The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
Remember yesterday, when we noted that the Federal Transit Administration's tool for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of transit projects was slightly out of whack? Well, it looks like it's got some company in the "crazy" department, with new FTA regulations that effectively end Metro's ability to operate shuttle buses from stations to highly-traveled destinations.
The new rules (PDF), which went into effect May 1, require public transit agencies to offer right of first refusal to private charter companies before operating shuttle service for revenue. Of course, there are dozens of such companies in the metropolitan area that would absolutely love to get a slice of such an easy chunk of revenue.
While the casualty to Metro's bottom line might be the loss of "a small profit" (only according to Metro chief John Catoe; one could conceivably argue that any program which is turning a profit is invaluable at this time), the greater impact is going to be felt by riders who regularly take a shuttle from the Morgan Boulevard station to FedEx Field for Redskins games in the fall - Metro chartered more than 1,300 buses and charged $5 per trip last season. No word on how much a private company will charge for the same service, but we wouldn't be surprised if such a program came along with a fare increase.
On the bright side, at least for now, Metro did receive a one-year waiver to the rule for services to Wolf Trap from the West Falls Church station. That shuttle costs riders $3 and will be available starting today.
photo by jsmjr.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Broadly speaking then, public transit is "bad" (according to conservatives) because it can't turn a profit, but it's also not supposed to compete with private companies in areas where it might actually be able to generate revenue. Do I detect some sort of hypocrisy here?
How much you want to bet Dan Snyder and the Redskins lobbied for this rule?
Why don't Metro buses to BWI and Dulles fall into this category? Not that I want those buses to stop, but it certainly is a situation where a private company could run a line in and out of the airports (in fact, I think there is one out of Dulles (Washington Deluxe, or something like that...is that my answer?).
And continuing the argument, why can't private companies do all mass transit? I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems like this is the logic being used.
"How much you want to bet Dan Snyder and the Redskins lobbied for this rule?"
There was nothing preventing Snyder from hiring a private charter service before this rule. This is more about protecting the charter companies from having to compete witha tax payer subsidized entity. It's all explained on the first page of the rule release.
Not that I necessarily agree with the logic, but I think the thrust is more "should tax payer dollars be spent providing a service that private companies are still ready and willing to provide?" I think it makes more sense when you consider it in the context of the publicification of mass transit in the late-60s and early 70s (in other words, while the government took over all the failing bus and rail lines, it shouldn't use its largess to push out those business that weren't struggling).
@ voteprime:
Those are Express Buses which are covered under Metro routes. They're not charter buses to entertainment venues. Those are in little danger of being revoked. At least in theory.
@demonfafa
Aah! Yes, that makes sense. I guess I didn't quite understand the specification here. I figured those routes weren't a concern since they weren't mentioned anywhere in the article, but I didn't understand why. Thanks.
"Those are in little danger of being revoked. At least in theory."
I'd say ANYTHING involving public transportation is in danger of being revoked under this administration.
@reid Actually the "publicatization" of mass transit began earlier than that perhaps 40 years prior to that, and was initially away to try to circumnavigate transit unions that were regularly shutting down transit systems in in the 1920s. Civil employees didn't have the same level of unionization. So of course now conservatives are talking about privatizing transit systems to again beat unions where they have power. Not realizing, of course, that the unions will follow eventually. But I suppose in the meantime, their corporate friends can make a bundle and the unions will be momentarily weakened.
"Actually the "publicatization" of mass transit began earlier than that perhaps 40 years prior to that"
True. But the Conrail takeover of all the failing passenger railroads was right around the time of the FTA act. That was more what I was thinking about. But I agree that there was an anti-union sentiment behind a lot of the takeovers.
I sometimes wonder if the DC Transit union hadn't shut down the streetcars like they did, whether they'd have lasted longer. I suspect they would've lasted a bit longer, but they'd still be gone. Particularly with the building of Metro.