Photo by the author.

Vince Gray recently pondered whether the city’s forthcoming streetcar system should be absorbed into WMATA. Though neither the mayor nor Council have decided the nascent network’s fate, District ownership is the best way to ensure that the network is accountable to District residents.

The question of ownership is actually two separate questions: who will own the system and who will operate the system. DDOT outsources its Circulator service to a private (but still unionized) contractor. Alternately, DDOT could hire WMATA to run transit service, the way Amtrak operates many local commuter railroads.

The operator, however, just makes the vehicles move back and forth. Some entity has to decide service frequency, fare collection technology, and more. Who should that be?

One value of having more transit services under WMATA is regional coordination. As we are seeing with the regional study David posted about recently, local jurisdictions are designing their transit systems without regard for the regional issues. Regional systems are better able to match transit investment to where people live and work regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.

For example, as currently planned the streetcar ends at Takoma instead of Silver Spring, where it could reach a far larger population, facilitate reverse commutes, and connect to the Purple Line. And it ends at the DC line on Rhode Island Avenue instead of serving the historically streetcar-oriented downtowns like Mount Rainier, Hyattsville and College Park. Back when individual local companies ran the bus routes, riders would sometimes have to transfer at the DC line just to continue on another bus in Maryland.

The current structure of WMATA allows a seamless integration of bus and rail service across DC, Maryland, and Virginia without the need to worry about different fares, different fare passes, or unnecessary transfers at state lines.

The problem with the regional approach, however, is the same with any other government project. The more jurisdictions and constituencies are involved the longer it takes to get anything done. That’s an unavoidable fact of democracy, but not necessarily a bad thing, and the delays and extra consultations may in fact yield a better overall product.

Some might worry that rolling the streetcar into WMATA would subject streetcar service to parochial demands in Annapolis and Richmond. This worry is unwarranted since the streetcar system would probably follow the Metrobus funding model.

For Metrobus, each jurisdiction pays for its own routes. Routes that cross jurisdictional boundaries are subsidized by the jurisdictions served at a proportion to the share of the route in each jurisdiction. No matter who owns the system, the operating costs would fall to DC, at least until or unless it’s extended to Maryland or Virginia.

Since individual jurisdictions pay for local bus service, the WMATA Board defers to the wishes of that jurisdiction when deciding on route or service changes to those local buses. Still, a DC-only governance structure would give DC residents more control.

Last year Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) introduced a bill to establish a DC Transit Board to determine routes and fares for the Circulator and streetcar systems. If the Council passes the bill, the board would comprise three members appointed by the mayor, two appointed by the Council, and two elected at-large by District residents.

This is a good mix of the entities responsible for running the system (the mayor), funding it (the Council), and the will of the transit-riding electorate. The bill wisely requires that the appointees to the board regularly ride the system, thus forcing them to live with the consequences of their decisions.

Though current WMATA board members have been responsive in practice, we are lucky that they are. Just as as some Members of Congress have championed issues for DC, that’s due to luck. No matter how well-intentioned those in charge may be, history has shown that the most effective way to hold political leadership accountable to the public is to hold elections among the constituencies served.

A DC system, with the proposed Transit Board, is certainly closer to that ideal than is the WMATA board. That’s not to disparage the board as it stands today, but we cannot be so sure of future boards. The whiplash in Maryland over the Purple Line among the Glendening, Ehrlich, and O’Malley administrations illustrates how important projects hinge on political leadership.

DDOT would presumably contract out the streetcar to an experienced, private operator, as they do with the Circulator, or even to WMATA. When the contract comes up for renewal, the operations company will face public and Council scrutiny for its performance during the contract. If the operator fails to provide safe, reliable streetcar service, the city can switch to a different operator. Contracting out operations gives the incentive to the contractor to provide good service since poor performance could jeopardize its contract.

Another benefit to DC control over the streetcar is that DDOT is better at coordinating amongst its departments than with other agencies. The streetcar will use a public road that DDOT controls, and to be most efficient should have some signal priority or dedicated lanes in some segments. If one DDOT division is handling the street and another the streetcar, the Director or Mayor will have more of an incentive to make sure they’re working together than if a regional agency is involved.

DDOT has proven more interested in designing streets and intersections for the benefit of its own services, like the Circulator or streetcars or bicycle facilities, than for buses run by Metro. If the Circulator required some cooperation between WMATA and DDOT, there’s a good chance it would get lower priority in decisionmaking than services DDOT controls on its own.

WMATA could do a pretty decent job owning and/or running the streetcar, but maintaining DC ownership has the possibility to enshrine greater accountability into the system. Will it be possible to maintain the benefits of control and still maintain some regional coordination?