DC Area Transit Zone

I may have said this before in other posts, but it kind of deserves its own thread.


Most cities that have one transit agency have their bus and rail operations cooperating with each other. The one exception to this rule is WMATA. Since having been saddled with a bus system on top of an agency trying to do BART-style rail, WMATA has run Metrobus and Metrorail in competition with each other for resources, funding, and attention. This has led to many, many problems in trying to keep everything equal which have become apparent the last few years.


The truth seems to be that resources can't be focused on one without the other suffering. Building up Metrorail led to Metrobus suffering for many years (most other cities would've redone the route structures decades ago), but when Metrobus finally gets a bus man into the office Metrorail turns to crap. Metrorail riders get fleeced for money, especially during peak hours, while Metrobus riders often pay very low fares. I know WMATA's unique position of trying to do BART-style rail on top of running a bus system makes things very complicated, but should the two be unified into one agency? Or did the Catoe administration prove to everyone that Metrobus is a burden that is unsustainable? I'll share my take later.


(I'll step away before Wayne clicks "Yes", Oren clicks "No", and Antonzilla wishes there was a "Get Zim Out" option)

I never quite understood the dynamic that tries to segregate Metrorail and Metrobus in a way similar to BART with the bus and rail operators in the bay area.  Average distance between BART Stations is about 2.4 miles, nearly double that of Metrorail.  Metro's average station distance is VERY similar to MARTA which operates with a flat fare system.

I guess the logic is chalked up to the different municipaties and the length of the lines themselves, but therein, it seems odd that where BART connects with numerous agencies with no single agency overlapping the entire range of lines, Metrobus is pretty much always a connection option nearly every station, whether it be in Virginia, Maryland, or DC. 

I would contend that maybe should Metrobus be spun off as a seperate entity, but maybe they should explore options to limit Metrobus to being the "regional" bus carrier.  Short feeder lines shouldn't compete with municipal operators routes.  I've never quite understood the busfan trips where I'm told "we can take the Metrobus or wait 5 minutes more for the jurisdictional operator whic pretty much goes the same way except it dips into....."

The resources put into these lines may be better utilized towards dedicating service among larger versions of the county and muncipal operators instead.  Metrobus should be more geared towards offering direct and more auto-competitive service between jurisdictions in a way that complements Metrorail in taking people a good distance, quite possibly priced at a premium.  Those going 1.2 miles to the shopping center can use the municipal carrier for $1.25, those heading across the region to Greenbelt can catch the faster running Metrobus for $2.50.

Just this outsiders view of things.  Long pokey trips on lines like the F4 or C2 are a major pain to me.

I think Metrobus should be limited to the cross-boundary lines like the Mt. Vernon - Potomac Park Line (route 11Y), Washington Blvd Line (routes 2A,B,C,G) and Alexandria-Tysons Corner Line (routes 28A,X), Ballston-Van Dorn Line (route 25B), etc...

Let the locals run lines like Viers Mill Rd (the Q routes), Kings Park/Kings Park Express (the 17 routes), Burke Centre (routes 18P,R,S), Orange Hunt (routes 18G,H,J), Fair Oaks-Dunn Loring (route 1C), etc...

This way local agencies are responsible for funding most of their bus service and can't blame Metro for not providing the service.  Funding for the regional or cross-boundary lines can be billed under an agreement.

MetroAccess or other para-transit service should be funded by the locals.

Well, I have a question.  There's always talk of one (Metrobus or Metrorail) getting all of the attention at the expense of the other.  Is one group of people overseeing both Metrobus and Metrorail???  I'd hope this is not the case as what's good for Metrorail is not necessarily good for Metrobus and vice-versa.  I'd think that there would be a high level manager overseeing operations at Metrorail and Metrobus and both managers would report to the GM.  I don't see why one should fall by the wayside because the other is getting attention. 

Quote from: Transport on June 27, 2010, 10:00:21 PM
I think Metrobus should be limited to the cross-boundary lines like the Mt. Vernon - Potomac Park Line (route 11Y), Washington Blvd Line (routes 2A,B,C,G) and Alexandria-Tysons Corner Line (routes 28A,X), Ballston-Van Dorn Line (route 25B), etc...

