Citizens
and organizations are facing a mobility and
access crisis in the National Capital Subregion.
The Texas Transportation Institute’s annual
survey of urban traffic congestion makes that
clear. (See “Spinning
Data, Spinning Wheels,” September 20,
2004).
The
Board of Trade agrees. So does the Council of
Governments and the Sierra Club. In fact, almost
everyone says the same thing: The Virginia
Subregion needs traffic relief, and Rolaids will
not do it.
A
solution to the growing transport chaos is
important to the citizens of the National
Capital Subregion, but it is also critical to
every citizen of Virginia since the northern
part of Virginia is the most important economic
engine driving the Commonwealth’s economy.
On
the issue of the growing traffic congestion
plaguing the northern part of Virginia, three
facts are absolutely clear:
-
More
money for roads and road bridges without
Fundamental Change in human settlement
patterns makes congestion worse, not
better. (See “Self
Delusion and Fraud” June 7, 2004, and
the three columns that follow and build on
that column at Bacon's Rebellion.
-
Land
and building values document that places
with direct access to METRO platforms are
the most highly valued in the Subregion for
jobs, housing, services, recreation and
urban amenity.
To
make use of METRO’s excess capacity, there
must be Fundamental Change in METRO station-area
settlement patterns.
To
take advantage of METRO’s potential, station
area land use is the only change that must
occur, but there are other serious concerns
related to METRO.
For
starters, parts of METRO are literally falling
apart. METRO riders say this. The METRO staff
says this. The METRO Boards says this. In fact,
we have heard of no one who says that METRO does
not need cash badly for immediate repairs,
long-term capital replacement and any extension,
expansion or service enhancement.
Rob
Puentes of the Brookings Institution has
documented that METRO is the only high-capacity
shared-vehicle system in the United States
without a dedicated source of revenue. A
dedicated source of funds is a good idea.
However, METRO needs a lot more cash than would
be generated by the current level of
citizen/political support, whether the sources
are dedicated or not. The current level of
support translates into the “bare bones”
capital program approved last week.
The
level of support needed to achieve METRO’s
potential requires an understanding of METRO’s
power to improve mobility and access for all
citizens of the National Capital Subregion’scitizens,
not only those who ride the system.
The
level of support that is needed will require a
quantum leap in citizen/political dedication and
effort to find the resources that are required.
This enhanced level of support demands that
citizens and their leaders fundamentally
rethink METRO and then develop a strategic plan
to transform METRO (and other supporting
shared-vehicle systems) to create added value
and functionality to human settlement patterns
throughout the Subregion.
This
is not a new theme for SYNERGY/Planning, Inc.
(S/PI). It is not that S/PI likes to say: “We
told you so!” Well, perhaps it is. In the
1980s, S/PI started to examine the shape of
METRO’s future. By the mid-90s S/PI had
circulated a number of white papers on what was
needed to enhance the function of METRO. These
ideas were shared with METRO General Managers,
METRO staff and others who nodded, but did not
have the political will to move forward. Their
first priority was to “complete the 103-mile
system,” not to consider any changes that
might jeopardize the fragile status quo.
In
January of 1999, SYNERGY/Resources published It
is Time to Fundamentally Rethink METRO and
Mobility in the National Capital Subregion.
This report has been reissued as a Bacons
Rebellion backgrounder. It was tempting to “update”
this report, but in the end, it was decided that
it was important to demonstrate exactly what
ideas were on the table before the turn of the
century. The report is reformatted with a new
typeface, and the reference to the National
Capital Subregion has been conformed to that now
used in S/PI books, reports and columns.
Otherwise, the report stands as it was
circulated almost six years ago.
At
first glance, some recent events might seem to
make the paper “dated.” But upon further
review It is Time to Fundamentally Rethink
METRO and Mobility in the National Capital
Subregion raises critical questions that
have not been answered or even addressed. [See
End Note One.] The paper demonstrates that
many recent actions might have turned out
differently if the future of METRO and
supporting shared-vehicle systems had been
intelligently addressed in the late 1990s. Among
the obvious ones are:
-
The
METRO extension to Washington Dulles Airport
and eastern Loudoun County is being pursued
with far too little regard to creating
supportive station-area settlement plans and
without any concern for the scope of
land-use changes needed to balance METRO
system capacity Subregion-wide. (See “Rail
to Dulles Realities,” January 5,
2004.)
-
There
is a failure to understand that while
shifting some trains from six cars to eight
cars and running some Blue Line trains over
the Yellow Line’s Potomac Bridge may help
with current crowding on the inner Orange
Line in the short run, it does nothing for
the train frequency problem on the Virginia
Orange Lines west of the "Y". More
important, it fails to address the root
cause of METRO dysfunction: Imbalance
between METRO system capacity and the travel
demand generated by station-area land uses.
-
Politicians
continue to claim that building parking lots
and garages around stations serve METRO’s
long-term functionality. In fact, these uses
insulate METRO riders from land uses close
to the platform. Close proximity of
destination land uses to the platform is the
only efficient way for a shared-vehicle
system to function.
As
the last point demonstrates, creating a
Subregional shared-vehicle system to serve an
urban entity that falls in two states and the
Federal District is not easy or simple. Maryland
politicians have a vested interest in the
support of Baltimore-Washington Airport, not
Washington-Dulles. For this reason, they will
resist the Purple Line crossing the Potomac to
interconnect with the Orange Line unless there
is subregion-wide pressure.
As
hard as it is, the will must be found to
consider the future of METRO from the
perspective of how it can best serve the
Subregion as a whole and thus engender the
citizen/political support it needs to meet its
potential. The time has long passed that
residents only move within the state/federal
district where they live. Residents of Virginia,
Maryland and the Federal District require the
ability to move seamlessly across the National
Capital Subregion. Government agencies
must
put aside inter-jurisdictional competition if
they are to serve their constituents and create
a functional METRO system and thus a mobile and
accessible Subregion.
Post-election
reality concerning the impact of the stupendous
budget federal deficits may doom METRO expansion
funds and support for Beltway HOT lanes. This is
not bad because the current plans have the
distinct smell of public pork and private
subsidy. Throwing cold water on these Business
As Usual plans would give the Subregion the
opportunity to fundamentally rethink METRO.
--
October 18, 2004
END
NOTE 1. There is one part of It is
Time to Fundamentally Rethink METRO and Mobility
in the National Capital Subregion that
requires amplification and clarification: Part
IV examines new shared-vehicle systems to serve
the Subregion. The Advanced Transit Systems (ATSs)
profiled in this Part are worthy of
consideration for the reasons advanced. The
recent Raytheon test of an ATS system outside
Chicago did not end well. Most observers agree
Raytheon loaded bells and whistles (“enhancements”)
onto the system to please some interests and to
make the system more costly and thus more
lucrative for the engineers and contractors. For
this reason, it became too costly to implement.
The cost-benefit imbalance also may have been
due to the failure to fully consider the value
of the benefits of the system –- especially
the settlement pattern benefits. In addition,
unrelated to the Raytheon test, concern for an
individual rider’s safety and, after 11 Sept
2001, the prospect of hijacking or making a bomb
out of a small ATS vehicle has been used to
discredit the use of ATS systems. Security must
be addressed, but this should not preclude
consideration of the mode.
|