June 21, 2006
Pinky and Williams Plot Metro Takeover
The Washington Examiner's Steve Eldridge, who writes the paper's daily Sprawl and Crawl feature, kicked off yesterday's column with some pretty bold claims about the D.C. government's motivations when it comes to Metro. In no uncertain terms, Mr. Eldridge accuses the District of attempting to systematically usurp control of our regional transit system. Could it be that D.C. is actually on such a Pinky-and-the-Brain-esque mission to take over WMATA?
DCist takes a look at Eldridge's evidence, after the jump.
Exhibit A: Richard White, Metro's Recently Ousted General Manager
Eldridge claims that White "was replaced in large part because of political elements from the District..." Really? We thought White was given the boot because of billions of mismanaged contracts, a neglect of Metro Access and Metrobus, poor handling of safety problems, penchant for taking Metro's "Black Line" (also known as his WMATA-issued SUV), and general aloofness. If the "political elements from the District" were the only ones who saw this as a problem, we're glad they took charge.
Exhibit B: White's Replacement, Dan Tangherlini
Eldridge goes on to point out that a District employee got the job, implying some sort of municipal nepotism. Well, it makes sense that WMATA (whose board consists of members from Maryland and Virginia as well as the District) chose someone who had a good knowledge of the system and the issues it faces. Tangherlini had led the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) for 4 years and served on the board of Metro for 10 months when he was appointed interim manager. He also had a reputation for possessing the qualities White did not, including a good relationship with his employees, a genuine interest in the benefits of transit, and a strong concept of managerial leadership. Since he has come on board, the press has been mostly positive, employees are expressing satisfaction, and the Metro board is talking about making him the permanent CEO. Sounds like a change for the better to us...
Exhibit C: Metro Employees are Increasingly Coming from the District
This may or may not be true, since Eldridge does not give a source (not even the infamous blind quote). Cite your data, Steve, because without references, it might as well not exist. (For the record, we looked for publicly available labor and hiring stats from WMATA's and could find none.)
Exhibit D: The Dismissal of a Maryland Metro Board Representative
Is it us, or is this situation totally unrelated? Eldridge implies that Jim Graham, D.C.'s openly gay Ward 1 Council-member and member of the Metro Board, had an active role in Bob Smith's dismissal, as a result of Smith's anti-gay remarks on cable TV. But Smith was fired by Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich because his comments were "in direct conflict to [his] administration's commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity." The only thing Graham did was to be offended and call for an apology, for which we cannot blame him.
His Verdict?
After presenting his litany of evidence, Eldridge goes on:
"The District wants to pay less for its role in Metro though an equal share of service (especially the loss-leader bus service) is inside its borders and it wants to have more of a say. Don’t forget boys and girls that the District is roughly half the size of both Fairfax and Montgomery counties, which are not individually represented."First of all, Eldridge's manipulation of the facts to make his points undercuts his own arguments. When he objects to D.C.'s financial contribution to WMATA, he points out that at least half of Metro service is in the District, as well as the most unprofitable Metrobus service. But when he wants to show that D.C. has a disproportionately large representation on the Metro board, he points out that the city is smaller that Fairfax and Montgomery Counties, and therefore should have less of an influence. So the District has more service and should pay more, but we're smaller, so should be less represented. Right.
Second, the situation to which Eldridge is referring involves a debate between D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, over how contributions to Metro should be determined. Virginia and Maryland argue that the percentage a jurisdiction pays should be based on the number of stations within its borders. The District is saying that it should be based on the number of residents that use the system instead. This would mean that D.C. would pay a lesser proportion, since there are more riders living in the suburbs, outside of the District. However, considering that D.C. is the only one of the three to pass legislation approving a dedicated funding source, which WMATA desperately needs, we find it hard to agree that D.C. is somehow trying to weasel out of contributing to Metro.
We don't mean this as a personal attack on you, Mr. Eldridge, and we look forward to your column every morning. However, we also love our city and our transit system (despite all our complaints). Even if the claims you make weren't so baseless, they still seem unproductive and immaterial to the task we have in common - making Metro the best system possible. If you just want to rant, Steve, post a comment.
|
I've only heard glowing reviews of Dan Tangherlini since he took control of WMATA. His energy has reinvigorated WMATA and given hope to commuters that some positive changes might actually occur in the system. Plus, all the face time he's logged in and around Metro really makes the commuters feel like they have someone on their side. Perhaps there is someone better suited for the job, but Tangherlini has proven himself vastly more competent than his previous competition.
Great post.
That Pinky, he's always screwing up.
Of course DC pays too much. The formula is based on the number of stations within a jurisdiction, and an astonishing number are located JUST inside the DC border. Friendship Heights: DC. Takoma: DC. Deanwood: DC. Capitol Heights: DC. Congress Heights: DC. There's a parking lot at Minnesota Avenue and it's filled with Maryland cars. The where-are-the-stations-located formula is not merely arbitary. It is unjust.
Josh, to be fair, there are some stations that are located just *outside* the DC border. Southern Avenue, Naylor Road, and Silver Spring come to mind.
Silver Spring?! You're using THAT as an example? Everyone who uses that stop to go to work lives in Montgomery County.
Silver Spring?! You're using THAT as an example? Everyone who uses that stop to go to work lives in Montgomery County.
Well, yes. Your original post listed a set of stations inside the District border, but within close proximity to Maryland. I listed a set of stations detailing the opposite as a counter claim.
If you're complaining that more Maryland residents use District stations than vice-versa, well... no shit. Metro utilizes a hub-and-spoke topology, meaning that commuters will drift towards the center when accessing a station. Hence, many Marylanders parking at District stations such as Minnesota Ave and Anacostia, but fewer District residents parking at Maryland stations such as Silver Spring and Largo.
Thus proving my point: the formula stinks.
It works for me. What else matters?
Josh,
The same could be said about the formula for road construction. Virginia funds most of their own roads, Maryland as well, same with the District (of course some of is paid from the Feds for all three). But those roads are not just used by residents. Obviously suburbanites commute into DC. So the road formula is unfair, right? Well, of course, the opposite is also true. Unless I am missing some major DC port, most goods are driven through Maryland or Virginia to get to the District. I would assume that few goods go through DC to get to either of the surrounding states.
So, do I disagree with you. Not necessarily. You are probably correct that it is unfair. But it is not as simple as you want to make it. Most of the time when borders are in play, there are hard discussions about the sharing of cost.
Not to mention that lost in this discussion has been the benefit of Metro. I would find it hard to believe, even if more VA and MD residents ride then DC residents, that Metro is more important to either state then DC. Think of all the land lost to parking garages inside the city instead or more businesses lost to the exurbs. So again, the formula is not as simple as you want to make it.
Overheard in D.C.