Infosnack Headquarters

So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye, Blogger

2011-03-23T10:54:00.002-04:00

I'm moving the blog to Wordpress. New URL is infosnackhq.wordpress.com. Eventually I'll figure out how to update infosnack.org to that site without affecting the email addresses.

No new content will be placed on blogger, all the old content is on Wordpress. Please update your links, bookmarks, feed reader subscriptions, etc.

Thanks for reading!

Metro service guarantee

2011-03-22T07:40:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, Metro had serious blue and orange line problems in the morning. A power cable downtown failed, requiring an emergency repair and single-tracking, which delayed many riders for over an hour.

Some transit systems in the US have a service guarantee policy, where if your trip takes much longer than scheduled, you can either obtain a refund or a credit for a future trip.

Metro staff investigated these other policies, and presented their findings to the Board last year.

Philadelphia (SEPTA) is the most generous, giving customers a free future ride if you are more than 50 minutes late. Boston (MBTA) provides free service if you're delayed more than half an hour. New York provides free service if the delays are more than an hour.

Metro's policy is not that helpful. Metro will refund the boarding fare if you enter the same station you left “during service delays”. Ths service guarantee doesn't let customers go to their final destination and is vague about when it applies. I haven't been able to find a service delay where Metro officially applied the policy, usually it is announced by the Station Manager at stations where overcrowding is becoming a problem.

Metro should change their policy to something more like MBTA. A half-hour delay for a trip that typically takes an hour or less is a serious disruption of service. Customers may not know they're going to be delayed or the extent of the delay until they're part of the way there. The service guarantee should not require customers to return to their starting point in order to get a refund.

The service guarantee should work like this: Customers with a registered SmarTrip card should go online and find the informaiton about the trip that was delayed. The customer should then send in the trip information (origin, destination, date and times, SmarTrip card ID). After a verification that there were actually unscheduled service delays during that time, the customer's SmarTrip card should be refunded the fare for that trip. Refunds would not be provided for scheduled service delays when they are announced in advance, or acts of God.

Metro is already under scrutiny for shortchanging safe operation of the system in order to maintain scheduled service. But the sort of problems that cause major delays are more often the kind of problems that come up unexpectedly and are the result of degrading system conditions, such as track fires, switch malfunctions, or railcar maintenance problems. A fare guarantee would put pressure on the system to fix these items so that they don't break down during operation. Since the guarantee does not affect scheduled service disruptions, it would not pressure Metro to avoid doing critical maintenance on the system.

Metro's peers in the transit industry offer customers a refund or credit when service is delayed. Metro should too.

DDOT proposes Barracks Row lot price cut, other performance parking changes

2011-03-22T07:40:00.001-04:00

DDOT has measured occupancy for the Ballpark and Columbia Heights performance parking districts, and is making some changes to meter prices. Some crowded areas are getting parking meter price increases, and some crowded areas are being left the same. DDOT improved their report by following advice we proposed in the last review, and is spending the parking meter revenue on valuable local improvements.

DDOT found that the parking lot underneath the Southeast Freeway on 8th Street SE in Barracks Row only collects about a dollar a day per space, and proposes reducing the price to $0.75 per hour. This is an appropriate change, and should allow people parking in the area a cheaper option than parking on the main commercial street. DDOT should also consider increasing the time limit for this lot to four hours until 5pm and unlimited after 5pm to encourage people with longer anticipated stays to use it, thus leaving the more convenient spaces for people with shorter term needs.

Although many areas in the performance parking zone had measured occupancy above 100% (made possible because of illegal parking and smaller than average cars), DDOT does not propose increasing the meter rates in many areas where the occupancy is high. For some blocks near the ballpark, DDOT proposes increasing the rate, between M, South Capitol, and 2nd streets and the Southeast Freeway. The area the agency chose has maximum occupancy only at 86% during Nationals ball games. The report states that the area has only 56% maximum occupancy, but DDOT explained to me that was the figure for all blocks, including resident permit parking. To improve understanding of their recommendation, DDOT should list in a separate table the metered blocks and their occupancy, and whether they have been included in the proposed price increase. After looking at the specific blocks chose, I can see why DDOT selected those meters. This is a big improvement from the last performance parking report for this zone published in 2009, where DDOT recommended raising prices for blocks having high occupancy, but specific blocks were not identified and the prices were not adjusted.

For some areas with very high parking occupancy such as 8^th street and Pennsylvania Avenues SE, DDOT told me that they wanted to avoid adverse impact on District businesses during the economic downturn and had attempted to use other means such as time limits to manage occupancy rather than adjusting price. It appears that using time limits is not having the desired effect, because the blocks are all showing excessively high occupancy, and my visits to the area during the busiest times have confirmed that parking is very scarce in the area. DDOT is working on building community support for performance parking so that price adjustments can be implemented.

The local stakeholders are concerned about the effects performance parking is having on local resident permit parking blocks. DDOT pointed out the importance of being sensitive to the local community's opinions, and I understand that, but I'll also note that right now the visitors looking for parking on residential blocks are those that don't want to pay for parking combined with those that are willing to pay but cannot find a metered space. If DDOT increases the prices on crowded blocks, at the very least the people willing to pay can find a space, and the extra money collected can help fund enforcement on local resident blocks. Once pay by cell is implemented more fully in the city, the closest resident permit blocks could be changed to resident permit blocks with visitors also paying by cell or walking to the main street to obtain a pay and display receipt.

