Posts about Chris Zimmerman

Almost alone among transit agencies in the United States, you have no dedicated revenue sources, and you are subordinate to, and dependent upon, multiple jurisdictions across state lines. In recent years, the situation has been complicated further by the increased role in governance by the federal government and by the state of Virginia, neither of which contribute to the formula by which the daily operations of the system are funded.

The system is aging, its maintenance needs are growing—and still, the region looks for you to expand service. So, I appreciate the difficult choice the Board will have to make, and recognize that a fare increase may be unavoidable this year.

No one wants to raise fares. I used to say that raising fares is the next-to-the-last thing the transit agency should do. What's worse is cutting service or maintenance. That you must not do.

As one who has sat where you sit, and who will have to vote on your final budget as part of his jurisdiction's part in the approval process, here are my recommendations:

1. Don't put it all on the riders; don't let governments off the hook. Ask compact jurisdictions to accept some of the responsibility to meet the need. Press for greater support from the state: Now that they have imposed themselves on the governance of WMATA, displacing local representation, they should be expected to help Metro close its budget gap.

The same can be said for the feds. They vote on the budget. They depend heavily on the system on a daily basis for the delivery of their work force, no less than they depend on the delivery of electricity and water to their buildings. The system is substantially designed around the needs of the operations of the federal government. They should be contributing to the operating costs of the agency as a routine matter. The WMATA Board should press for inclusion of the federal government in the funding formula.

2. In structuring a fare increase, I urge you to consider the following:

1. Don't make it too big; consider possible effect on choice riders (especially in view of adverse federal benefit changes). It obviously won't help anything if we push riders back into their cars.

2. Consider effects on those least able to pay. As you well appreciate, there are many people in this county, and throughout the region, for whom transit is not a choice, but a necessity. For them, a fare increase is simply a reduction in the limited disposable income with which to pay their costs of housing, food, clothing, and medical care.

3. Don't punish the folks who take the shortest trips. Those who accept higher housing costs to live near their work, and to live a transit-oriented lifestyle, are providing a benefit to everyone in the region. Increasingly, they find it difficult to get on to trains that enter their stations already full, and they seldom get to sit down. Theirs is the least-subsidized ride. They should not bear a disproportionate share of the cost.

And finally,

4. Do something for the riders. They bear a larger portion of operating cost here than in perhaps any metropolitan area in the country. They're still going to be asked to put up with delays and service interruptions, even though they'll pay more. Press Metro management to find ways—even small things—to make life a little better for your regular customers.

   One good possibility that has been suggested is improving passes.
   

   1. We need a good monthly pass; not just a 28-day that is simply four times the 7-day pass.
      
   2. It's got to be useful for people who ride in the core of the system—that is, short-trip riders.
      
   3. It's got to be on SmarTrip.
      
   4. It should be a "flexible pass", one that lets riders choose their typical level of fare (which depends on their typical trip length) and select a pass that's works at that level. (Seattle, London and Minneapolis have done this; it is ideal for a system like Metro in which fares are distance-based.)

I thank you for considering these suggestions, and for your service to Metro and the region.

Some residents of Crystal City are concerned about greater density and worsening traffic. Arlington County has created the Crystal City Citizen Review Council to work with residents to ensure the county adheres to the comprehensive plan.

County planners hope to reshape Crystal City, which is filled with superblocks of bland office buildings and hotels. There are few inviting streetscapes or pedestrian-friendly facilities. The plan also hopes to create a coherent grid of streets.

Gordon Linton, Montgomery County's alternate member, is also leaving. More changes are likely to come when Vincent Gray makes his picks for the DC mayoral appointees and Rushern Baker for the Prince George's alternate; speculation is that Kwame Brown will also change one or both of the DC Council appointees.

Meanwhile, General Manager Sarles announced that WMATA will ramp up useless security theater in the form of random bag checks. As usual, anyone can just turn around and decline to enter the station instead of having a bag searched.

This will let riders be confident that anyone trying to smuggle contraband into that particular station at that particular moment is instead walking to a different station instead, while having enormous amounts of time and police energy wasted on not catching actual potential terrorists.

TBD summarizes the more meaningful news from the safety committee's meeting: Metro has made good progress on safety incident investigations, and suicides have declined. However, train doors are still occasionally getting opened on the wrong side, and there are more fires but fewer smoke incidents. Also, people keep assaulting bus drivers.

Update: Zimmerman sent a letter which is included below. He announced that Mary Hynes, his colleague on the Arlington County Board, will be taking over the seat.

