Posts about Metro Parking
Bicycling
Metro proposes quintupling bicycle access mode share
Metro has completed its study of pedestrian and bicycle access to Metrorail stations. The recommendations include an aggressive yet important goal of tripling the percentage of riders who arrive by bicycle by 2020 and quintupling it by 2030.
Bikes outside Columbia Heights Metro. Photo from WMATA.
In 2007, 0.7% of Metrorail riders arrived by bicycle. Metro's ridership is growing, but adding parking capacity is extremely expensive or completely infeasible, and increasing the ability for riders to walk and bike to stations can help Metro grow most efficiently.
You can discuss bicycle and pedestrian access with Metro planners tonight at a public session hosted by the Riders' Advisory Council, 6:30 pm at Metro HQ.
Already, walking and biking is growing faster than other modes. Metrorail ridership in the AM peak grew 11% from 2002-2007, but the numbers of pedestrians grew 18% and bicyclists 60%. Metro wants to make continued growth an official goal and set targets of 2.1% for 2020 and 3.5% for 2030.
The station with the most cyclists each day is East Falls Church, with 92 out of 2,709 boardings in the AM peak; the station with the highest percentage of cyclists is Medical Center, with 7.1% (all 2007 numbers). The station with the most pedestrians is Dupont Circle, with 3,686 out of 4,410 riders arriving on foot, while the highest percentage is at Mt. Vernon Square, encompassing 90% of the 1,084 riders in 2007 (before substantial development in the area). Court House comes in second in total trips on foot and third in percentage.
While walking almost entirely depends on the number of housing units or jobs within a short distance of the station, bicycling has the potential to replace a number of short auto trips to Metro parking lots, freeing up spaces for other people to drive to the station without having to build more parking.
Secure bike cage. Photo from WMATA.
In a survey, 67% of riders said they would consider bicycling and 55% would consider walking. The distance from home to the station was the top factor barring walking or biking, but #2 was "uncomfortable crossing conditions at intersections" and #3 was "high traffic volume and speed." 25% of the respondents said they drive instead of walking or biking because they "do not know a safe walking or biking route."
Also, there is not enough bike parking, as we've discussed many times. 58% said the bike parking facilities were inadequate at the station near home and 71% said they were inadequate near work (for those who might bike from the station to work and leave a bike overnight.)
The study also suggests moving some of the bike lockers from stations where they are not being rented to other stations where there is demand. According to the study, only 10 of 48 lockers at Largo Town Center are rented out, 4 of 24 at Prince George's Plaza, and 43 of 61 at Shady Grove, while all 12 are full at Braddock Road, all 16 at Forest Glen, 19 of 20 at Eastern Market, and 26 of 30 at Grosvenor.
The study doesn't say when this data was collected or whether it accounts for the recent hike in bike locker fees to $200/year. It would also be worth investigating whether to roll back that increase at stations with low utilization.
Specific bike parking recommendations also include:
- Replace "Type III" bike racks, the ones that look like medieval torture devices, with the "inverted U" style of racks
- Cover existing parking at Ballston, College Park, Huntington and West Hyattsville
- Move parking inside the station but outside the faregates at College Park, Huntington, Fort Totten and New York Avenue (which will make Geoff Hatchard very happy)
- Add bike racks at Braddock Road, Greenbelt, Grosvenor, Landover, Medical Center, New Carrollton, Potomac Avenue, Prince George's Plaza, Rosslyn, and West Hyattsville
Modular bikestation. Photo from WMATA. - Add modular bike parking, basically covered bike parking rooms that can be easily dropped into an area, at Ballston, Braddock Road, College Park, Dunn Loring, East Falls Church, Fort Totten, Prince George's Plaza, Silver Spring, Takoma, Vienna, West Hyattsville and Woodley Park
- Add an enclosed bike station at College Park, Crystal City, Eastern Market or Navy Yard, Foggy Bottom, Medical Center, New York Avenue, Silver Spring, Shady Grove, Vienna and West Hyattsville
Type III racks. Photo from WMATA.