In the Columbia Heights performance parking zone, DDOT found that all the multispace meter blocks had occupancy rates above 85%, which should lead to higher meter prices in the zone. DDOT proposes extending the meter hours in the zone to 10pm, and increasing the prices on some blocks to $2.50 for the first hour, and $3.00 for each subsequent hour, with a two hour limit before 6:30pm and three hour limit after 6:30pm. This would be the highest street parking rate in DC. In the last performance parking report for this zone, DDOT recommended increasing the parking meter rates and hours, but the recommendation lacked specifics and stated that the adjustment would happen only after the streetscape project was complete. The current report says the adjustments should happen in April 2011. For the Columbia Heights performance parking zone, DDOT should be commended for implementing the task of adjusting rates according to occupancy.

Occupancy for each block is reported as a number of spaces, number of cars parked on average and the maximum number of cars. This is a big improvement which was recommended in the article we wrote on the last performance parking report. However, to the extent that DDOT can communicate more information about parking, the occupancy should be reported as an average and a 90th percentile occupancy, which eliminates that problem that reporting a maximum might cause if the maximum is an extreme outlier.

Part of the reports list the revenues collected from meters and the local non-transportation projects DDOT is funding from meter revenues. DDOT has collected almost a million dollars from parking meters in the ballpark performance parking district so far. Of this, over $800,000 has been spent or dedicated for local non-automobile transportation improvements. These projects include BigBelly Solar waste collection systems, benches, historic district signs, and bike racks in 2010. In 2011, with revenue generated by performance parking, DDOT plans to install three or four Capital Bikeshare stations, install an information kiosk at the Eastern Market metro plaza, and perform a transportation study for the Capitol Riverfront district, which will include a study of the M Street corridor for streetcars. These are great projects, though I think the performance parking concept might be more attractive to area businesses if the money could be spent on a wider range of things like sidewalk cleaning, snow removal and graffiti cleanup.

In the Columbia Heights area, DDOT has collected $52,000 from meters and is going to dedicate funding to traffic calming sidewalk bulb-outs, replacing concrete and brick sidewalk surfaces, and upgrading foundation walls. DDOT has also provided funding to streetscape projects for Park Road and the Farmer's Market.

Based on high occupancy, DDOT plans on expanding multispace meter installation to the waterfront area on Water Street and Maine Avenue. DDOT will also look into adjusting the rates based on curbside occupancy as it does elsewhere in the zone.

DDOT is getting closer to performing all the actions required by the performance parking legislation. They're measuring occupancy, reporting the data, recommending rate changes, and spending the money locally. However, in many areas with high demand, prices are not increasing as they should.

Compared to the previous performance parking reports, I would say this report is a big improvement. Reporting the data on a block-by-block basis is tedious but important. The money is being spent on local improvements which help the pedestrian and cycling environment, and everybody becomes a pedestrian once they've parked. Unlike the previous report, which called for vague increases in prices, this report specifies what blocks will have changes and what the prices will be.

It should be noted that DDOT is running one of the only parking systems in the US where the occupancy is measured and reported, and the prices are actually being adjusted. The other such program is in San Francisco, and that program is supported by a fairly substantial federal grant.

Recommendations for the next report: Reinstate the table showing the revenue collected and how it is being spent. Separate out the occupancy table between blocks that have multispace meters and those that have other parking controls. Make a recommendation concerning the price for every multispace meter block. Obtain community buy-in to follow the variable price policy on very crowded commercial streets like 8^th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.

New Blog

2011-03-21T08:00:00.001-04:00

Hello, loyal readers. I've started a new blog project that's focused on advocating for unlimited monthly transit passes in the Washington, DC area. The concept is that riders should be able to pick a dollar amount, pay 40 times that amount and get a transit pass good for unlimited trips of equal or lesser value for a month.

Please check it out at www.metrosmartpasses.org.

Also, you can follow the Twitter account @smartpasses or become a fan on Facebook.com/metrosmartpasses.

Thanks for reading!

Two years later, Metro trains keep failing in service

2011-01-31T11:37:00.002-05:00

In September 2008, I concluded that Metro's reliability was terrible. Using their reported breakdowns and delays in May 2008, Metro appeared less reliable than even the worst line in New York City, breaking down about twice as much.

Taking new data from May 2010, Metro's reliability appears to have deteriorated even more, with twice as many trains being taken out of service for mechanical problems, 30% more trains being removed from service for door problems, and more than three times as many trains that cannot be placed in service due to management failures such as not having railcars or operators available.

On the bright side, there were fewer trains delayed without being taken out of service.

Here's the coded data and the spreadsheet. The analysis method is described here.

Metro signed Google agreement in July

2011-01-26T22:47:00.001-05:00

Google and Metro signed an agreement on July 22, 2010, to provide the Google Transit service, according to documents obtained via public information request.

Metro had previously stated that Google Transit was expected to go live in mid-January 2011, more than two years after Greater Greater Washington started a petition campaign to encourage Metro to allow Google to display transit routing and schedule information.

The agreement appears to be based on the typical Google boilerplate agreement.

Metro was not able to get Google to pay for the use of the data, one of Metro's early sticking points.