Today I announced that I will be stepping down from my role as Arlington's representative on the WMATA Board of Directors. On January 1st I will assume the Chairmanship of the Arlington County Board. In view of those responsibilities, and my desire to give greater focus to some of the needs within my county, I have decided that this is a good time for me to pass on the day-to-day duties of Metro representation.

I want to assure you that my commitment to transit and to Metro is as strong as ever, and I will continue to work for improvements to rail, bus, and paratransit services in our region. I will continue to serve on the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (which is the governing body for WMATA in Virginia), as well as on the Transportation Planning Board for the National Capital Region, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.

One benefit of this move is that another member will have the opportunity to become immersed in the daily issues involved in the system, increasing the level of direct knowledge about Metro significantly on the Arlington Board. And I am confident that my County will be well-represented, and the region well-served, by the member who will succeed me on the WMATA Board.

My colleague Mary Hynes will take over in January. Mary is an exceptional public official, and she is well-prepared for this role. For the last three years she has served on the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, for which she is currently Secretary-Treasurer. Mary has a very personal connection to Metro. For many years, she and her family have lived about a block-and-a-half from the Clarendon Metro station. They have relied upon the system, and seen the changes Metro has brought to the community over the years. Mary is also a very experienced local elected official, having served Arlington since 1995 as a School Board and now a County Board Member. She is known for her responsiveness to constituent's concerns, and for paying close attention to details. Mary is also highly respected for her command of capital budgeting issues. She will be a strong advocate for riders, and a conscientious steward of the agency.

It has been a great privilege serving on the WMATA Board, and I appreciate all the help and support you have given me over the years in this role. I will be, as I have been, an ardent advocate for Metro, its riders, and the jurisdictions it serves. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you. There is much we need to do for the betterment of public transportation in our region, and for a bright future for Metro.

Thank you.

—Chris Zimmerman

Arlington County Vice-Chairman
WMATA member

He also expressed frustration when Metro staff would not discuss the causes of the June 2009 accident publicly, complaining that the Board would not be able to effectively advocate for fixing the system if they couldn't discuss its problems.

Mr. Zimmerman has reached out to Greater Greater Washington, in live chat, and by answering the rest of the reader questions we didn't have time for. He even came and had a drink with us for a happy hour.

He praised our approach to targeted fare increases rather than the blanket increases proposed by staff. He pushed to ensure that options are not prematurely taken off the table when budget season comes, and he supported the region's Fare Share for Metro campaign by convincing local Arlington leaders to increase the operating funds available to Metro, avoiding painful service cuts. He has continually argued against the destructive practice of shortchanging the capital investment budget by using it to pay for preventive maintenance, which normally comes from operating funds. He worked with Jim Graham of DC to expand Metrorail hours after midnight on weekends.

He pressed for real-time information through the platform signs in Metrorail, as well as NextBus (here too). He's advocated for installing more bicycle facilities at Metrorail stations.

In Arlington, Mr. Zimmerman has been the force behind the expansion of the local ART bus service from one route to 13, the Pike Ride high-frequency bus service on Columbia Pike, which is now the model for other high quality transit corridors like REX, and the proposal for constructing rail transit on Columbia Pike. He worked with current Arlington Board Chairman Jay Fisette and DDOT to start the bikeshare program. He has been part of the county's opposition to the I-395 HOT lanes project, which is the subject of a lawsuit citing a failure to conduct environmental impact studies.

He's been working with WABA to figure out how to get more bicycles on to VRE trains. He's currently working with Alexandria officials to extend the planned Arlington transit corridors down Route 1 from Crystal City to Potomac Yard. On a panel about priority bus corridors, he warned about watering down bus priorities by allowing HOV traffic to share and create congestion for buses. When he was Chairman, he started the Youth Transit Initiative, to provide better information and services for teens that use transit.

Mr. Zimmerman was one of the early promoters of Smart Growth, walkable development, traffic calming, pedestrian improvements through the Neighborhood Conservation program, and bike lanes. The Columbia Pike form-based code, which guides developers with build-to lines and requirements to build a transit-oriented complete street that will work well with the streetcar.  Here's Chris giving a walking tour of Columbia Pike, pointing out some of Arlington's best walkable urbanism.

Mr. Zimmerman helped to save portions of the historic Buckingham Village area for affordable use, and worked on adopting an ordinance that requires affordable housing units or in-lieu cash payments to an affordable housing fund for every site-plan project.

The Sun Gazette endorsed Zimmerman's Republican opponent, Mark Kelly. Mr. Kelly's positions on his candidate page are not substantial enough to evaluate, but they appear consistent with the kind of government that would slash funding for services and avoid capital investment in our transportation infrastructure. Mr. Kelly said he opposes the Columbia Pike streetcar system, a major transportation investment in the county's most popular transit market not already served by rail.

