Posts about WMATA Board

Brown, and his number two Mary Cheh, claimed this morning that the change is not vengeful but rather an attempt to better align committees with subject areas. Cheh oversees environmental issues, and she said Brown wants to reunite the environment with public works and transportation. All three were part of a single committee before 2008.

According to Wells, Brown offered the WMATA Board seat to Cheh as well, but she turned it down. If his goal really were to unite policy areas under one committee, he'd have pushed Cheh to either take the seat or not take the committee. Or, if his motive hadn't been payback, he could have just let Wells keep his seat.

Having oversight of planning could give Wells the opportunity to help OP move forward on its zoning rewrite and continue or even expand its good work on neighborhood plans around DC. But OP needs Wells' oversight far less than DDOT, WMATA, the Taxi Commission, and the other transportation agencies do.

And if unifying the Department of the Environment with transportation in a single committee makes sense, it would make even more sense to put it with planning and parks, both of which have a significant environmental impact as well. A Committee on Planning, the Environment, Parks and Recreation seems even more logical than a Committee on Public Works, the Environment, and Transportation.

It still seems evident that this move was motivated more by politics than common sense. That's why Tom Sherwood called Brown's justification for the transportation change "paper thin."

Wells and the other new members of the Board went through many days of orientation to learn the ins and outs of WMATA's operations, budget, policies and safety issues. In doing so, several have said they built up strong working relationships that can foster regional cooperation. Bowser will now have to learn the same material over from scratch, but without the camaraderie that Wells developed. Again, DC will lose momentum, expertise, and relationships, all because of Brown's pique.

Last year, the WMATA Board came under criticism for members acting parochially, which most everyone knew was code for Jim Graham (ward 1)'s penchant for favoring Ward 1 transportation projects. In the last budget, Bowser showed a very parochial attitude toward city programs, focusing entirely on her own ward. Will she do the same on the WMATA Board, pushing needed transportation enhancements for Ward 4 but at the expense of other parts of the city?

Bulger's son ran Brown's Ward 3 operation in his campaign for chair. The Council held roundtable on the nomination last week, but seems never to have posted it anywhere on the Council site; I have an automated system that monitors the calendar for changes, and the word "Bulger" didn't appear until Sunday when it popped up as part of today's Committee of the Whole agenda.

Bulger runs Government Relations, Inc., a federal lobbying firm, which used to lobby for Fairfax County (but does not today). Bulger also told me he was involved with pushing Congress to pass the current federal transit benefit.

A governance committee, ably led by Mary Hynes of Arlington, has formulated bylaws and procedures for the board which better define its role. This year, after most members turned over and the reports came out criticizing past board actions, the board has indeed started focusing effectively on the high-level decisions that it needs to make to keep Metro running smoothly.

The GAO report says, "These draft bylaws represent a good first step toward addressing some of the concerns discussed in this report but will need to be adopted and then effectively implemented to achieve their desired effect." The report also criticizes past boards for doing a poor job of strategic planning, suggesting the board develop a better plan and then commit to implementing it.

The executives and DOTs of DC, Maryland, and Virginia were waiting to see the GAO report before moving ahead further on structural changes. The Board of Trade report last year suggested removing alternates, giving the governors one extra appointment of their own, creating an added "super-board" above the current board to supervise the board, and changing the jurisdictional veto.

The Riders' Advisory Council, on the other hand, argued that these changes were unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. Its report argued that the problems could be fixed by doing a better job appointing members and by the members developing better policies around these issues. (Disclosure: I was the principal author of the RAC report.)

The GAO took a similar stance to the RAC's report. They wrote:

Our analysis, however, indicates that most of the recommended changes have trade-offs—there are both benefits and drawbacks to them. We compared the various recommendations to leading governance practices, approaches taken by other transit agencies, and the views of board members and stakeholders. Board members and stakeholders indicated that proposed changes to the board's structure and processes—such as eliminating alternate board members, changing the size of the board, or eliminating the jurisdictional veto—have trade-offs, and we did not find consistent support among leading governance practices or other transit agencies that these changes would improve governance.