To reach the goal of 2.1% by 2020 and 3.5% by 2030, Metro would have to add 3,000 new spaces by 2020 and 8,322 by 2030.
Local governments would also have to do their part. The study doesn't identify all the bike lanes, curb ramps, signals and other improvements that are needed, but does show some examples of good and bad station accessibility. College Park has a great sign directing people to campus from the station, while West Hyattsville has a confusing M-NCPPC sign for getting to Chillum Road.
Wayfinding signs at College Park (left) and West Hyattsville (right). Photos from WMATA.
Pedestrians have made their own pathways to get to crosswalks at College Park, Rhode Island Avenue, Vienna and more. Braddock Road, Rhode Island Avenue, and many others have substandard sidewalks limiting pedestrian accessibility. At Vienna, a bike and pedestrian bridge is out of service but has no signs to explain what detour to take or when the bridge will be fixed. The list goes on.
Poor accessibility at Rhode Island Avenue (left) and Braddock Road (right). Photos from WMATA.
Besides expanding bike parking, there are a number of specific process recommendations. Some interesting ones include:
- Require a pedestrian and bicycle access study and a multimodal circulation study for joint development projects
- Create guidelines for design and placement of bike parking
- Have Metro participate in local jurisdictions' bike and pedestrian advisory committees
- Add a Bike Program Manager position at Metro
- Make sure station managers, maintenance personnel, and others know Metro's policies concerning bike and ped access
- Create station area plans in partnership with local jurisdictions
- Get bus and rail routes into Google Maps/Google Transit (thanks planners!)
The Riders' Advisory Council Long-Term Projects Committee, which I chair, will be hearing more about these plans and discussing them with Metro planners. All members of the public are welcome to participate and ask questions during RAC committee meetings. The meeting is 6:30 pm at Metro's HQ, 600 5th St NW (between Gallery Place and Judiciary Square), in the committee room training room on the lobby level (left right and then right after security).
Budget
Logjam at the WMATA Board, part 2: Don't say it like that
Tempers got a little heated at yesterday's WMATA Board meeting, and jurisdictions are deadlocked. Part of the problem was the funding formula, but another part was the way staff presented options.
Photo by maistora.
Two weeks ago, Interim GM Richard Sarles presented a budget that did a fairly nice job of sorting through the many fare and service proposals. It wasn't exactly what anyone wanted, but it was remarkably close.
It kept a few service cuts, mostly appropriate, a few not so much. It raised a lot of fares, mostly fairly, though not as targeted as it should be. It restored some MetroAccess service but kept significant cuts. It was mostly equitable between jurisdictions, if a little bit tilted against bus riders.
The Finance and Administration Committee discussed the budget on April 29 and members suggested possible changes, but they didn't officially endorse any. Then, yesterday, staff presented a new budget proposal. The presentation just listed all of the suggested ideas and their costs.
However, staff also took some, but not all, of the ideas that had been brought up on April 29th, and summed those ideas up into a new fare table entitled "reflecting committee direction" and which increased jurisdictional subsidy requests, including DC's from $12 million to $14.5 million.
The problem with this approach was that instead of letting jurisdictions horse trade for things they want, staff seemingly accepted some of the items but not necessarily the pieces that would be traded for those. And the new collective package was far more unfair to inner jurisdictions than outer jurisdictions.
Board members entered the April 27th meeting with a wish list of items they'd like to change. DC wanted to keep late night service going until 3 am and not charge a flat $4 fare after midnight. Fairfax wanted to get rid of parking increases.
DC's Jim Graham started out with a concrete proposal. He'd keep the late night service and charge a rush hour fare instead of a $4 fare. In exchange, he recommended increasing the peak-of-the-peak charge from 10¢ to 20¢. The late night service mostly benefits DC, Arlington, and Alexandria, though it also benefits suburban riders who ride to locations in DC, Arlington, and Alexandria.