Mr. Zimmerman is also running against a Green Party candidate, Kevin Chisholm. Mr. Chisholm also opposes the streetcar, basically arguing that the existing population there would be displaced and would benefit only "large investors." The Arlington Connection had a great summary article about the race.

Mr. Zimmerman is one of the local leaders most closely aligned with what we advocate for here on Greater Greater Washington. We strongly urge Arlington voters to again vote for Chris Zimmerman on November 2.

Is our group too white, as DePillis wonders? It's too bad Dan Reed had decamped for grad school in Philadelphia by the time that Hyattsville meetup happened, else he'd very likely have been there. And we're always happy when Bradley Heard has time to write something. But yes, we're pretty white, as are planners in general, and it'd be really great to increase our diversity.

DePillis is pointing out an issue that I've long known we need to address. Since we don't pay anyone, I'm limited in how much I can influence this. But we're always looking for contributors, of any race, gender, age or other characteristic. The only requirement is quality, and a general fit with our philosophy. Email info@ggwash.org if you'd like to write for us.

Richard Layman also raises a point about the challenge of building relationships with insiders versus attacking them. It's a tough line all journalists walk. In our case, we criticize agencies and officials when warranted, but also try to be be fair and understand the challenges people on the inside face.

When it comes to Jim Graham, I'd just note that I criticized the DC USA parking garage, one of the listed issues, in February 2008, March on bike parking, May twice, June, a New York analogue, March and April 2009 ... you get the idea.

The thing about Jim Graham is that you just have to understand where he's coming from. He's very much a politican, and makes decisions based on what voters want. But that means all you have to do to win is get a lot of Ward 1 voters to support your policy. He also has an absolutely first-rate staffer in charge of transportation, which counts for a lot. Finally, that quote from me at the end of that section is the only one I'd say was a wee bit out of context.

I also have just a few little nitpicks. Remarkably few, actually, given the amount of content in the piece. One of the little Metro-line graphics lists ANCs among the "anti" groups. Sometimes they are anti, but some ANCs are terrific. Last election cycle, a bunch of good candidates won many Ward 3 ANC seats, turning several ANCs from knee-jerk naysayers to constructive participants in neighborhood visioning.

Also, I wish I could take credit for the bag fee, but that one was all amazing legislative legwork by Tommy Wells and his staff.

DePillis's piece is quite balanced, and pretty accurate for an article of its length. As someone who does a fair bit of journalism myself, I know how hard it is to say a lot and be absolutely precise in every tiny, mostly-irrelevant detail.

So what if Drinking Liberally really met in Manhattan, not Brooklyn, or Jaime hadn't quite yet started planning school at the time she started contributing, or if the landmarked Brutalist church at 16th and I is Third Church, not First Church (which is up in Columbia Heights); you're not going to go fundamentally wrong reading it, and DePillis deserves good marks for a tough job well done.

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.

As Craig explained yesterday, WMATA staff also presented three options for renewing the Metro Matters agreement, all of which are much worse than the current agreement, dropping the long-term commitments for capital funding that has helped Metro make much more progress on repairs than it could before. DC and Virginia were prepared to renew that agreement with only minor changes; the O'Malley Administration has sabotaged that as well.

It's disappointing that WMATA staff just went along with this. They didn't raise the alarm to the Board, saying that the capital program was being compromised; they just went and trimmed the program. When questioned, interim GM Richard Sarles agreed that WMATA needs the money, but said that they are working from what's available. Clearly frustrated, Arlington's Chris Zimmerman said "The money is never there, you have to go get it."

When Sarles came in, there was much hope that he could make the tough decisions since he wouldn't be afraid to lose his job. Maybe he still will internally, but he doesn't seem willing to push back against the "race to the bottom" situation where the cheapest jurisdiction dictates the quality of transit service for its own residents and the rest of the region.

It's also disappointing that Board Chairman Peter Benjamin has been pushing this plan to sacrifice safety, and doing so in secret. There weren't any public hearings on the capital budget. In fact, Maryland kept secret the fact that they had requested to defer some FY2010 capital payments for months, and WMATA staff were complicit in keeping quiet. While Benjamin was loudly pronouncing that taking money from capital was "mortgaging our future," on behalf of the O'Malley Administration he was simultaneously telling WMATA that Maryland wouldn't make its payments.

The WMATA Board should not permit this utter capitulation. We know why Maryland is in trouble: they mortgaged their transportation solvency to build the ICC and widen I-95. Now they want to put the pain of these choices on everyone who wasn't contributing to traffic by riding transit, and everyone who doesn't even live in Maryland.

