Posts about Peter Benjamin

That's a bad step, but Benjamin and Hewlett already weren't elected officials who did usually attend meetings.

In the debate over WMATA governance, there are two competing views of the role of the Board. The Riders' Advisory Council and most advocacy groups feel that the Board should include public elected officials who represent their constituents, many of whom are riders, and are responsive to rider needs and concerns.

The Board of Trade instead wants to minimize the role of elected officials and create a Board composed of "experts," who make transit decisions without "politics." The danger of this view is that a bunch of experts are likely to make decisions around what's best for the trains and buses, not the people. "Politics" is just another term for people's concerns being heard.

Local officials also have greater power to advocate for WMATA funding with their home jurisdictions. Since they also make land use decisions, local officials who also participate in the board can better bring transit issues to local deliberations around planning near transit facilities.

WMATA has to make many technical decisions, but the solution is not to put a bunch of technical people on the Board. Instead, the technical people should work for the agency, and the board leave technical decisions to the CEO while reviewing them for policy implications. Elected officials are the right people to make policy decisions.

Despite Maryland officials insisting they planned to listen to public input before making governance decisions, O'Malley has submitted this legislation which codifies the "let experts run it" worldview.

The legislation would require the following from the governor's Maryland appointees:

1. Writes into the law the existing unofficial practice of letting the governor pick the two voting members.
   
2. Forbids elected officials from serving on the board.
   
3. Forbids people from serving who worked for WMATA within the last year.
   
4. Requires members to have experience in transportation and land use planning, transportation or other public sector management, engineering, finance, public safety, homeland security or law.
   
5. Requires members to be regular passengers of bus or rail.
   
6. Requires members to submit reports twice a year showing their attendance at board meetings.

Items 3, 5, and 6 are fine, and generally good ideas.

Item 5 should also list MetroAccess along with bus and rail. No current board members ride paratransit regularly, but those who do should be just as qualified to be board members. Item 6 should also stipulate that the attendance reports be publicly released, such as by posting online.

Item 1 codifies existing practice, but a practice that shouldn't be written into law. Formerly, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties appointed the voting members. Then, the state government took over all the funding responsibility for Metro, and in exchange got those appointments.

But what if a future governor decides not to keep funding Metro? The law doesn't require that, so why should it require he get to appoint the voting members?

Item 2 moves in the wrong direction. Maryland should have more elected officials, not fewer. Maryland officials who spoke to the RAC said they already believe the Maryland Contitution's prohibition on elected officials holding "offices of profit" forbids elected officials from serving on the board.

However, elected officials do sit on the Transportation Planning Board, so clearly they can serve on some kinds of boards. The RAC argued in its report for considering the WMATA Board similarly.

Item 4 is wrong-headed. Board members should be chosen for their ability to effectively decide policy issues and represent Maryland, not for specific professional experience. This is so broadly written that it will limit few people, such as allowing anyone with experience in law. But why limit at all?

It's also not clear what "experience" means. Does riding Metro count as transportation experience? If so, then certainly someone should have some transportation experience. But most likely they mean professional experience. Does serving on the TPB or other boards count?

Montgomery alternate Kathy Porter, for example, seems to be a great member so far. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School, but had she not gotten that specific degree but still served as Mayor of Takoma Park and served on other transportation boards, would she be qualified?

Tommy Wells has a JD degree, but before that his professional background was in social work and running social service organizations. If he hadn't taken a few years to go to law school, would he somehow be unqualified to serve on the board? The general counsel answers detailed legal questions, not board members.

Cathy Hudgins, the current board chair, originally studied math education. Does her subsequent MPA degree really mean the difference between being an unqualified board member and a qualified one?

The Maryland legislature should strip these provisions from the proposed bill entirely.

Meanwhile, none of this explains why O'Malley wanted to replace Benjamin, who would have had no trouble with any of the standards. Observers will be waiting with bated breath to see who O'Malley chooses to replace Benjamin and Hewlett, and what that says about his views on Metro.

Instead, he hoped the discussion would center around how to communicate this decision to customers. "Without a dedicated commitment to listening to our customers about heartfelt issues about privacy and other rights and about security," he said, the Board risks having the kind of reaction that the TSA encountered to its pat-downs.

Fairfax's Cathy Hudgins, the current Board chair, added that the Board should explore whether better communication could "alleviate concerns and stress" for riders over this program.

That wasn't compelling to Kathy Porter, new alternate from Montgomery County. She pointed out that there's not much the Board could do with any feedback it might receive, if it's not interested in taking any action based on that feedback.