The indemnification paragraph from the boilerplate agreement appears to be missing, which means that Metro would not be held liable for any mistakes caused by Google and did not agree to legally defend Google if they were sued. This was one of Metro's biggest objections to signing the boilerplate agreement. We first reported that Chicago was able to remove this indemnification from their agreement.

Either party may terminate the Metro agreement, unlike the boilerplate agreement, which only gives that option to Google. The Metro agreement provides rights to both Metro and Google where the boilerplate agreement only provides them to Google.

The agreement Metro got looks like the best they could hope for. It's balanced and removed the features Metro found most objectionable. Metro's status as one of the largest transit agencies in the country allowed them to negotiate from a better position than most agencies.

I haven't been able to get an update on the actual Google Transit release date.

Why basic engineering knowledge is important

2010-11-11T10:00:00.001-05:00

From Gizmag:

“We have mile after mile of asphalt pavement around the country, and in the summer it absorbs a great deal of heat, warming the roads up to 140 degrees or more,” said Prof. K. Wayne Lee, leader of the URI project. “If we can harvest that heat, we can use it for our daily use, save on fossil fuels, and reduce global warming.”

The article discusses placing water tubes in the road, and then using the warm water to melt ice, heat homes or hot water, or generate steam in power plants.

If you have a hot road, you don't usually have ice. It's going to take a huge system to move heat from a 140F road to heat hot water even to the lowest heated water temperature of 120F. I don't know any power plant that uses steam at Th of 140F.

More science and engineering literacy, please. Just build a concentrated solar power plant in New Mexico and send electricity to people's water heaters if you want hot water.

This reminds me of those plans to build speed bumps that harvest energy. The only problem is that the energy you collect is worth less than the value of the speed bump you installed.

"Token Suckers", "Strip Cutters", and "Turnstile Jumpers" -- Defrauding a transit system

2010-11-04T22:48:00.001-04:00

New York Subway recently announced a fare hike for their unlimited monthly pass, after debating whether to limit the pass to only 90 rides in a month. What's behind this move? Are there really transit users that ride too much transit? Should Metro consider such a move?

No, there aren't people riding so much that MTA wants to crack down on them. Instead, there's a particular type of transit system fraud that is driving this change. According to a source familiar with MTA, 95% of passes are used less than the limit, but some transit passes are used almost 400 times per month to commit a fraud known as "selling swipes". The fraudster obtains a series of transit passes and offers customers to let them through the faregate for only $1, which is a bargain compared to regular fare. Because each pass can only be swiped about 3 times per hour, you need to have a stack of passes to pull this off. Some people are able to collect about $900 per day using this scam, and the transit agency loses money.

Is Metro vulnerable to this kind of scam? Not really. Unlike the NYC subway, Metro faregates are supervised, and you need a farecard at the entrance and exit, so this wouldn't work.

What are some other scams people use to get free rides or money from transit systems or their riders? Here are some of the more interesting ones:

The "strip split" is where someone buys a Metrorail farecard, cuts out the magnetic strip and splits it lengthwise up to four times. Then the pieces are glued to a regular demagnitized farecard and turned in. The crook adds a nickel or so to the farecard clone, and out pops a new genuine farecard worth the full amount. The new cards are then sold on the black market. Metro cracked down on this farecard fraud by limiting the value of a farecard turn-in, and by reemphasizing that you shouldn't buy farecards on the black market. They also reduced the width of the strip on the card so they can't be split like this.

There's always simpler frauds, like counterfeit transit tokens. A man was recently arrested for smuggling in counterfeit tokens for use on the Toronto transit system. For years, the Connecticut Turnpike and NYC Subway used similar enough tokens, causing many to import tokens from the turnpike to the subway.

People who receive the transit subsidy and don't end up using it all can illegally sell their surplus subsidy on the black market. Metro and the Federal government periodically crack down on this practice, which has waned recently due to many people signing up for electronic transfer of their subsidy using SmartBenefits.

One of the stranger frauds I found was "token sucking". The cheat would find a way to jam the turnstile slot, then wait for someone to try to deposit a token. Usually, the token would get caught and the customer would have to use another token in a different turnstile. Then, the sucker would use his mouth to suck the token out of the jammed slot for sale on the black market. Sometimes, station attendants would use grease or soap to make this practice less palatable, but frankly the thought of putting your mouth on anything related to the NYC subway was probably enough deterrent for most. Perhaps injecting pure capsaicin or a bitter agent into the slot would have been a better deterrent?

One of my favorites is a vulnerability of any transit system that has distance-based fares. You arrange with another person to meet them en-route and swap farecards. Then, you leave from their original faregate or close by. This is one of those frauds that I have only heard of in rumors, because I think it is too much of a pain to pull off for so little benefit. The only evidence I have is that BART has adjusted their fare structure to prevent it, by charging a very high amount for leaving from the same station you entered, and that WMATA mentioned it when replying to a question about leaving from the same faregate.

Sometimes, tourists in the NYC subway system will fall prey to a sleight of hand trick by someone pretending to "help" them with their farecard. The thief usually helps the tourist through a turnstile or cage and then swipes their card for them, and hands back a worthless card in exchange. It's not until the next trip that the victim realizes they've been had.

Then there are the ones that simply involve using service you haven't paid for. For transit systems using the proof of payment or "honor system", you just ride without paying and hope you don't get caught, or you can make a break for it when you see a fare checker coming. For stations with unattended turnstiles, you could just jump over or crawl under them. You can sneak in behind someone as the faregates are closing.