The peak of the peak also hits DC, Arlington, and Alexandria riders a bit heavier than others, since being a flat fare, it's a greater percentage for those who ride short trips. The peak of the peak, as formulated, also will miss some riders from Shady Grove, Vienna, and other stations with long rides to the center, because many of those riders get on the train before 7:30 and are still on it when it's crowded downtown. But it's a reasonable tradeoff to make to pay for something that inner jurisdictions want.
Graham also suggested increasing the maximum fare, which does hit suburban riders. CFO Carol Kissall said that wasn't necessary to pay for his suggestions, so he didn't push the idea.
Next, Jeff McKay of Fairfax proposed cutting the parking fees. To pay for it, he suggested reducing the bus-rail transfer discount. Making transfers more expensive would have been a terrible idea, both for Fairfax and DC. It would discourage bus riding and push more Fairfax riders to drive to rail instead of taking bus to rail, even though riding the bus creates less congestion. And it would have harmed many inner jurisdiction residents who ride bus to rail and live nowhere near parking or don't even own cars.
Graham said he was happy to work with Fairfax to find a solution to the parking, but that the bus-rail transfer idea wasn't going to be the answer.
To summarize, now we have something Graham wants, the late-night changes, and something he's willing to do to pay for it that got general asset, the peak of the peak. And we have something McKay wants, the parking, and nothing specific to pay for it that's got broad support. When the meeting adjourned, it sounded like Graham was going to get late night changed and the higher peak of the peak, and McKay was going to need to find a funding source for his parking that wasn't unfair to DC, Arlington, and Alexandria.
Staff promised to research some of the ideas. They did so, and did a nice job of analysis. If they'd just presented a slide showing the costs of each change, the members could have resumed horse trading. But instead, they summed up only three items: the late night, the peak of the peak, and the parking, and ended up not surprisingly with a deficit. They then allocated that deficit to all of the jurisdictions, making DC and Arlington pay just as Fairfax and Maryland were.
This makes no sense. Inner jurisdictions get something and pay something, and outer jurisdictions get something, and everyone pays.
No wonder Jim Graham said that DC would veto the budget as is. To solve this, the Board needs to go back to the Sarles budget, and start horse trading again from there. The peak of the peak seems a fair way to cover the late night. Then, what would cover the parking? There's surely a deal to work out.
Next: Why is Fairfax so obsessed with parking?
Budget
Logjam at the WMATA Board, part 1: The unfair formula
Two weeks ago, the WMATA Board seemed very close to a consensus on the operating budget after Interim GM Sarles took the lead and proposed a new budget. Yesterday, the budget meeting devolved into fractious fighting over parking fees and late-night fares. What happened?
Photo by quadrapop.
Two things happened. First, the inequitable funding formula penalizes DC for decisions over parking prices that have virtually no effect on DC. And second, the way staff presented the various options created problems by putting proposals on equal footing that had not previously gained consensus.
The other factor is that Fairfax Board members are oddly concerned only with their residents who drive to Metro and not at all with their residents who ride buses to rail.
As Michael explained earlier, fare revenues (except for the maximum fare) aren't allocated to the jurisdiction where the fares come from. Instead, they're spread out evenly. WMATA first takes the total costs of Metrorail, subtracts the total revenues, then allocates the difference according to a formula.
But that means if you raise fares in a way that primarily hits residents of, say, Fairfax, DC, Maryland, Arlington, and the others would get the benefit of lower subsidies even though their people aren't paying. In this case, it's the opposite. Fairfax and Maryland representatives really want to avoid a parking fee increase, even though all other charges are going up by 15% or more.
Deleting the parking increase from the Sarles budget proposal costs $6.5 million. Allocating that change through the formula, however, would force DC, Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax City to pay more, even though virtually all of the parking facilities are in Fairfax County and Maryland. Understandably, the others, especially DC, don't want to pay for this.