"I respect the GM and the chief," she said, and acknowledged the law enforcement imperative to protect the safety and security of the system. However, she said, "Our relationship with our riders has a significant impact on the safety and security of the system," and that surely is the purview of the Board.

Fairfax's Jeff McKay, a staunch supporter of the bag searches, wondered why the Board was discussing the issue in this context. If they want to discuss the program, discuss the program, he said; but is there really value in discussing how much communication is needed for security measures?

McKay added that he'd hate to see any rules that the GM and chief had to give a certain amount of notice to the public if future credible threats arise and they have to institute other security measures.

McKay has a point. The Board was trying to avoid having to confront the bag searches directly through this exercise in talking instead about communication. The conversation became much better once they got their views out in the open. Some wholeheartedly like the program, some clearly don't, and others remained reluctant to take a stand.

DC Councilmember Tommy Wells argued that questions about the program "are highly appropriate" given the level of scrutiny the Board puts into spending priorities in other areas, like railcar replacement. He said that there is a tradeoff between any security measure's effectiveness and other factors, and that's what the Board should consider; he comes out against the program on those grounds.

Federal member Mort Downey feels differently. "This is a national security issue," said Downey, and "outweighs every other issue in civil society." Downey said he is afraid of having to go before a Congressional committee to justify why Metro didn't take these precautions.

It's clear Downey simply thinks the program is fine, but the argument about Congressional committees is the least convincing argument of all. We don't want Board members who make decisions based on what Senators might say in the event of various outcomes. That's a recipe for policy decisions based more on fear than on good policy.

Downey actually seemed to want stronger measures, saying that the current searches were just the edge of what needs to be done. He lamented the way airport security measures were "pushed back" by airlines before the 9/11 attacks.

Maryland's Peter Benjamin began his own remarks by saying that he's a long-term member of the ACLU, and a strong believer in civil rights. "I feel that bag checks are a violation of those rights, and the beginning of a process that moves towards us having fewer and fewer and fewer of those rights," he said.

If the decision was up to him, he'd take the risk of someone possibly getting in, blowing something up, and him being a victim of an attack. He feels that this program's effectiveness does not outweigh the cost.

As listeners could guess from hearing a statement starting with "I'm a long-term member of the ACLU," there was a "but." Benjamin continued that he's also sworn to uphold the safety and security of the system and the riders. He isn't comfortable making the decision for other riders, and while he heard the overwhelming rider input at the RAC meeting and the RAC's resolution, he doesn't know if that reflects all riders and isn't willing to overturn the expert opinion of the GM and police chief.

Just last week, Benjamin himself swore in several new Board members, and so we know that in that oath also includes a promise to uphold the Constitution. Did he forget about this piece?

Richard Sarles noted that given time and "being relaxed," he'd prefer to solicit more customer feedback, and he did have concerns about civil liberties, but "wanted to be ahead of the game instead of behind," especially going into the holiday season. Sarles defended his right to make decisions when necessary, saying if he had to take action for the safety of riders, "By God, I'm going to make that decision."

Sarles should have that right. McKay is right that the Board shouldn't require some long consultation process. However, it's also right for the Board to review whether the GM has gone too far. Most apparently don't.

But what about that slippery slope Benjamin is worried about (but not too worried)? Wells asked Chief Taborn, why not implement full body scans, or 100% ID checks to enter Metro? Porter later asked, if the GM did decide to start such programs, would the Board want to know?

There wasn't a good answer to that. Instead, Downs concluded with a suggstion to "establish some values" around customer communication. He made a good point that it might be healthy for the police to be doing more talking with concerned riders; at the RAC meeting, Capt. Kevin Gaddis seemed shocked at a suggestion he might benefit from talking with the ACLU and other groups from time to time. A little dialogue could go a long way if the police can come to see riders as something other than potential enemies.

The dangling question is how far the Board would let the GM and police chief go. To listen to Downey and McKay, who brought up many of the usual tropes about how things were different on 9/12/2001 versus 9/10/2001 and how we live in a different world, anything the GM does in the name of safety is acceptable.

It sounded suspiciously similar to the arguments for torture and Guantanamo. If only the Obama administration might reconsider its choice of federal representatives to find one that shares its values beyond simply having long expertise in transit.

Meanwhile, at least there's hope that the pushback on this program might dissuade Sarles and Taborn from performing very many bag searches or venturing into even more invasive security measures. And if that happens, a few more Board members just might find some fortitude and stand with Porter and Wells.

That means that 42% of workers (70% of 60%) have reported a safety hazard in the past year. That's alot of safety hazards reported. That also means that 30% of safety hazards noticed by workers aren't being reported. Sarles then addresses the latter issue of fear of retaliation.