So what are your favorite transit system frauds? What's the strangest, most creative thing you've seen people do to make a buck or save a buck at our expense?

Sell Bike Racks inside East Falls Church

2010-10-23T18:23:00.001-04:00

The East Falls Church metro station is popular among bicyclists. Next to the W&OD trail as well as a network of on-street bike routes and bike lanes, its 126 bicycle racks (PDF) fill quickly in the morning, and the station's bicycle lockers are among the busiest among any metro station. According to the bicycle and pedestrian improvements study materials produced by consulting firm Toole Design, East Falls Church has one of the highest rates of bicycle access (about in the system. It's overcrowded parking lot also fills up quickly, and according to the study, a high fraction of drivers travel less than 1 mile (about 22%) or less than two miles (about half) to access the station, compared to other park and rides.

If Metro provides more bicycle lockers or racks at East Falls Church, it's possible that some of these drivers might switch to bicycling. It's possible that some more people might decide to bike to Metro instead of driving all the way. Metro said that there isn't a good place to put additional racks or lockers outside the station, and I agree. However, the inside of the station is relatively empty, and the rear corners of the mezzanine (ground) level have ample space to place inexpensive bike racks to test whether more bike racks could attract more cyclists.

A good example of bike racks attracting more cyclists is at the Eastern Market metro station. There was a large empty brick area next to the bike lockers for a long time. When Metro installed two 20–place bike racks at the station, they immediately started filling up daily. As far as I can tell, there weren't this many bikes locked to poles, streetlights and trees before the new racks went in, so these are all new users riding to the Metro station.

There are spaces next to the northern bus stops that are under cover and are marked as bicycle parking, but the racks have been removed. Metro should install more bicycle racks there.

East Falls Church could also increase its bike capacity by adding racks at the rear corners of the mezzanine. Metro or Arlington could purchase racks similar to the ones placed at Eastern Market for little cost and no permanent change to the station would be required.

DSC_8451

2010-10-23T17:54:00.001-04:00

DSC_8451
Originally uploaded by infosnackhq

Hey Metro, can you fix this already? It's been like this for a long time. It's the shelter at the East Falls Church kiss and ride.

IMAG0082

2010-10-22T06:57:00.001-04:00

IMAG0082
Originally uploaded by infosnackhq

Bike racks at Eastern Market are always full. These bikes weren't locked to trees or poles before the rack got here. This is a good example of induced demand for cycling.

Free to good home

2010-02-28T14:16:00.004-05:00

I have some stuff around that I'm not really using. Willing to give it away if you're willing to make a donation to Arlington Food Assistance Center. Please be as generous as you can, suggested donations are listed and are on your honor.

If you're in the DC area, I can arrange to meet you sometime to give you the item. Otherwise, post a comment and I'll arrange for shipping (you pay). Here's the list:

Netgear PCMCIA wireless 802.11b card. Model MA401. $10.

Netgear Print Server PS101 (ethernet to parallel port). $20.

Canon Canoscan N650U (USB scanner 600dpi) $25.

Ascent magnetic bike trainer $30.

Massage Chair Pad (heat and vibration) $20.

Samsung ML-4500 laser printer $30.

Netgear wireless 802.11b router Model MR814 $20.

If you want something from the list, please leave a comment or DM me @perkinsms on twitter.

New RSS Feed available at Greater Greater Washington

2009-12-16T17:47:00.001-05:00

David Alpert over at Greater Greater Washington has upgraded the software there to allow author-based RSS feeds. So if you use RSS and want to follow only the articles that I write rather than all of the GGW posts, please use this feed Some of my articles don't get posted to Infosnack. Sorry about that!

My Performance Parking Experience at Eastern Market

2009-11-24T21:26:00.001-05:00

One evening, I went to pick my wife up at work (it was her last day in that office and we had to move boxes out). Since it was getting late, the dinner plan was to eat out. I work at the Navy Yard, and one of my favorite nice lunch spots is The Old Siam, which is essentially at 8th and E SE, at the north end of the 8th street "Barracks Row" area. The vast majority of parking meters in that area are under the "Performance Parking" system, where meter rates are supposed to adjust based on demand, with a goal of providing some parking space availability.

According to a recent report by Harvey Damon, there aren't any blocks in the ballpark zone that need higher rates. My experience trying to visit this area at 7pm on Friday doesn't match this report. My wife and I circled about a mile, and we must have passed about a hundred full metered spaces, one instance of double parking, and a few instances of waiting in non-legal spaces.

After driving nearly a mile looking for a parking space, my wife and I decided to give up. As we drove out, we noticed that the meters on M street (which charge the same price or perhaps 50 cents cheaper) were completely empty, but that was far to walk with two kids. We drove to Pentagon City to eat and paid $2 for an hour of parking. We would have been willing to pay the same or maybe a little more to park on 8th for dinner.

While I understand that this might have been an anomaly, I'm guessing it's not. According to the performance parking report (PDF) for the Columbia Heights zone, DDOT stated that only three multispace meter blocks have occupancy above 85%. However, it appears that this is based on average occupancy, rather than maximum occupancy.

