Six big ideas to improve Metro and regional transit

Today, a new transit task force will convene for the first time, aiming to create a sustainable funding model for public transportation in the Washington region and a unified vision for the future. The task force, DMVMoves, is a good start, but regional leaders must think bigger, starting with restructuring WMATA and other transit agencies.

Such fundamental changes may require revising the Interstate Metro compact or creating a new one. The original compact is an agreement among DC, Maryland, and Virginia signed in 1967 as part of President Johnson’s Great Society initiatives. One of the most significant flaws of this interstate compact is that WMATA has no taxation authority and relies on the member states for funding. Another flaw is that residents and riders cannot vote for the members of the WMATA board. (Disclosure: Dr. Tracy Hadden Loh is a member of the WMATA board of directors, is a member of the DMVMoves group, and is also a member of GGWash’s board of directors. Dr. Loh has had no involvement in this piece).

WMATA is far from the only transit operator in the Washington region, though–there are more than a dozen other rail and bus operators, making for a disjointed, inefficient transit network with wildly different rider experiences.

The DMVMoves partnership, an initiative of WMATA and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, is an excellent opportunity to address these long-running challenges.

Here are six recommendations for the partnership to consider when consolidating and funding regional transit in DC:

1. Structure and operations: First, replace the current patchwork of independent transit operators with a network-operator-and-contractor model. A new regional network operator would manage customer service, payments, real estate, coordination, and financing, while existing agencies would provide rail, bus, paratransit, and other transit services under contract. This new operator would incentivize resource sharing and integration, reduce costs, and improve efficiency.

The infographic below illustrates the proposed model. VRE, for example, would be paid a set amount for service plus additional funds per rider by the network operator, incentivizing better service.

The network operator could fund consolidation initiatives, such as merging MARC and VRE operations. This consolidation would save money and improve regional service in the long run, reducing administrative and implementation costs. Standardizing fleets between MARC and VRE would further reduce maintenance costs.

For certain services deemed unprofitable or inefficient but necessary, states and local governments can also provide additional funds to the network operator to subsidize specific services.

2. Governance: For effective governance, we need directly elected representatives to oversee this new network operator—meaning the board will be directly accountable to voters and riders. The current WMATA board has appointed representatives which is less democratic and influenced by politics. In a system with directly elected representatives, candidates can run on key issues and represent specific interests. This approach is how the Bay Area’s BART board of directors functions.

3. Funding: The operator must develop stable funding sources that spread out costs and reduce the need for unreliable state and federal appropriations to pay for transit. Some ideas include:

• A regional tax: First, a small region-wide tax would be ideal to create a dedicated funding system instead of regular political struggles. A smaller tax, such as a 0.2% sales tax or a .01% property tax, should cover most costs for WMATA and other transit operators. In 2022, the region’s GDP was $580 billion — more than half a trillion dollars. Doing some back-of-the-envelope math, a 0.2% tax on economic activity results in $1.16 billion, well above WMATA’s current funding shortfall of $750 million.

• Transit-oriented development: Another source of funds should be transit-oriented development. This operator should use eminent domain powers and actively develop land around stations along current and future lines to generate ridership and revenue. These powers should include a way to override local exclusionary zoning (which has deep roots in racism and redlining) to spur development. An example is the Hong Kong Metro, which obtains a significant portion of its funding from transit-oriented development.

• Value capture tax: Another tool is a smaller property tax on areas immediately around stations, for example a mile or a half mile, to capture the value that transit brings to areas. If WMATA had implemented such a tax around the NoMa-Gallaudet U station when it opened in 2004, the agency could have recouped some of the costs of building the infill station, taking advantage of the development boom the transit investment sparked. By levying such a tax, this new operator can spur development and investment, generating revenue from transit investment instead of socializing the development costs and privatizing the profits.

• Farebox revenue: Farebox recovery is the revenue from fares riders pay to use the transit system. If the operator successfully develops sufficient transit-oriented development that spurs additional ridership, farebox recovery could fund most operations and maintenance. For context, Caltrain and BART can bring 50 to 70 cents at the farebox for each dollar spent. In comparison, WMATA had a farebox ratio of 11.4 cents for each dollar spent in the 2022 fiscal year.