There is a strong concern about retaliation but in somewhat unexpected ways. Employees' primary concerns are not that they would be fired or demoted. The strongest concerns that were cited were that it would be difficult for them to work among their peers, that the organization wouldn't do anything about their report, and that the organization would not protect them against retaliation in their immediate working environment.

So, imagine that you are the Chair of the Board at this point. The NTSB has excoriated your Board for its lack of safety oversight following the Red Line crash that killed 9 people. Everyone is pushing Congress to let the FTA regulate transit agencies because of your Board's failure in oversight.

You have responded to the NTSB and FTA by saying that you are now up to the task of safety oversight, and are modifying your mission statement in the very same meeting to place more focus on safety.

You would probably ask if the workers are correct that the organization wouldn't do anything about their report. What does the organization do with reports of safety hazards, and is this process documented and audited? What has it done with the safety hazards reported by 42% of workers?

Board Chair Benjamin:

My reaction is that your report is impressive, it's thorough, it's in-depth, it's exhaustive, and more than anything else it shows your leadership as a General Manager, and the combined efforts of a really dedicated senior staff, middle management and staff throughout this authority. It's an extremely, extremely good report.

Huhh? What is "extremely, extremely good" about 60% of workers noticing safety hazards and 30% of workers fearing retaliation if they report safety hazards?

I would like to comment very briefly on the employee survey because it's such an interesting set of results which reflect not necessarily reality but perception. And in this particular case, perception is so important. Because if what you are trying to do is revamp your culture, you have to know where you're starting.

So, after lauding praise on management, Benjamin dismisses the workers' perceptions as "not necessarily reality" and shows absolutely no interest in what has been done with the safety hazards noticed by 70% of workers and reported by 42% of workers.

This meeting exemplified the dangerous rut that Metro is in: (a) writing blank checks to demonstrate its response to NTSB recommendations designed to prevent a crash like the Red Line crash, while (b) placing their heads in the sand when anyone suggests that more safety hazards exist.

What exactly is the Board doing any differently than they did before the Red Line crash to demonstrate safety oversight?

Other than reviewing statistics of injuries and fatalities by month (which we all knew by reading the newspaper anyway), forming a Safety committee and changing the mission statement, it's unclear what is happening that is supposed to resemble safety oversight.

When staff presented this to the WMATA Board on Thursday, members rightly focused on communication. They asked Jim Hughes, Director of Operations Planning and Scheduling, if Metro had a communications plan for this change? Hughes said no. The Board urged staff to develop one right away.

Peter Benjamin pointed out that a service change years ago had been scrapped simply because riders were confused. Anyone know the details? It seems hard to believe it could have been more confusing than this wacky map from 1980-1983, but maybe the sensitivity level changed.

As with the earlier change, the way Metro talks about the change will be critical. In particular, the issue is what color the trains will be. Right now, all presentations talk about "rerouting Blue Line trains." Operationally, this fits how Metro thinks about it, because the trains are leaving Franconia-Springfield, and right now trains leaving Franconia-Springfield are Blue.

Therefore, tables in the presentation to the Board list numbers of "Blue Line to Greenbelt" and "Blue/Yellow to DC through L'Enfant." Having a Blue Line train go over the bridge and up 7th Street would create massive confusion.

I'm almost certain Metro doesn't really expect to call these trains Blue Line trains, but by referring to them in that way in presentations, it confuses observers and journalists, leading to maps like this:

Compared to this, a separate color seems to make a lot of sense. That's the reaction some riders gave in a focus group, and it was the reaction from Jim Graham at the Board meeting. "There are lots of colors left in the rainbow," he said, and suggested pink. And the presentations have encouraged this view by including maps showing the new service as a separate line:

However, creating a new color would be a bad idea. I listed a large number of reasons almost two years ago. Among them is that this new color would only run rush hours, and then only three trains per hour. That would likely lead some riders to wait around for a certain line which isn't coming for hours or until the next day.

It would also make the Metro map much more complex for a service that's only different from the Yellow Line for riders at four stations, which represent only 3% of total riders. Those stations also get few tourists, and tourists are most likely to become confused while regular riders will quickly get used to any change.

Plus, as Peter Benjamin noted, it's not quite right to create a new color for one split service pattern, Yellow Line trains that go to Franconia instead of Huntington, but not for the other one, Orange Line trains that go to Largo. Should that get its own color, too? How about ... burgundy?