It's important to adjust meter rates based on maximum occupancy because the goal of performance parking is to ensure that a parking space is always available on each block. If the rates are adjusted based on average occupancy, all that ensures is that the overcrowded parking during peak times is balanced by relatively empty parking during some other time of the day. If demand throughout the day is highly variable, it's probably better to have two tiers of rates or some other way to offer discounted parking during off-peak times. The Port of San Francisco has two tiers and highly varied prices by location in order to better match prices with demand. Their maximum is $3 per hour (4 hr. max), and the minimum is $0.50 per hour. Some spaces are available for $1.00 per hour for a maximum of 12 hours.

Having the parking meter fees too low but with no spaces available is like a grocery store that offers heavily discounted bread. Sure, it's a great deal, but they never have any bread. Eventually, you give up going to that store and to to a more expensive store that you know always has some bread available. That's the point of performance parking, making sure that there's always a space available.

My recommendations for DDOT are to report the data they’ve collected about the performance parking zones on a block-by-block and hour-by-hour basis. Rather than use the average occupancy to determine what areas need price changes, they should look at either the maximum occupancy, or throw out maybe a couple of outlier hours and look at the nearly maximum occupancy. If even at the peak, the blocks are still empty, the fees should decrease. But if at the peak, people are finding the spaces all full, then a meter fee increase is justified.

San Francisco board approves “parking toolbox” study

2009-10-21T14:20:00.001-04:00

The San Francisco County transportation authority board recently approved this extensive on street parking management and pricing report.

As part of the report, the study team put together some neighborhood case studies that are relevant in Washington, DC, Arlington, and other parts of the region.

Some interesting findings from the report: Resident permit parking fees are $76 per year, more than five times as high as Washington, DC. According to the report, this price is set based on the costs of administering the program, and requires the largest amount of parking officer enforcement effort. If San Francisco says it costs $76 per vehicle to administer the program, why is DC only charging $15?

San Francisco allows up to four permits at the base price, but households (if they qualify for an exemption) can pay a graduated rate for additional permits. Visitor permits are available in short durations (as low as two weeks) and are priced at around $40 per month. Permit zones appear to be limited to walking distance, minimizing cross-commuting. The rules for setting up zones are similar to Arlington’s, which require a certain amount of observed outsider parking, parking congestion, and neighborhood approval.

On-street parking occupancy in some areas was very high. All reported surveys showed the Cow Hollow area as 90% occupied or more. The study also found that compliance with traditional time limits was low. Average vehicle duration at 30-minute meters was over 40 minutes, and at 1-hour meters was over 85 minutes.

The study team interviewed pedestrians in the study areas. They found that more than half of people surveyed were non-drivers. Among drivers, many reported having to search for 5 minutes or more to find parking. In the most parking-constrained neighborhood, less than 40 percent of drivers expected to find free parking.

In a mail-reply survey, residents rated availability (ease of finding a space) as the most important parking attribute, with cost of metered parking rated below safety, appropriate time limit and convenience. When asked to rate their experience parking, availability was at the bottom, with cost rated a better experience than time limits, information, and the availability of various payment options.

The survey results imply that residents would be willing to pay more for spaces that are more convenient and available. Among availability, convenience, and neighborhood improvements, availability beat convenience and improvements in forced-choice questions.

Businesses also rated availability highest in importance, with cost also rated below time limits, convenience and safety. “Being able to find a parking space more quickly” was rated by businesses as the improvement customers would be willing to pay extra for, with “extended time limits” running a close second. More than 50% of businesses surveyed said they would be more likely to support an increase in parking meter rates if a portion were dedicated to neighborhood improvements.

The recommendations also read like the Shoup model of parking management: variable prices, extended time limits, devoting a part of the revenue to the neighborhood.

Something "Infosnacky" for a change

2009-10-16T13:28:00.001-04:00

I don't blog much about the data and stuff anymore, working on parking and transit issues takes up most of the blog time I have.

But I saw this and wanted to share. What a fantastic presentation of data.

Some really interesting things going on there, click on any profession and it will expand, you can type a search, breaks down by male/female, etc.

For example, type "fa" and look at what happened to farming. It used to take about 50% of the US workforce to grow crops, now it's down below 2%.

What's an "operative", by the way? There sure were a lot of them in the 1960s and 1970s.

Petition regional governments for more Metro funding

2009-10-09T15:09:00.000-04:00

If you don't have time to read, click here to sign Coalition for Smarter Growth's petition to local government officials asking for more financial support for Metro.

We've recently discussed Metro's funding shortfalls, in the current fiscal year (about $22M based on declining ridership and revenues), for next fiscal year (projected at about $100M due to high cost growth in Metroaccess and employee compensation, and a reduction in advertising revenues), and about $3B for the next 10-year capital funding cycle (where the needs include track maintenance, new storage and maintenance facilities, and new railcars/buses).

Coalition for Smarter Growth, a little organization (only five staff members) with a big impact, now has a petition to local elected officials to request that they fully fund Metro’s needs. Here’s the text of the petition:

“I urge you to commit to fully funding our region's Metro System, which is the lifeblood of the Washington region. Our roads and transit systems depend on your leadership to maintain Metro as a world-class transit system.

Please:
1) Commit to providing Metro with sufficient annual operating funds.
2) Meet Metro's needs for $11.4 Billion in capital improvements over the next ten years. This money should come from all levels of government -- local, state, and federal.