Peter Benjamin actually said in the meeting that Maryland was happy to pay some extra subsidy. After insisting that they couldn't come up with any more operating aid and trying to cut the capital budget, the O'Malley Administration has done a complete 180° turn and is now more than happy to pay more. Partly, this is because many swing voters do use the parking facilities. That's why Fairfax cares so much as well.
If Fairfax and Maryland could lower the parking charges without affecting DC, Arlington, and the others' costs, it wouldn't be an issue. That still might be an option, if they can simply treat the parking as a reimbursable item. Fairfax already pledged more money for Metro, and now Maryland is up for it too. They could simply put this directly toward the cost of keeping parking as is.
Alternately, the Board could horse-trade between proposals that Fairfax and Maryland want (the parking) and proposals that DC, Arlington, and Alexandria want. They were getting ready to do just that at the end of the last meeting, but the way proposals were presented threw a monkey wrench into the process. That'll be the subject of the next installment.
Budget
WMATA releases more fare increase options
Heeding the request of the Riders' Advisory Council, advocates and blogs, WMATA staff released a larger set of options, especially for fare increases. The Board is expected to approve a public hearing that will let riders choose between these options, service cuts, and using capital dollars.
The Board meeting should start soon. You can listen by clicking on the large button that appears on this page once the meeting starts; I'll also live tweet the meeting @ggwash.
There are three fare "options", each of which has multiple components to mix and match. The first is the fare increase from the General Manager's budget, a total of $94 million. The second scales that fare increase up to $127 million, enough to cover all proposed service cuts, and the third adds in even more options from those suggested by advocates and the RAC, totaling a whopping $178 million Here's the table for the third chart, maximum fares:
All fare buckets have increased from the GM's recommendation, and the items I highlighted in yellow are the items added or modified in addition based on advocate suggestions: the peak-of-the-peak, a differential between SmarTrip and paper farecards on rail, and parking rate increases.
They did not evaluate a peak of the peak charge for bus or increasing the SmarTrip differential for bus, as some suggested.
The rightmost column gives the estimated ridership losses for each item. While WMATA has data on the ridership losses that come with small fare increases, once we get to items of this magnitude the ridership loss numbers become even more uncertain. I doubt that charging a differential for paper farecards would cost 4.1 million rides, though we really don't know.
At the same time, they don't list any ridership loss for increasing parking prices. At some lots which fill up, that might be true, but other lots don't fill up and we would expect some loss of ridership if those lots go up in price.
All three options also increase the MetroAccess fares for service beyond the required service area of ¾ miles from a transit station.
Here is the first chart, fare increases in the General Manager's proposed budget:
Here is the second, scaling up the fare increase to remove service cuts:
Budget
WMATA budget deep dive, part 7: Items with little impact
While fares and service are the big dogs when it comes to the WMATA FY 11 budget, there are other measures that can impact the bottom line. Among these are advertising, retail, MetroAccess, and parking.
NYC subway vending. Photo by rdacapasso.
Advertising: The first idea most riders jump to upon hearing of the budget gap is more advertising. Unfortunately, advertising revenues will likely drop substantially in FY11, and the budget incorporates this decline.
WMATA leases its advertising space to a private company, who pays WMATA a set fee and sells advertising throughout the system. The current vendor has lost a considerable amount of money during the current contract, which expires this year.
The most likely way to increase advertising revenue would be to lift the ban on alcohol and cigarette advertising. Those measures would be very controversial at best.
Retail: The WMATA Board has hotly debated retail kiosks, especially if that retail includes any food. They're concerned about the increased cost of trash removal and vermin control offsetting any small revenue from retail sales. Without food, or with food and additional cleaning, retail kiosks would be a minor revenue item in the WMATA budget and not likely to have any real impact.
MetroAccess: This is a controversial area because any reduction in service impacts people who likely have no other reasonable alternative for mobility. The federal government requires transit services to offer paratransit to persons with disabilities living within ¾ miles of a transit stop during the hours that transit stop has service.
