Posts about Richard Sarles

Many escalators around the world stop when they're not being used, and have more efficient motors than Metro's aging escalators. Solar panels or solar laminates could cover the roofs of Metro railyards, maintenance facilities, and garages.

Other transit agencies have trained operators to accelerate and brake more fuel-efficiently. Many have installed tire pressure gauges that actively and constantly communicate tire air pressure data to the maintenance facilities. That lets them keep buses at optimum tire pressure and fuel efficiency, which saves significant fuel. Fuel is a very large cost item in Metro's budget, especially with fuel prices rising.

WMATA already has set a standard to make new facilities LEED Silver, like the Shepherd's Parkway bus garage under construction. Its new buses are cleaner and more efficient than the old, and the 7000 series railcars use LED lights, regenerative braking to get energy back like hybrid cars do, better HVAC systems and a design that reduces the need for some polluting processes to clean them.

Sustainability faces obstacles

It's often difficult for transit agencies to energetically adopt sustainability programs. Some agency staff think of transit as intrinsically pro-sustainable, compared to other modes of travel, so they might not feel that sustainability is the higest priority. There can be resistance from the rank and file to newfangled, ivory tower ideas that don't recognize the rough reality of engineering and operations.

Transit agencies also, perhaps understandably, end up prioritizing the day-to-day crisis management over strategic programs. At the moment, WMATA's the overwhelming emphasis is on system safety and renewal capital projects. That means that "soft," "green" projects can find it hard to compete for the capital funds available, even when there's a powerful economic business case behind them.

Another obstacle is the relationship between labor and management. Many sustainability programs might involve changes to people's job responsibilities, which means that management has to negotiate for a change rather than simply establishing and implementing the program.

For example, if WMATA monitored the fuel efficiency performance of each bus driver to help them save fuel, would the union oppose this as another form of management breathing down workers' necks? Would WMATA be able to reward employees that saved the most fuel and money?

Even for non-union workers, transit agencies lack many of the tools private sector companies have to reward individual initiative. A private sector employee responsible for annual cost savings might get a bonus as a result, in a transit agency that same employee might simply get an employee appreciation mention in a weekly newsletter. Weighed against the possibility that any given sustainability initiative might "rock the boat" for bosses or colleagues, a public pat on the back doesn't offer enough to outweigh the possible headaches.

Sustainability initiatives that come from one department might create savings in another department. But the department that initiated the program might not benefit from the savings, reducing the incentive. Also, divisions within public or private sector organizations often covet the size of their respective budgets and the control that spending authority gives.

A department which saves money might view this as reducing "their budget" instead of looking at the benefit to the agency's bottom line. The affected department could well resent the sustainability initiative and the employees elsewhere in the organization who pushed the idea through.

Making sustainability happen takes leadership from the top

Despite all these barriers, it's more important than ever that WMATA take a strong leadership role in sustainability, backed up by strong management policy and action. In a budget season when the agency is asking for substantial fare and subsidy increases, the public needs to hear that WMATA is taking every possible action to provide transit services more cost-effectively (not to mention more safely and reliably).

WMATA is also entering negotiations with its labor unions for the next round of labor contracts. It's critical that the issues of efficiency and productivity be on the table in a central, pivotal way. It's not unreasonable for labor to ask for wage increases; it's completely unreasonable to ask for such increases without also committing to improving productivity and efficiency in quantifiable ways.

WMATA management could start most sustainability initiatives without any Board action. Richard Sarles and his management team could unilaterally adopt many measures and communicate the values described here. But, perhaps for many of the reasons listed above, Metro's management has not yet made sustainability the visible issue it could and should be. That means they need support, and pressure, from the region and the board.

To date, only 2 WMATA Board members have expressed much interest in sustainability: Tom Downs and Mary Hynes. They should both be commended for trying to make this issue a priority for the agency, and hopefully they will continue to do so. Their colleagues should join them in pressing for more sustainability, productivity, and efficiency.

With a SmarTrip card, rail fares will range from $1.70 to $3.50 off-peak and from $2.10 to $5.75 during rush hours. Regular local bus fares will rise from $1.60 to $1.70 for SmarTrip customers, while customers paying in cash will have their fares rounded to the nearest dollar.

Since use of SmarTrip by visitors and non-regular riders is expected to increase, SmarTrip vending machines will be installed at more all stations.