This effort is crucial to keeping Metro operating. With the recent Board guidance to General Manager Catoe, he is required to propose enough cost reductions, including service cuts, to balance the budget for next year. The Board wants to consider only small inflationary fare increases and does not expect an increase in operating subsidy next year. With the two sources of revenue constrained, that could mean fairly substantial cuts in service. We need to ask our local elected leaders to make a commitment to Metro. Please sign the petition today.

Streetcar on the “Honor System”

2009-09-28T23:53:00.003-04:00

Like most other rail street transit systems in the world, the DC streetcar should be on the honor system. This system requires passengers riding the streetcar to have proof that their current ride is paid for, but does not require riders to show their ticket unless asked by an inspector. This system is extensively used in Europe and in various American cities like San Diego, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, and Los Angeles.

Honor system boarding allows people to board at any door of the vehicle and speeds up vehicle travel speed. If you have a valid day or week pass or prepaid cash ticket, nothing would be required. Just board and go. If you have a Smartrip card, readers at each door would be available to register your payment. Cash fares could be accepted at the driver’s door only, but this could be discouraged by increasing the fare (for example, by charging $2.00 at the farebox instead of $1.50 at the station machine). The goal would be to encourage most riders to prepay their fares so the boarding process can happen smoothly and with a minimum of delay.

Fare verification would require random inspection of tickets. First-time non-payers could be warned, repeat offenders could be fined or (in rare cases) asked to leave the train. A reasonable first fine (after a warning) could be $50, with a maximum $200 fine. Citations could be paid by mail or contested at the Metro or DDOT office, with judicial appeals available if required by law. I’m not sure what to do about passengers that are not carrying photo ID. Some systems have difficulty compelling fare evaders to show ID, at worst they could be asked to leave the vehicle.

Having enough inspections to give people more than a 10% chance of being asked to show payment is a reasonable balance `between too many inspectors and rampant fraud. With this level of inspection, the TCRP reports that most transit operators see between 1 and 6% non-payment rate. For example, Phoenix’s new light rail transit line reports about a 1% non-payment rate with about a million rides per month. For DC’s streetcar lines, three to five full-time inspectors for each line should be sufficient to provide this level of coverage, supplemented by additional temporary staff inspectors occasionally to provide more robust coverage and audits.

Inspections would be kept brief, paper fare media could be inspected visually, and Smartrip payment or passes could be validated by hand-held readers. To reduce confrontation and security risks, inspectors might be sent in pairs, boarding the vehicle at both doors and meeting in the middle.

There are some alternatives to the honor system. One would be to require all passengers to board at the front door and pay or show a pass, involving longer waiting times at stops. Another would be to have a conductors at each door (I saw this in Germany) which would increase operating costs. Finally, DDOT could somehow limit access to streetcar stations except through faregates, which is likely impractical or impossible without encasing the station and providing street-side doors for boarding like in Curitiba.

Since these alternatives are slower or more expensive, I recommend that DC follow other cities and use proof of payment/honor system for collecting streetcar fares.

London’s “Spider Maps”

2009-09-28T23:53:00.001-04:00

Transport for London has these great bus maps that show routes traveling in all directions from major transit nodes.

These maps are more abstract than the previously mentioned station-oriented bus maps. They combine several useful features:

1. A local area walking map, showing the location of the different bus stops keyed to a table of routes

2. A schematic route map for the bus, showing routing to other transit nodes in the area

3. A table of routes leaving from that node, either daytime or nighttime routes

These maps, Metro’s station area maps, Los Angeles Metro’s “12 Minute” maps (discussed here), and improved bus schedules are all created by CHK America, Inc.

Some issues with this mapping method:

You have to name the “dots”. Could DC residents agree on what to call the many new places we’d have to represent as a dot on a map? Or would the dot names become conglomerations, like some Metro station names?

Our bus service seems more complicated. Some routes only travel certain times or have “turn-back” service. For example, there are some Metrobus routes that operate only two or three trips a day. Is it better or worse to put them on the map?

Our buses are not as frequent as London’s. This kind of map is most useful if the rider only has to worry about routing and not schedule. Once a rider has to worry about bus schedule and timetables, it’s likely this won’t be enough information.

Infosnack and Greater Greater Washington Mentioned in the Post

2009-09-27T00:12:00.001-04:00

I was mentioned in the Washington Post. Woot. Probably because Unsuck DC Metro mentioned me or perhaps Lena Sun of the Post has my business card after I talked to her at a WMATA board meeting, before I was writing more heavily for Greater Greater Washington. See this article, "Catoe should make gadfly bloggers his new best friends". We should convene a meeting of the WMATA bloggers and strategerize or something. I'm still looking to meet the bloggers from DCist, Metro Man, Why I Hate DC and We Love DC.

Board to Catoe: Cut service to balance the budget

2009-09-23T12:32:00.001-04:00

According to this draft resolution, the Board will consider providing the following guidance to GM Catoe for preparing the FY 2011 budget, which starts next July:

Assume that jurisdiction subsidies will not likely increase

Assume a fare increase in line with inflation, approximately a 3% increase

Determine whether the FY 2011 budget can be balanced by funding preventive maintenance with capital funds, and assess how that affects the capital program

Propose how to keep MetroAccess costs from growing unsustainably

Recommend how to adjust rail and bus service levels to provide a balanced budget

The last item is key. Once you’ve put fare increases above inflation and government assistance off the table, you have to find the money either through cutting service or some other Metro expense. Since last year’s budget was mainly balanced by cutting non-service Metro expenses, it seems unlikely that much more will be possible, leaving Metro’s staff in the uncomfortable position of recommending severe service cuts.