Let the locals run lines like Viers Mill Rd (the Q routes), Kings Park/Kings Park Express (the 17 routes), Burke Centre (routes 18P,R,S), Orange Hunt (routes 18G,H,J), Fair Oaks-Dunn Loring (route 1C), etc...

This way local agencies are responsible for funding most of their bus service and can't blame Metro for not providing the service.  Funding for the regional or cross-boundary lines can be billed under an agreement.

MetroAccess or other para-transit service should be funded by the locals.

Well, lately, a few Metrobus routes have gone to the local agencies. The 12s 20s and 2W went to Connector, the 26E/W, 22B, and 24P went to ART, and segments of the 28B and old 28A were duplicates of DASH service.

I doubt Ride On could be able to run the Q line alongside the rest of their services given the medium sized fleet they have. With as much interlining as they do now, they couldn't keep up to the capacity of that line or service levels (there are some tics on the Q line at times). The 17s, 18s also fall into the same boat. Even though they are Fairfax County routes, I don't think the County has any interest in those lines for now and again, the fleet size.

Well, as for paratransit, the jurisdictions could possibly do it themselves but theres the whole thing of whether they can afford to run the service or hire a contractor for it.

If you want to see the consequences of spinning off services from one entity to multiple ones, look at the situation with privatization of rail in England as well as bus services in London. You have so many tender changes a year, it kinda gets expensive just to change everything.

Quote from: WayneNYC on June 27, 2010, 10:21:10 PM
Well, I have a question.  There's always talk of one (Metrobus or Metrorail) getting all of the attention at the expense of the other.  Is one group of people overseeing both Metrobus and Metrorail???  I'd hope this is not the case as what's good for Metrorail is not necessarily good for Metrobus and vice-versa.  I'd think that there would be a high level manager overseeing operations at Metrorail and Metrobus and both managers would report to the GM.  I don't see why one should fall by the wayside because the other is getting attention. 

I don't think there is any pleasing of him. Just like the Examiner having an article about Metro every single week.

Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 27, 2010, 10:28:02 PM

Quote from: WayneNYC on June 27, 2010, 10:21:10 PM
Well, I have a question.  There's always talk of one (Metrobus or Metrorail) getting all of the attention at the expense of the other.  Is one group of people overseeing both Metrobus and Metrorail???  I'd hope this is not the case as what's good for Metrorail is not necessarily good for Metrobus and vice-versa.  I'd think that there would be a high level manager overseeing operations at Metrorail and Metrobus and both managers would report to the GM.  I don't see why one should fall by the wayside because the other is getting attention. 

I don't think there is any pleasing of him. Just like the Examiner having an article about Metro every single week.

I just notice the irony of Catoe coming on the job and focusing all of Metro's energies on Metrobus and Metrorail falling apart right at that moment to be a little more than ironic, especially considering that Catoe was a "bus man" with little understanding of Metrorail's unique situation and background.

As for the reverse, wouldn't an agency that prided itself on rail accessibility have both a) retired the Fishbowls a little earlier than they did and b) have stopped buying non-lift buses way before the ADA stopped that? I see that as another sign that Metrobus had some neglect.

Quote from: Scrabbleship on June 27, 2010, 10:45:43 PM

Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 27, 2010, 10:28:02 PM

Quote from: WayneNYC on June 27, 2010, 10:21:10 PM
Well, I have a question.  There's always talk of one (Metrobus or Metrorail) getting all of the attention at the expense of the other.  Is one group of people overseeing both Metrobus and Metrorail???  I'd hope this is not the case as what's good for Metrorail is not necessarily good for Metrobus and vice-versa.  I'd think that there would be a high level manager overseeing operations at Metrorail and Metrobus and both managers would report to the GM.  I don't see why one should fall by the wayside because the other is getting attention. 

I don't think there is any pleasing of him. Just like the Examiner having an article about Metro every single week.

