votes on the project. They should hold firm.
The Commonwealth of Virginia promised Arlington they would limit I-66 to four lanes when they built it. Before breaking that promise, they should at least give more than lip service to other possibilities, especially since this spot widening just won't work. Fairfax leaders and COG members throughout the region should uphold the recent vote and open their minds to better options than making Virginia look like LA.
@ggwash
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's divide need not be black and white
Greater Washington
District of Columbia