As we discussed earlier, we prefer a balanced approach, with the burden shared evenly between subsidies, fares and service cuts. We also strongly endorse measures to keep the growth of MetroAccess costs down, as well as working with local departments of transportation to speed up bus service, allowing fewer buses to provide the same level of service.

Arlington installs better meters

2009-09-15T13:16:00.000-04:00

In some Arlington locations, drivers are now able to pay by credit card, right at the curb. Unlike the multi-space pay and display meters showing up around the region, these parking meters are conveniently located right at each parking space, and do not require the driver to place a receipt on their dashboard.

The county is trying the new meters out for a 3 or 4-month pilot program.

The new meters are a drop-in replacement for the county’s existing parking meters. A video I can’t find again shows how they can be replaced in less than 30 seconds. The old meter is unlocked and the top and guts are removed, the new guts and a new top are installed. The meters use existing coin boxes and poles. According to Arlington County, the new meters are about $500 each. They are solar powered, accept credit cards, and do not need to have supplies like receipt paper periodically replaced.

The brochure states that the meters can be administered remotely, report errors or malfunctions by text message, and can even accept cell phone or contactless credit card payment.

Arlington is currently undergoing a series of public review and board approval cycles for their draft Master Transportation Plan. In the Parking and Curbspace Management element (PDF) of the draft plan, Arlington is contemplating a change to Performance Parking as one of its curbspace management tools. The draft element needs to be approved by the County Board (scheduled for November 14, 2009) before it will be official guidance for staff to draft revisions to county ordinances.

Assuming the Parking element is approved with something resembling Performance Parking, Arlington’s new meters would permit adjustment of meter rates at different times of day, and report data that allows staff to measure the relative popularity of different meters which would allow them to adjust rates based on demand.

Metro Budget Possibilities

2009-09-14T13:16:00.000-04:00

Metro's 2011 budget starts out about $100M in the red from a preliminary analysis, but the General Manager has to submit a balanced budget to the Board by December. Here's some things he could consider:

Revenues: A fare increase is unavoidable this year. Metro should increase all fares by some base amount, about 5%. For Smartrip bus fares, this is about a nickel, maybe a dime. For cash bus fares, $1.50 is a reasonable increase that makes the cash payment easy to manage in exact change. According to data obtained from Metro, less than 15% of Metrobus riders pay cash. For Metrorail, off-peak fares should increase a dime at the low end to $1.45, and a fifteen cents at the high end to $2.50. Peak Metrorail fares should increase fifteen cents at the low end to $1.80, and the maximum fare should increase fifty cents to $5.00. Parking fees should increase a minimum of 5% (about 25 cents), and the Board should study whether parking garages that are completely full should have higher parking fees to manage demand. Even the bike locker fee should be increased by $5 (to $75 per year), with higher increases targeted to stations that have a waiting list.

The fare increases should have a broad base component, ensuring that all riders contribute to keeping Metro's budget balanced, and a targeted component to (1) overcrowded Metro services (like parking, peak rail and bike lockers), and (2) segments that are relatively price insensitive (like peak-hour commuters). This kind of fare increase should raise around $65M, about half of the amount raised by a much more targeted fare increase in 2008. Since Metro already assumed a $34M fare increase, that's $31M more than previously stated.

Subsidy: Last year, in one of the worst economies since WWII, Metro's funding partners were able to contribute an additional 3%, or $16M. This year, with the economy starting a recovery, we should expect the same or more. It is not fair or equitable to expect Metro's customers, who do not select the members of the Board or participate meaningfully in Metro's governance, to bear the primary burden of keeping the transit system solvent through fare increases or service cuts.

If the Board is unable or unwilling to hold down cost growth in areas like employee compensation (up $53M a year) or paratransit (up $20M), then the Board should be able or willing to go to its local governments and ask for the money those increases require. In discussions, Board members often treat this cost growth as unavoidable, but the experience with BART shows that it is possible to constrain the growth of labor costs, and the staff has repeatedly discussed ways to reduce Metroaccess costs. With the riders expected (as suggested above) to contribute about 10% more than last year, it is only fair that the subsidy should be increasing at about the same rate. Metro's funding partners should be expected to contribute no less than the increase in paratransit service, or $20M, but really it should be closer to $30M, or about 6% of the subsidy last year (subsidy levels typically increase every year, while fares increase only some years, that's why it's not 10%).

Cost reduction: According to this presentation, reducing Metroaccess to the mandated 3/4 mile ADA corridor would save $2.8M per year or more. Another idea would be to ask jurisdcitions to stop dropping their own federally subsidized paratransit programs, and directing their constituents to use Metroaccess, as the District did last year. Metro could also implement a mandated 2-3% cost reduction effort in all departments except public safety, which would save about $3M per year. The board could decide to implement the "escalator to stairs" concept, with a delay between when the escalators are no longer maintained and the capital expense to convert them to stairs, saving them up to $1M per year. They could implement the cost reduction strategy of closing underutilized station entrances on Metrorail, as proposed last year for a savings of about $1M per year. They could continue to propose cutting Metrobus lines that underperform, or jurisdictions could offer to take them over, as Fairfax and Arlington Counties did last year. Finally, they could propose cutting Metrorail service frequency outside of rush hour, going to 15 minute headways on weekdays and Saturdays during the daytime, which could save another $7.5M per year. Some of these service cuts are painful, but the budget gap is huge.