The [Board of Trade/COG] Governance Task Force recommended that the signatories and the appointing authorities form a WMATA Governance Commission to make improvements to the authority's governance structure and hold the board accountable for its performance. ... Such a commission was viewed by some stakeholders we spoke with as redundant because it would be comprised of most of the same membership that is responsible for appointing the board of directors.

The GAO paid special attention to the federal government's involvement, which includes the General Services Administration appointing a set of federal members. The GAO says that GSA lacks clear procedures for selecting and appointing these members. The GSA replied that while it's true it doesn't have formal procedures, it doesn't think that's interfered with selecting qualified candidates.

Moving forward, this report confirms what's become increasingly clear: WMATA can be fixed without rearranging the organizational structure. Doing that could fix some problems but create others, and would ultimately be a distraction from the work of actually governing better.

Already, we've seen tremendous progress. The NTSB feels safety is improving. Communication has taken huge steps forward with WMATA now tweeting and generally using two-way communication. The board passed a budget that avoided service cuts and without any major acrimony. Local jurisdictions stepped up with needed funding.

Now, we should let the current board and management keep making the strides they have. The executives and DOTs should let this issue rest.

Governor McDonnell did succeed in using the frustration over Metro to let him take away some power from Northern Virginia, giving him a direct appointment to the board who will likely replace Mary Hynes entirely or move her to an alternate position and bump Jeff McKay. Either way, that will be a big loss for Virginian interests, since both have effectively represented their constituents. The legislature should reverse this hasty decision before the appointments are made or renewed at the end of the year.

Mr. Wells has worked extensively with GGW over the years when it comes to transportation and developing new policies to encourage residents to get out of cars and use alternative means of transportation in DC. Although Mr. Wells brings new ideas and progressive policies to the table, he is only one voice.

The possibility of adding a second voice to support Mr. Wells would be great for the city. For years, DC has appointed members who may either not take the role seriously or have no background in transportation. This is a great opportunity to bring something new to the table. The appointment of a non-traditional transportation expert on the board will send the message that DC welcomes new ideas and will look at different and new ways to improve WMATA service for District residents.

Chairman Kwame Brown has the power to appoint a new board member to WMATA. I encourage him to explore this great opportunity. This potential appointment could be a win win for everyone. I encourage you to call Mr. Brown's office at 202-724-8032 or email him directly at kbrown@dccouncil.us and ask him to meet with Greater Greater Washington to discuss possible appointees to the WMATA board.

Metro is not proposing renaming any stations (yet). Instead, the staff are bringing a general policy before the Board. If the Board accepts the policy, then it would guide specific station decisions to come.

Brief station names are important for a variety of reasons, including ease of navigation in the system. Extremely long station names can also make communication difficult, especially to non-English speakers.

The current policy, which Metro has not entirely adhered to over the years, lays out the following conditions:

• Proposed names come to the Board from the jurisdictions.
• Names should identify the station by geographical features or centers of activity.
• The names should be distinctive and evoke imagery in the mind of the patron.
• Station names should be no longer than 19 characters (including spaces).
• Transfer station names should be no longer than 13 characters.
• The jurisdiction requesting the renaming must pay the cost.

New rules proposed by staff include:

• Station renamings must also involve customer testing and feedback.
  
• Sale of station naming rights to corporations would be prohibited.

While these changes are welcome, they won't mean very much if the jurisdictions and the Board don't abide by the policy. In the past, the Board has gone along with jurisdictional requests that didn't conform. Rejecting overly long or overly nondescript station names will require Board members to vote down a proposal by one of their colleagues for a station in that member's jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the Board could allow for additional parts of station names to be subtitles. Most people refer to U St/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo as simply "U Street." If DC weren't willing to completely shorten the name to that or its pre-1999 name of "U Street/Cardozo," then U Street could be the main name and the rest could become a subtitle. In fact, several of the entries in our map contest took this approach.