WMATA now has the capability through GPS to restrict service to the area required under federal guidelines. They propose to do so and charge double the bus base fare to riders, the maximum allowed. WMATA could also allow local jurisdictions to choose to offer service beyond the federally mandated minumum, if they chose, as long as that jurisdiction increases their contribution to pay for the extra cost.
An additional component for cost control is to encourage persons with disabilities to use the fixed-route system (the rail and bus system others use). WMATA currently permits the disabled to ride free on the fixed-route system. WMATA publicizes this program to potential users, which has mitigated some of the cost increases that come with an aging population.
For some persons with disabilities, getting to the fixed-route system is a challenge. WMATA could try a voluntary pilot program to provide vouchers when MetroAccess riders use taxis or vans to carry them to the fixed-route system. The value of the voucher would be less than the $40 it costs to run the average MetroAccess trip.
The disabled individual would get a free ride; WMATA would save money. To control costs, they could restrict the number of vouchers each person can get within a given time frame. WMATA would still have to provide MetroAccess service, but this could potentially offset some of its costs.
None of these measures will reduce or add to the $10 million savings that WMATA projects in its proposed budget through "managing" MetroAccess costs in any meaningful way. They would mitigate the immediate effects of the reduction in service area and perhaps help reduce future MetroAccess costs. The fare increase for MetroAccess patrons would also be lower if the bus base fare does not increase at the 20% rate proposed.
Parking: The WMATA Board adopted a resolution in 2007 to increase parking fees every two years along with fares. Following this policy would mean parking fares would increase between 20¢ 30¢ for parking costs that currently range from $3.25 to $4.75. It would bring in additional parking revenue of about $3.7 million for FY11, assuming no loss of demand, according to WMATA.
However, WMATA projects parking revenue will fall by $2.8 million in FY11 at the current rates, primarily in reserved parking and in parking meter usage due to the recession. Some station lots have spaces available throughout the day while others remain filled.
It doesn't make sense to increase parking rates systemwide while both ridership and parking revenue are declining and a substantial fare increase is on the horizon. However, WMATA might get more parking revenue by letting general users start using the reserved parking and metered spaces at earlier times.
It would also make sense to permit the General Manager to adjust parking fees according to demand at various stations throughout the system. Some other parking proposals that have sparked interest for possible revenue increases include overnight parking and charging for parking for those exiting before 10:30 am. There may be a way to generate revenue from these if the fee more than offsets collection costs.
For now, increasing the availability of spaces, increasing rates at lots that are filled and possibly even lowering parking fees at select stations to increase ridership should generate additional revenue. I'm going to assume a rough estimate of $1.65 million, or about half of a general increase from these measures.
Charters: Charter bus services used to provide about $2 million in revenue annually to WMATA. Federal guidelines imposed two years ago essentially forced WMATA out of the business, even when private companies could not handle the demand, such as the former Redskins shuttles. Transit agencies should push to overturn these prohibitions, since there is now a different administration, but it would probably generate little to no revenue in FY11 even if the rules are eventually modified.
The bottom line is there aren't a lot of revenue enhancements or savings here, although a targeted parking proposal could raise some worthwhile revenue.
Next: Other ideas that could bring in some revenue.
Transit
Using stimulus money for Metro operations? Make a plan to pay it back
The WMATA board has reached a deal to use stimulus money to fill Metro's budget gap. It's great that we'll be able to save current levels of service. However, it's even more important to act responsibly with Metro's budget in the future. Metro needs to start work now on ways to make the bus system more efficient, build political support for stronger subsidies, and explorer targeted sources of revenue.
Photo by The Rocketeer.
The stimulus money was intended to fund capital repairs. During tight budgets, agencies often defer maintenance. That saves money now, but costs more down the road. If Metro is putting off some repair, the bill will come due later, and the longer we defer, the worse it will be. Right now, avoiding service cuts may be a more important goal, but Metro should also devise a plan right away to pay it back.