I just notice the irony of Catoe coming on the job and focusing all of Metro's energies on Metrobus and Metrorail falling apart right at that moment to be a little more than ironic, especially considering that Catoe was a "bus man" with little understanding of Metrorail's unique situation and background.

As for the reverse, wouldn't an agency that prided itself on rail accessibility have both a) retired the Fishbowls a little earlier than they did and b) have stopped buying non-lift buses way before the ADA stopped that? I see that as another sign that Metrobus had some neglect.

What does the last of the Fishbowls being retired in 2000 (as well as the RTSes) and buying non-lift buses have anything to do with rail accessibility?

Also, no agency is going to have that perfect GM that is a rail or busfan. It's all about politics and such. I also don't see why you think Metrobus and Metrorail are in competition with each other. If that was the case, what about MTA NYC, CTA, LACMTA, MUNI, or MBTA?

From my perspective the major issue is the fact that except for St. Louis Metro, WMATA is the only major TA with heavy service in more than one state as well as being financed and governed by more than one state: DC. MD & VA. Each of them are also fierce, sometimes bitter, competitors for businesses, Federal funding, jobs, population, etc., rarely successfully and consistently cooperating on anything that requires shared sacrifice for the good of the region. Each is jealous of what it perceives the others to be receiving for dollars spent and not just the political leadership. DC folks and their elected officials see expensive Metrorail as benefiting the "white " suburbs of MD/VA and their MD/VA counterparts perceive DC as a bottomless pit into which their money is poured to subsidize low Metrobus fares.

These attitudes and positions have been hardwired into the region for decades. While they may be softening somewhat as the population becomes more diverse ethnically, politically and economically WMATA's board will IMO continue to be provincial in their outlook with no genuine leadership grabbing the wheel to convert WMATA from the 1970's organization that it is into the 21st Century operation it needs to be. Hopefully the new Federal members will be able to change minds and hearts but I doubt it.

As a result whoever the new GM turns out to be, that person must have a very strong take charge personality, be a world class mediator, understand transit operations, be a "politician whisperer" of the first order and both know how to and actually enjoy communicating honestly with the public in order to have any prayer of lasting more than a couple of years and actually making genuine sustainable progress. Unfortunately Carmen Turner is no longer with us.

Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 27, 2010, 11:11:42 PM

Quote from: Scrabbleship on June 27, 2010, 10:45:43 PM

Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 27, 2010, 10:28:02 PM

Quote from: WayneNYC on June 27, 2010, 10:21:10 PM
Well, I have a question.  There's always talk of one (Metrobus or Metrorail) getting all of the attention at the expense of the other.  Is one group of people overseeing both Metrobus and Metrorail???  I'd hope this is not the case as what's good for Metrorail is not necessarily good for Metrobus and vice-versa.  I'd think that there would be a high level manager overseeing operations at Metrorail and Metrobus and both managers would report to the GM.  I don't see why one should fall by the wayside because the other is getting attention. 

I don't think there is any pleasing of him. Just like the Examiner having an article about Metro every single week.

I just notice the irony of Catoe coming on the job and focusing all of Metro's energies on Metrobus and Metrorail falling apart right at that moment to be a little more than ironic, especially considering that Catoe was a "bus man" with little understanding of Metrorail's unique situation and background.

As for the reverse, wouldn't an agency that prided itself on rail accessibility have both a) retired the Fishbowls a little earlier than they did and b) have stopped buying non-lift buses way before the ADA stopped that? I see that as another sign that Metrobus had some neglect.

What does the last of the Fishbowls being retired in 2000 (as well as the RTSes) and buying non-lift buses have anything to do with rail accessibility?

It shows that the agency that was way ahead of the curve on rail accessibility dragged their heels on bus accessibility.

QuoteAlso, no agency is going to have that perfect GM that is a rail or busfan. It's all about politics and such. I also don't see why you think Metrobus and Metrorail are in competition with each other. If that was the case, what about MTA NYC, CTA, LACMTA, MUNI, or MBTA?

