CONSIDERING A DIFFERENT FUNDING MODEL?

Streetsblog contributor Sogand Karbalaieali thinks beyond the immediate problem of fare evasion on the subway.

[F]are evasion's estimated revenue loss of $40 million barely makes a dent in [Washington Metro's] total $4.8 billion budget. And in some ways, the money that’s lost when people ride for free could represent a significant public benefit: according to a 2012 report by the National Building Museum, cutting car ownership in Washington D.C. by 15,000 vehicles would save the local economy $127 million.

One potential avenue lies in creative solutions for generating revenue through underutilized parking spaces. The [Metro] parking fee is about five dollars per day, and if you leave after midnight, there's no charge. Back in 2015, [Metro] parking lots were utilized at 75 percent capacity, but by 2019, that figure had dropped to 55 percent — and in most MD and VA stations, parking usage plummeted to as low as 20 percent. As people opt to live and work nearer to metro stations, the demand for parking declined and demand for housing near bus and train lines has skyrocketed with little inventory available to meet it. The pandemic further accelerated this trend, which was driven by remote work, especially among white-collar employees.

To its credit, [Metro's] 10-year strategic plan does envision transforming many of these expanses of asphalt into mixed-used developments — but the response hasn't been swift enough. Since 1975, Metro has completed just 55 joint development projects — a pace of less than two projects a year.

Cars are for closers, and that makes me doubtful those fare-evaders are leaving their cars at home.  Five years ago, though, I had thoughts about the sort of "joint development" she's contemplating.

A Florida transit planner takes a ride on Brightline. "While I loved my travel experience, as a planner, I'm keenly aware that Brightline’s service model cannot be easily copied by public transportation agencies."  Perhaps the place to start, dear reader, is by reworking the public agency model.  Let's start with Ms Whitton's contrasts.  "Brightline cost billions to build, and it was built without direct public funding. That being said, several things give it an advantage that public transportation agencies do not have."

First, "[Florida East Coast] has owned or had exclusive access to right-of-way for the railroad tracks for more than a century."  Unlike the legacy commuter train operators of the big cities, who sought public assistance with the operating deficits, leading to a situation in which the subsidy-paying agency might be at odds with the freight railroad that owns the tracks, Florida East Coast are starting this service, and adding capacity, ab initio.

Second, "All Aboard Florida’s business model includes revenues from nearby real estate developments."  I've called that the "Sim Trump" approach to railroad construction, and it seems to work in Japan.  But such "value capture" isn't so easily done by Commuter Rail operators (the prospect of Chicago's Metra getting too close to well-connected Pritzkers or McCaskeys isn't just a theoretical worry.)

Third, "During my ride, I noticed several 'official partners' of Brightline."  In plain language, naming rights (and well-patronized trains won't be white elephants.)  But again, where you have a government agency, with a monopoly on generating rents, you have the risk of corruption.  "While some larger transit agencies such a RTD in Denver and CTA in Chicago have corporate partnerships, the procurement rules or politics within most local governments would prohibit this revenue source."

That post noted the constraints imposed by public ownership, although it doesn't preclude transit authorities making more productive use of the space they own, such as the peripheral parking lots, and, oh, the clear space above many of the Metro stations. I expressed hope that Brightline might inspire the public transportation authorities. "Put another way, rather than having the public money provide 'demonstration projects,' here is an entrepreneurial demonstration project that the Commuter Rail authorities might emulate."

In addition, her post suggests other ways in which Technocratic Government is impeding transportation companies from harvesting gains from trade.

A significant obstacle in land development is the minimum parking requirement, a mandate that drives up housing costs and construction expenses. In the past decade, countless jurisdictions across the U.S. have abolished minimum parking mandates to stabilize rents and provide more housing choices. A similar shift has happened within the District, but it needs to expand region-wide.

To accelerate the implementation of transit-oriented development, WMATA and regional decision-makers must both adopt forward-thinking strategies. Streamlining contracting and construction processes and eliminating minimum parking requirements at the minimum can greatly expedite progress.

These types of policy changes become even more crucial as housing prices soar and heatwaves and storms escalate. While gate-jumping is a serious issue, it’s worth noting that getting more people to ride transit legally is essential to our climate targets — targets that we currently aren’t meeting.

Irrespective of the climate alarmism, betting on emergence and relying on price incentives to allocate resources strikes me as a more effective way to deal with Metro's farebox recoveries and the departments of public works problems with road repair.

Is there a superior and safer way to travel? Absolutely. We deserve and should insist on dependable and frequent public transit, along with access to bikes and e-bikes, green walkways, and vibrant, human-centered communal spaces. This choice isn't just about enhancing mobility; it’s about fueling economic growth and fostering a glimmer of hope in our fight against climate change.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for gate jumping. But I am advocating that we direct our attention to what truly matters. While addressing fare evasion is important, the more pressing urgency lies in achieving our climate goals, promoting healthy lifestyles, fostering sustainable transportation, and building resilient infrastructure. Unfortunately, our fixation on fare evasion has distracted us from these critical priorities.

Unfortunately, the urbanists' reluctance to consider trade-tested betterments has distracted them from the policies that might make the road congestion and parking clutter go away whilst supporting rail and bus transportation that isn't lowest-common-denominator squalor.