The total of everything above is about $75M per year, so the GM and the Board are going to have to find even more cost reductions, more subsidy increases or more fare increases than what I've mentioned above. It's going to be a tough budget year.

Preliminary Metro Budget Forecast

2009-09-11T12:51:00.001-04:00

As reported in the Washington Post, Metro’s staff released a report for the Board’s Finance Administration and Oversight committee meeting this Thursday. Next year will certainly be a challenging year for Metro. According to the report, even after an inflationary fare increase of 4-6%, and continued deferral of preventive maintenance, Metro’s supporting jurisdictions would still be required to chip in almost 20% more than last year’s budget ($107M). Since such a large jurisdictional subsidy increase is almost certainly not going to happen in this budget climate, we will likely be looking at a much larger fare increase as well as debates over service cuts.

Fortunately, the Board has a lot more time to contemplate budget-balancing measures this time around. Last year, the Board ended up with a very compressed schedule, forcing the jurisdictions to come up with budget-balancing service cuts for non-regional Metrobus routes only. Under pressure from riders, the board implemented limited cuts while funding the remaining gap through borrowing, increases in subsidies, and administrative cost reductions.

What’s driving this deficit? In short, higher costs and lower revenues.

Due to contractual obligations, Metro needs to pay its workers about 3% more than last year, from promotions as well as cost of living increases. That’s about $20M of the gap.

The cost of Metro’s pension plan, health care (retirees and current workers) and other benefits contribute about $33M to the gap. Without more information about Metro’s union agreements, it’s hard to say much more about these issues.

Metroaccess, WMATA’s paratransit service for the disabled, has been increasing in cost rapidly this past decade, up to almost $100M per year in costs, and contributing $19.7M to the budget gap. Because paratransit fares are limited by law to double the equivalent fare by transit, very little of this cost is paid by riders, typically 5-6%. This budget item is expected to grow as the population ages and riders from other jurisdictions choose to use Metroaccess as opposed to services in their home jurisdiction. For example, passenger trips in 1998 were about 250,000, while budgeted trips in 2009 were 1.8 million and are projected to grow to 2.5 million in 2011. In the meantime, Metroaccess expenses in 1998 were about $10M, in 2009 were $78.5M, and in 2011 are expected to be $98.6M.

The costs mentioned above are structural. Without changes in Metro’s employee compensation agreements and in the way Metroaccess is delivered, those budget items will increase every year for the foreseeable future. Increases in ridership, fares, and jurisdictional subsidies should be structured to provide for a reasonable amount of growth in employee compensation and contracted paratransit service.

Energy costs continue to increase, contributing about $10M to the budget gap. This budget item is subject to fluctuations in the energy market.

Revenues: Metro calculates that ridership will grow about 1% from last year after accounting for the effect of a fare increase. Combined with a 4-6% fare increase, Metro calculates that about $44M in new revenue will be available next year. However, all of this increase in revenues is wiped out due to a drop in advertising and other revenue.

Coming up, where Metro could save money and what a fare increase proposal could look like.

Metro Customer Service Complaints

2009-09-11T12:49:00.001-04:00

At a meeting of a Metro board planning committee (audio), on Thursday Metro staff presented the results of the track maintenance this past Labor Day weekend. According to the staff member giving the report, the track repair was completed successfully, and the shuttle service provided was a success.

However, Metro Board Member Jeff McKay(?)'s experience with the shuttle service was anything but smooth. According to Mr. McKay, he and dozens of other customers waited 35 minutes for a shuttle from Rosslyn, and when it arrived, there were four of them at the same time.

When the customers finally arrived at the Pentagon station platform, they found out that the train had left just a couple of minutes before, taking only three people, and the wait for the next train would be 40 minutes. Mr. McKay asked the station manager why there was no communication between the station level and the street level, where a bus supervisor could have alerted the station and train operator to hold for incoming passengers. According to McKay, the station manager told him that due to a new safety policy, he was not allowed to use his cell phone (this is not accurate - the new policy only applies to vehicle operators, not station managers).

Another Board member (Catherine Hudgins of Fairfax?) asked Metro staff about other customer complaints recieved that weekend. Staff said that they received only 90 customer service complaint phone calls that weekend, which was pretty good considering their ridership. The only problem is that the customer service phone line is only open from 8am to 5pm, M-F. My calls to that line outside of business hours were directed to call back later, with no option to leave a message.

Staff also did not mention the customer service complaints they recieved from other methods. Metro accepts customer service complaints via the web. Since last year, they have returned emails to the customer service email address without response.

Unlike other government agencies in the area like Arlington County (@ArlingtonVA), DDOT (@DDOTDC) and other transit agencies like BART (@SFBART), Metro's twitter account doesn't follow anyone, and to my knowledge has only responded once via Twitter to a customer complaint, when I directly brought the customer's complaint to the attention of Metro by another means. Other companies like Comcast track traffic on Twitter to get a sense of their customer's complaints and needs.

So is Metro doing enough to listen to customers? Should the complaint line have a voicemail option? Should WMATA listen to what its customers are saying on Twitter or is that a waste of time?