The Maryland legislature passed a bill to form a committee to recommend long-term transportation funding solutions, to report back after the election. If Governor O'Malley and other state leaders don't want to make the tough calls now, they should do the same thing they did for the road projects: borrow the money themselves, instead of making WMATA do it, and pay that money back with the funds raised if the Legislature can pass a fix next year.

The three jurisdictions can still renew the Metro Matters agreement as is, with direct contributions from DC and Virginia as they are prepared to do, and borrowing from Maryland that is a state obligation rather than a WMATA obligation. If Governor O'Malley isn't willing to do this, voters should seriously question whether he's capably leading the State of Maryland or not.

WMATA currently uses $30.7 million in capital money for "preventive maintenance." That amount is $10 million more than in FY09. In addition, WMATA is closing part of the FY10 $40 million budget gap with a one-time infusion of another $10 million in stimulus funds that had originally been designated for capital projects that came in under budget. All these actions had the unanimous support of the Board, who either voted for the final budgets or did not object to the use of stimulus funds.

The Federal Transit Administration formula funds that WMATA receives permit the use of capital funds for "preventive maintenance." Preventive maintenance is regularly scheduled based on the projected useful life of components or parts. Instead of waiting for something to fail and then fixing or replacing it, preventive maintenance changes out the parts or components on a schedule tied to their expected useful life. In theory, this smooths out maintenance costs over time and provides better service to the public due to less failure during operations.

WMATA has projected that it needs $11.4 billion in capital funds for things like buying new railcars and buses, rehabilitating bus garages and rail yards, replacing track and wayside equipment, maintaining stations and other infrastructure projects. If WMATA received local contributions and federal aid in the same amount it receives today over the next ten years plus the new $150 million per year in so-called federal dedicated funds matched by VA, DC & MD, it would generate about $8 billion, leaving it about $3.4 billion short in identified capital needs. These figures do not include any capital upkeep for rail or bus expansion projects nor do they take into account any new safety requirements recommended by the NTSB or any other unforeseen needs.

So what happens if Metro uses $10 or $20 million more to help balance the FY11 $191 million budget gap? There are several issues:

1. It may actually be useful to utilize capital money for preventive maintenance if this were new preventive maintenance. In other words, if there are areas where the scheduled change-out of parts will reduce failures but where WMATA is not currently performing this, it would make sense to do so. It would have the effect of reducing long-term operating maintenance costs and providing better service to the public by not operating to failure. Doing so may also extend the useful life of some capital assets and the identified capital needs could be re-adjusted accordingly. Over the past 20 years, WMATA has implemented preventive maintenance in most areas. It's not clear how much more new preventive maintenance there could be.

2. If it is simply replacing operating funds currently used for preventive maintenance with capital funds, it should first be evaluated in terms of the impact on the project(s) deferred or cancelled. The capital project chosen for potential postponement in FY10 was the rehabilitation of one railyard. If the effect of the postponement only moved it from the end of one fiscal year to the beginning of the next, it would not have a significant impact. This is Jim Graham's point. But it's not completely free. It would have a ripple effect in the coming fiscal years unless more money was ultimately added to the capital budget to replace this use.

3. The impact over time must be considered. This is Chris Zimmerman's point. In other words, does the use of capital money create an ongoing "hole" in next year's (or subsequent) budget(s)? WMATA is already using $30 million in capital funds annually for preventive maintenance. If it continues over ten years, this would amount to $300 million, or the equivalent of one year of the so-called "dedicated funding." Utilizing more capital money could create an ongoing problem that carries into the next year.

Some advocates have recommending paying back any use of capital money by reducing future operating subsidies through bus priority measures. A similar approach could be taken in rail operations by using more eight car trains during rush hour, reducing overall trains but retaining the same capacity per hour. Such a plan would likely have to be phased in over time as WMATA would need to address issues caused by manual operation of trains and its current power capacity that it continues to work to upgrade.

The WMATA Board will decide whether to use any capital funds for operations by weighing these factors and measuring them against the consequences of service reductions, higher fare increases and administrative reductions as well as the possibility of more jurisdictional contributions. There will also be political considerations and significant "horse trading" between jurisdictions in order to reach the compromises necessary to pass a final budget.

In the end, who's right—Graham or Zimmerman? Perhaps they are both right... and wrong.

Craig Simpson is the Legislative and Political Representative for ATU Local 689, the union representing most WMATA employees. Opinions in this article are entirely his own and not the official position of ATU Local 689.