Think of it as a loan. Metro is borrowing from the future. We're doing a lot of that lately. But this should be a very short-term loan. We need a plan to cut costs, enhance revenues, and/or grow jurisdictions' contributions. That plan must plug the following years' budget gap, fund the maintenance we didn't do this year, and perform extra maintenance to make up for the year's deferral.
With the looming deadline for fare hike or service cut hearings, Metro staff didn't have time to thoroughly analyze the system to find more ways to save money. Nor was there time for Board members to build a political consensus in the states and the District for more funding. Once they pass this compromise and win a year of breathing room, the real work must begin.
Transit service is incredibly important. The more convenient our service, the more people take transit, which helps not only riders but all the drivers who enjoy roads with fewer cars. Still, the bus system can be more rational without harming riders. Right now, it still bears the legacy of multiple independent bus operators. The routes, especially downtown, are tangled and confusing. As a result, commuters take the one route from home to work, while casual users seldom know where or when to use the bus system. We've optimized the route network for those who already take the bus, but at the expense of many who would but don't.
Metro should immediately begin a study similar to San Francisco's Transit Effectiveness Project. That comprehensive analysis found changes in the bus system which improved service while simultaneously cutting costs. In downtown SF, they had multiple lines running on parallel streets. Without taking away service to needy groups, they combined some of these. They added service on high-demand "trunk lines" and divided some lines that experienced heavy delays. We need a similar study here. No change can benefit every single rider, but on balance, it should help more riders than it inconveniences, and balance both the gains and the few losses among rich and poor alike.
We can also save money by investing in priority bus corridors. With dedicated lanes, queue jumpers, and signal priority to "hold the green", buses can move much more quickly. Not only do they get riders to their destinations faster, but they finish their routes faster, saving on labor costs or allowing more service with the same number of drivers.
Finally, Metro should continue exploring targeted opportunities to raise revenue. Our underpriced parking garages are one example. Metro can explore vending, advertising, and more. Many of these take time to develop. The time is now.
At the same time the Metro board votes to redirect the stimulus money, they should pass a resolution directing staff to develop a bus route restructuring and streamlining plan within six months. The plan should save at least $20 million a year in bus service efficiency improvements while not unfairly burdening low income or transit-dependent riders. These would not be cuts, but enhancements that save money while improving, rather than diminishing, service for more people. The resolution should require a report within six months containing recommendations Metro can implement within one year from now.
Last year, Metro balanced its budget with a one-time trick. The fare increase went into effect in January, but all of the money went into the fiscal year beginning in July. They had 18 months of a fare increase for only 12 months of costs. We can't use that trick again. Transferring capital stimulus money to operating costs is another one-time trick. Soon we're going to run out of tricks. It's time to start working on a serious plan that balances Metro's budgets without any illusions or sleight-of-hand.
Parking
Performance park our Metro garages
Metro is getting closer to balancing its budget, but still even some painful service cuts. There's one place Metro is leaving big money on the table: parking garages.
Photo by inwantamonkey on Flickr.
Most of Metro's parking garages fill up every weekday, generally, WMATA says, between 7:45 am and 8:30 am. That means that some people just can't park, especially people whose jobs start later in the day.
According to WMATA, all parking garages fill up except for Landover, Minnesota Avenue, Prince George's Plaza, College Park, Wheaton, White Flint, and Twinbrook. 35 stations have parking, meaning 28 are filling up every weekday.
Metro should price the parking to meet the demand. If we're concerned about equity, jurisdictions could give some discounts to low-income residents. But cutting bus service is even more inequitable, since some people don't have cars.
Metro Board Chairman Jim Graham asked Metro staff how much money we could raise from charging for parking on weekends. Unless weekend garages fill up, however, that change could actually discourage Metro ridership at times when Metro has plenty of capacity. Instead, he should also ask how much Metro could raise by charging a market price for scarce parking during the week. If that can forestall some bus and rail service cuts for residents of the surrounding areas, it's the right choice.
@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