With the elimination of the peak-of-the-peak fare, station fare tables will go back to having just two columns. But riders shouldn't expect to save a whole lot, since the "regular" fare has been increased enough to cover the difference. With the peak-of-the-peak surcharge, the current maximum fare is $5.20. It will rise to $5.75 under the proposal.

Parking at Metro lots and garages will increase by 25¢ per day, about a 5% increase. Bike locker fees will be cut from $200 per year to $120 per year, something we argued for based on low demand for lockers.

Most disappointing to me is that discussion of implementing some sort of flexible monthly pass has stopped for this budget cycle, meaning that Metro customers will likely have to wait at least two more years to have the flexibility of paying for their commute and getting their off-peak trips for free. The topic of monthly passes was briefly discussed during an October meeting of the finance committee, but by November had disappeared from the discussion.

The fare increases are expected to raise about half of Metro's $120 million shortfall for the coming fiscal year, with local jurisdictions expected to chip in the other half of the shortfall in order to balance the budget. Metro's finance committee will discuss the fare increase along with the rest of the budget on Thursday morning.

Meanwhile, during the Cherry Blossom festival in particular, Metro had technicians available to immediately assist with escalator and elevator issues at the Smithsonian, L'Enfant Plaza, Waterfront, Arlington Cemetery, Capitol South and Metro Center Metrorail stations. I have shared your concerns with Rail Operations management to learn exactly what transpired at Union Station and to determine how we can improve going forward—including making elevator wayfinding signage more visible.

Metro is considered one of the most accessible systems in the country, and every Metro station has an elevator—there are no stations that require the use of steps prior to accessing an elevator. We have posted the locations of our elevators with the accessibility symbol on our Station Name signs about every 20 feet on platform walls and pylons. Also, for your future use, we have posted to the outside of every elevator a sign that provides the 24 hour elevator outage number, 202-962-1212 and 202-962-1825, which is the number to call for a shuttle if the elevator is out of service.

While our elevator reliability has been fairly good—generally over 95% of elevators are available each month—I also want to make sure you are aware of the tools we have when planning any future trips with us, including information regarding elevator outages. If you call 202-962-1100, we have people who are available to assist visitors with disabilities in advance of your trip. Also, you will soon see improvements on our website with better real-time information about elevators that are out of service for maintenance or repair.

I realize this information doesn't change the experience you had. But know that we are working to improve, and that our executives do travel through the system periodically with members of our Accessibility Advisory Committee so that we can see the system through the eyes of others.

Sincerely,

Richard R. Sarles
General Manager
and Chief Executive Officer

---

Dear Mr. Sarles,

I do appreciate your attention to accessibility issues. I would like to point out a few things in response to your letter and suggest some easy fixes to help disabled tourists.

1) While each station may have at least one accessible entrance, there are many station entrances that do require steps. Once you navigate these steps, you will find that the turnstiles do not accommodate wheelchairs (or strollers or ...). Then you have to undo all of that and try another entrance—which may have steps lurking half way down the corridor. ALL of these non-accessible entrances should have signs saying "This is NOT the accessible entrance. The accessible entrance is (on the west side, one block up... etc.) Please also inform police staff, maintenance staff, and others about these entrances--a nice brochure/map would be lovely. I was directed down two non-accessible entrances by police men and by metro staff at the Union Station.

2) While you may well have staff stationed for breakdowns, there was no signage whatsoever on the Smithsonian exit elevator (from the blue line/metro station side). There was only a yellow gate. I spent 5 minutes just figuring out that it was broken and not some fancy way of doing the pass through the turnstile. This station in particular has its elevator far far away from staff—in a dark corner on the far side of the track. Please instruct ALL metro staff that if there is an outage (even to clean up for a moment) to put up a sign:

"This is out of order. The nearest elevator is at __ station. Please call 202-962-1212 and 202-962-1825 for assistance." You could print up a stack of these things and keep them in the stationmaster's office.

This sign was NOT available at the Smithsonian elevator. To be fair, that was the only place that I searched in desperation for a number. And it may be on the elevator itself--but I could not get through the turnstile to get to the elevator. So, please, recheck to make sure that these signs are at:

• Each turnstile/entrance to each elevator
  
• Each elevator
  
• Each restroom.