And some Red Line trains only go from Grosvenor to Silver Spring. Should they be another color? Couple that with the future Silver Line, and the Metro map might end up looking like this insanity:

There's a much easier way. Just call the trains Yellow Line trains. For almost all their length, they match the Yellow Line. Almost everyone riding them will see no difference. In fact, since the occasional Yellow Line train already goes to Greenbelt, showing the Yellow Line there will clarify these trains as well.

New York used to have a different color for each route, and the ensuing spaghetti map looks not that unlike the crazy rainbow map above. Their biggest innovation was to combine routes that share the same path through the central business district.

DC could easily do the same. A train on the 7th Street subway is either Green or Yellow depending on whether it goes over the Potomac or under the Anacostia. A train on the Foggy Bottom-Capitol Hill line is Orange if it goes to northern Arlington and Fairfax and Blue if it hooks around to the south. That's a straightforward scheme that has the advantage of being the way things already work.

I think the riders south of King Street and east of Stadium-Armory will have little trouble with this scheme. But if Metro thinks it'll be confusing, they could introduce route numbers or letters. That could also encompass the way half the Red Line trains don't run the full length.

Board members criticized the framing of this issue as a "reroute" or "realignment." The latter, in particular, makes it sound like the tracks are moving.

This is an improvement in service. It's going to mean more trains across the Potomac to carry more people. A few people lose out, but there's more capacity. This is a good thing. Metro should talk about this as the service improvement it is.

Since Metro has no communications plan yet, I've created one for them. Here's the flyer I'd recommend posting:

Update: Added a note that this change is planned for summer 2011.

Weir also notes that "The board is using the annual $300 million to displace about $138 million of the local contributions by jurisdictions, says Jack Corbett, of the MetroRiders.org transit group. "Congress intended this as new money, not replacement money," he said.

Congress approved $150 million a year in new capital money as long as it was matched by jurisdictions, one-third from each. Some, including Corbett, expressed fears at the time that jurisdictions would just count some of their existing capital "overmatch" from Metro Matters toward their $50 million. At January's RAC meeting, I specifically asked WMATA Board Chairman and Maryland member Peter Benjamin whether Maryland would do this; he said they would not. Clearly, a lot has changed.

At today's DC Council budget hearing on DDOT, Committee Chairman and DC WMATA Board member Jim Graham strongly emphasized that DC does not want to see the capital budget cut and he is not pleased with the sudden windfall of capital money DC won't be giving WMATA.

Graham also said the WMATA General Counsel has issued an opinion on a technical but important question: Whether Maryland's lack of payment for capital obligations in FY2010 is a "failure to pay" or a "failure to appropriate." Apparently, Metro Matters says that if a jurisdiction doesn't pay what is promised, WMATA can borrow the money on its behalf and charge interest, but if the legislature of that jurisdiction just never appropriates the money, they can't. There was some question about which it was, and for at least some of the money, the General Counsel believes it's a "failure to pay."

I'm trying to get a copy of the letter. As is sadly the case with most of this sordid saga, it was handed out to Board members in executive session. This is a legal opinion so it could be valid, but WMATA management and the Board continue to keep many details from the public.

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.

MRO's Kevin Moore writes that "there should have been an Option 5" to raise fares enough to cover not only the $4 million in service cuts but the $16 million to avoid transferring capital funds to operating expenses for the remainder of 2010.

MRO and Transit First are also disappointed that jurisdictions can't contribute more, and moreover, that there's no public discussion of why not. At the last Riders' Advisory Council meeting, presumptive WMATA Board Chair Peter Benjamin said that Maryland is already doing Metro a huge favor by keeping its contribution constant as it slashes all other spending. However, that hasn't been a more public discussion and riders want to hear this directly from state and District leaders, not secondhand.

Similarly, the Board's choice of four options took "off the table" without any opportunity for public debate whether WMATA's Contributing Jurisdictions should be urged to help cover part of this $40 million budget gap—or at least to respond in a transparent process why they can't afford to meet passengers part way in closing the gap.

Until the recent appointment of Federal members to the WMATA Board, past Board members—as here—just accepted in silence and secrecy the funding limits established by the Contributing Jurisdictions that appointed them—and that could replace them—without any option for transparency, public comment and debate. We hope the new Federal members of the WMATA Board will not tolerate those backroom decisions between the Board and the Contributing Jurisdictions with no transparency as to why those jurisdictions can't help solve WMATA's
critical budget problems.

Yes, all State and local governments have severe budget problems but so do individual Metro riders. These governments must do their utmost to preserve and strengthen our Metrorail and Metrobus system. Our regional transit system is essential for economically healthy communities, a clean environment, and keeping transportation affordable—objectives of the Contributing Jurisdictions as well.