A stricter policy could include guidelines like these:

• Station names may not exceed 19 characters in length.
• Transfer station names may not exceed 13 characters in length.
• When circumstances dictate, the Board may grant a subtitle name to a station beyond the character limit.
• Station renamings should only occur when significant rider benefit would be gained from a renaming.
• Station names should derive their names from a specific, unique geography or center of activity.
• Station names should be distinctive and evoke imagery in the mind of the patron.
• If a landmark is used in a name, it must be within ¼ mile of the station.
• The number of geographies or centers of activity is limited to a maximum of 2.
• Use of abbreviations should be permitted only for street types, e.g. "Ave."
• Station name elements should be separated with a forward slash (not a dash).
• Rider feedback should be required before a station renaming is approved.
• The sale of station naming rights is not permitted.

Staff plan to talk with riders about the station naming policy before finalizing it, hopefully in July. Jurisdictions will then be able to propose name changes by September for the Board to approve in October.

Name changes can still happen in the future, but there's a substantial cost to replace maps and signs. Since Metro is already planning replace all of the maps and signs in 2012, this is one of the best opportunities in a long time to make name changes, including shortening names.

Rather than keep pushing legislative sledgehammer solutions, McDonnell could try to work constructively with Northern Virginia leaders. He could have some of his staff work with them more closely to devise solutions and policies. He could make some recommendations on his own and publicize them, to lead by espousing ideas.

But that's not McDonnell's approach. Instead, he just says, "give me power because I should have it." Northern Virginians have been skeptical of this claim, knowing that McDonnell doesn't consider them his political base and that he has already sought to weight transportation spending away from the Washington region.

Now, he's submitted his list of budget amendments, including one (#50, on page 23) to seize the Board seat. The legislature should reject this budget amendment, as they did the earlier attempts.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, senators paid attention to advocates' concerns about a bill to set criteria for WMATA Board appointments. Transit groups praised provisions that would require appointees to be regular riders and disclose how many meetings they attend, but wanted to strip out rules that elected officials couldn't serve and that set up professional qualifications.

The Senate committee didn't reach consensus on how to fix the bill before "crossover day," the deadline to send bills to the House of Delegates. That makes the bill almost certainly dead for this year. There were some good ideas in there, so Governor O'Malley should resubmit it next year without the objectionable elements.

Fairfax Supervisor Cathy Hudgins, the current WMATA Board chair, came to Richmond to testify against the bill. She said that Northern Virginia governments are willing to give the state government some involvement in WMATA governance, but not at the expense of diminishing their own role. She asked the legislature to let the current process of discussion and negotiation within the WMATA Board and NVTC continue to a resolution.

None of the senators brought up the fact that Governor McDonnell has still sent no letter to Congress about the $150 million capital appropriation for needed repairs that's on the chopping block, but that's a great argument against writing it into law that he must get power over WMATA.

Chairman Charles Colgan (D-Manassas) was the only Democrat to support the bill; four of the five Republicans, none from Northern Virginia, also voted for it, and two were not present.

NVTC can still give a seat to Drake if they choose; the benefit of having NVTC decide to do it instead of the legislature mandating it is that NVTC could reverse course if the governor decides to cut back on the already-meager state financial support.

The Senate panel also killed the two "anti-livability" bills, which would essentially override regional transportation planning and enshrine six-Beltways booster Bob Chase's own transportation priorities into law.

They would have required VDOT to rank projects (HB1998) and prioritize funding (HB1999) based on just two factors: what moves traffic faster, and what aids evacuation in case of a disaster.

The evacuation argument is a common canard used to push road-building, but the fact is that no realistic amount of roads will let everyone in the DC region drive at the same time. As Senator Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington) pointed out, DC's own disaster plans recognize that, and don't call for mass evacuation.

Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria representatives lobbied against HB1999, arguing that these transportation priorities should instead come from the existing processes through regional bodies that already make these decisions. The panel agreed on a party-line vote despite pressure from groups like the Price William Chamber of Commerce and the Apartment and Office Building Association.

Responding to questions from Senator Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania), Finance Committee staff judged that HB1998 would have cost up to $5 million, and so no senator even made a motion to pass that bill.

News out of the legislature wasn't as good for bicycling, as the House rejected a number of bicycle bills including one to give Charlottesville permission to put contraflow bicycle lanes on one-way streets where the traffic and police departments feel it's appropriate.

The bill to require passing cyclists with three feet of space also died, as did a number of bills to limit cell phone use while driving.

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.