3) I may have been extremely unlucky, but there were no technicians available at the Smithsonian entrance between 4:35 and 5:20 pm on Monday April 4th. I also don't think the technicians were available earlier, because when the policeman and metro staff finally rescued me and got me and my wheelchair up the escalator, they spoke about having to do the same thing about 2 hours earlier. So, please check this availability. Again, I understand breakdowns. But not having a SIGN about the breakdown and an explanation of where to go is absolutely inexcusable!

4) "We have posted the locations of our elevators with the accessibility symbol on our Station Name signs about every 20 feet on platform walls and pylons." I was looking. I did not see one of these. However, I am in a wheelchair and therefore I am 3 feet tall. Could you make them larger? or eye level with a wheelchair? Or provide a printable brochure? Or have brochures available to give out to tourists? (If this is a cost issue, I am sure we can do some fundraising!) I will be in DC again May 13th and I will be happy to retrace my steps with someone.

5) I did go to your website—and my impression was that if I were a DC resident, call this number, prove I am handicapped, go through more bureaucracy, and I might be able to get an accessible ride. In no way did I see that I as a tourist could also get help or directions or even a map. On your website, on the front page, please put a new section: Accessibility for tourists. In this section, put links to maps, phone numbers, etc. As taxis in DC charge $20 per ride for people in wheelchairs, the metro makes sense for a lot of handicapped tourists—who need this information.

Thank you,
Deena Larsen

I know that technological projects sometimes take longer than expected and problems can crop up. However, WMATA management has continuously remained very tight-lipped about their lack of progress, and did not respond to a request yesterday.

It certainly seems as though this is simply not getting much attention at all. If it is, and there are just unforeseen issues, or if Google is the one being difficult, it would certainly behoove WMATA to explain these facts.

The agreement was signed in July, and the data made high-quality enough to release publicly in the fall. Now, according to Sarles, they are working to prepare the data to upload to Google.

In response to a question from Councilmember Tommy Wells at the oversight hearing this morning, Sarles noted that Metro routes and schedules do appear on Microsoft's Bing. What's so much harder about getting on Google?

A comment from Chris Zimmerman last July continues to seem most prescient. He said this project seemed to be "asymptotically approaching" completion. So far, that's still as true now as it was then.

Disclosure: I used to work for Google, but had no involvement with Google Maps. I no longer own any Google stock and have no other financial interest in Google.

That means opponents are left with two options. They can fight the searches in court on the basis that they violate riders' liberties. Or, they can hope the agency will realize their ineffectiveness at deterring determined terrorists, or run out of grant money and eventually let the program expire.

Will the second one happen? I asked Sarles this week how long Metro expected that the $26 million TSA grant would sustain the random search program and whether he anticipates continuing the searches once the grant is expended. If they do continue, I asked, how much will they cost and how does WMATA expect to absorb them into their budget?

His response was a non-answer:

Our security strategy includes varying the methods that we use, as unpredictability is a factor in protecting the system. Another factor is being responsive to conditions as they change. For those reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about what methods we might use years from now with or without grant support.

One of the most damning arguments against the bag searches, in my opinion, is that Metro is allocating its resources to a "security" function which has little or no other use. Despite the fact that the actual swabbing of bags is being carried out by TSA personnel, the full operation of these checkpoints requires the time of several Metro Transit Police officers to stand around at tables outside the station entrances.

As Metro Transit Police's assistant chief has admitted, the TSA grant under which the searches are purportedly funded simply stipulates that programs must increase visibility of security measures in the system.

Having anti-terror squads, or even random bag searches actually inside the faregates, on platforms and in trains could serve an equally effective terrorism deterrence function. It would also increase general public safety throughout the system at a time when riders are calling its and their safety into question.

While I have some concerns about the slow ebbing of passengers civil liberties the searches represent, I'm most vehemently opposed to them based on their gross ineffectiveness and the fact that the resources and personnel time they require to carry out could be put to much better use elsewhere in the system.

On numerous cases, Sarles, Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn, and other officials have dismissed concerns about the cost of and allocation of resources to the agency's new random bag searches. Questions have been deflected by the simple answer that the measures are paid for by a TSA grant from the federal government.

Yet, if Sarles' and Taborn's vehement defense of the searches as effective is to be taken seriously, then they surely won't let them end when the TSA grant is spent, right? That is a big concern, particularly considering that with a $26 million grant, they must not be cheap.

There are reasons to oppose the program even if Metro weren't spending a dime of its scarce resources on them. But if this program continues without TSA money in the future, while we face the continual threat of service cuts and fare increases, we should be severely disappointed.