• Road pricing: Lastly, a regional road pricing (congestion charge) on cars entering dense areas could raise significant funds for transit, development, and infrastructure. This approach is proven to improve air quality, reduce traffic, and raise transit funds. In the Washington region, road pricing or a congestion charge could be used in places such as Old Town Alexandria, Arlington’s Orange Line corridor, downtown Bethesda, parts of Silver Spring, and much of DC. Unfortunately, New York City, due to introduce its congestion pricing scheme at the end of June, may face a sudden delay (or cancellation) thanks to a last-second intervention by the Governor. DC’s report on the revenue, mode shift, and other changes road pricing would bring about is being kept under wraps by the Bowser administration. (Disclosure: DC Sustainable Transportation, which coordinated the report, was previously managed by Greater Greater Washington). But even without an American test case to point to, plenty of other cities worldwide have introduced this policy with solid results.

4. Development and planning: The region needs at least 320,000 new housing units by 2030, according to COG. Instead of continuing to develop exurban sprawl, we can locate housing and amenities next to or on top of transit, reducing traffic, pollution, and sprawl. The NoMa area has added more than 14,000 residents and 50,000 workers in a 35-block radius since 2004. This results in NoMa/Gallaudet U being one of the busiest Metro stations in the region. There are many other infill opportunities like this—not just for Metro but also for MARC and VRE. A unified regional strategy for transit-oriented development and financing can help meet the region’s housing production goal while not adding more cars to the already-congested roads.

5. Institutional knowledge and capacity: Invest in in-house expertise for construction management, engineering, environmental work, legal work, and design work to lower costs and expedite projects. One challenge with transit and construction costs in the US is a lack of experience within agencies that may only see large construction or transit projects once in a lifetime. This lack of understanding and institutional knowledge leads to an overreliance on consultants, external engineering, and outside expertise, driving up costs. More specifically, some general steps that are typical when transit expansion is designed and built include the following:

• Community engagement
• Conceptual design
• Project management
• Preliminary design
• Environmental clearance
• Land acquisition
• Final design and engineering
• Construction management and oversight
• Construction and final engineering
• Testing
• Delivery

Contractors and consultants mark every step outlined here for profit, contingencies, inflation, etc., raising costs significantly. Transit agencies also have poor oversight of these contracts, leading to many issues with change orders, cost overages, and unplanned contingencies. Also, transit agencies typically have to select the lowest bidder for projects, even if they’re the least technically sound proposal. Consequently, transit agencies often have to budget a 30% or higher amount for contingency purposes. Moreover, this is even more difficult and expensive if these large projects are done infrequently. Typically, larger projects are only done once every 20 to 30 years, leading to a loss of institutional knowledge and in-house experience.

As such, having dedicated staff with institutional knowledge in-house in this new organization to serve the entire region’s transit needs can lower costs significantly and enable faster project completion, especially when tied with consistent and stable funding for regular expansions and upgrades.

6. Expanded transit options: Finally, this system should integrate last-mile transit, which includes Capital Bikeshare, e-bikes and scooters, trail networks, and bike infrastructure. A unified regional operator can better coordinate and develop these services by holistically looking at transit and mobility. Many of these aspects of our transit network are currently overlooked and implemented in fits and starts. These components should be a core part of our broader mobility and transit strategy, which will have massive implications for the region by meaningfully addressing our last-mile problem.

What impact will the six changes that comprise this massive transformation be?

In short, consolidating transit agencies in the Washington metropolitan area will be integral to the region’s success. While these changes won’t be without challenges, they will provide many benefits to residents of the region, including:

• Improved and unified experiences for passengers: one system, one payment, and more effective services regardless of the mode of transit.
• Better, more accountable governance and representation.
• Better coordination among the region’s transit agencies leads to better service. For example, MARC and VRE could through-run trains across state lines.
• Stable, independent funding for transit that doesn’t require political fights or appropriations every year that includes a meaningful capital projects budget.
• More housing near transit, more people riding transit, fewer cars on the road, and lower regional carbon emissions.

That is the future the Washington region needs. Let’s make it happen.

Update: WMATA has notified GGWash that the organization has been invited to serve on the DMVMoves Community Partners Advisory Group. WMATA made this decision prior to the publication of this post. This post stands as an opinion piece written by a volunteer, and is unrelated to GGWash’s participation in the Community Partners Advisory Group.