All of those agencies have a higher percentage of riders that take both bus and rail than WMATA in part because the fare structures are fully integrated and the two modes are somewhat equal. I will admit that NYC doesn't have the "drive to the station" aspect going, LA is still mainly a  bus system, and MBTA doesn't have many bus routes going into Boston's core. The number of Metrorail riders who have never ridden a Metrobus (which led to Catoe's building up Metrobus to woo them) and the number of alleged poor people who "never" ride Metrobus serves a proof of non-intergration.

If WMATA allowed rail pass holders to ride Metrobus (which should've been done when paper transfers ended) and bus riders could ride off-peak rail, my take on this would be a lot different. Most agencies are simplifying their fares, WMATA's the only one making things more complicated. WMATA also seems to be the only agency where a single person can hijack everything to their own liking (see Graham, Jim, Zimmerman, Chris, and Jeter, Jackie).

Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 27, 2010, 10:26:46 PM

Quote from: Transport on June 27, 2010, 10:00:21 PM
I think Metrobus should be limited to the cross-boundary lines like the Mt. Vernon - Potomac Park Line (route 11Y), Washington Blvd Line (routes 2A,B,C,G) and Alexandria-Tysons Corner Line (routes 28A,X), Ballston-Van Dorn Line (route 25B), etc...

Let the locals run lines like Viers Mill Rd (the Q routes), Kings Park/Kings Park Express (the 17 routes), Burke Centre (routes 18P,R,S), Orange Hunt (routes 18G,H,J), Fair Oaks-Dunn Loring (route 1C), etc...

This way local agencies are responsible for funding most of their bus service and can't blame Metro for not providing the service.  Funding for the regional or cross-boundary lines can be billed under an agreement.

MetroAccess or other para-transit service should be funded by the locals.

Well, lately, a few Metrobus routes have gone to the local agencies. The 12s 20s and 2W went to Connector, the 26E/W, 22B, and 24P went to ART, and segments of the 28B and old 28A were duplicates of DASH service.

I doubt Ride On could be able to run the Q line alongside the rest of their services given the medium sized fleet they have. With as much interlining as they do now, they couldn't keep up to the capacity of that line or service levels (there are some tics on the Q line at times). The 17s, 18s also fall into the same boat. Even though they are Fairfax County routes, I don't think the County has any interest in those lines for now and again, the fleet size.

Well, as for paratransit, the jurisdictions could possibly do it themselves but theres the whole thing of whether they can afford to run the service or hire a contractor for it.

If you want to see the consequences of spinning off services from one entity to multiple ones, look at the situation with privatization of rail in England as well as bus services in London. You have so many tender changes a year, it kinda gets expensive just to change everything.

With West Ox, I think Connector could take the 17s and 18s (and 1C, 2T, 3T, 15M, and 28T for that matter).  With the new DASH building I wonder if DASH will try to take the 21A,D and  8S,W,X,Z?  Connector just recently received an order of about 26 40footer New Flyers and didn't retire many buses, if any, from what I can tell.

Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 27, 2010, 10:26:46 PM
I doubt Ride On could be able to run the Q line alongside the rest of their services given the medium sized fleet they have. With as much interlining as they do now, they couldn't keep up to the capacity of that line or service levels (there are some tics on the Q line at times).

As it is, Ride On can't keep up with the capacity of many of their own routes. I think that Ride On assumed all of Montgomery's responsibilities, they'd a) get a bunch of 40' buses from Metrobus and b) isolate intermixing of routes for a period of several years if at all. Precedent in this is NYCTA and MABSTOA in New York in the early 60's, New York City Bus and MTA Bus in the mid 2000's.

The bigger concern should be if giving the PG routes to PG County would lead to no night/weekend service, though I don't think WMATA would be stupid enough to put in a stipulation to keep current service levels.

QuoteThe 17s, 18s also fall into the same boat. Even though they are Fairfax County routes, I don't think the County has any interest in those lines for now and again, the fleet size.

Again, I think that Fairfax County would get a part of Metrobus' fleet in this scenario and they just get another bunch of D40LFR's with nothing being retired to take their place.

If anything, I can see the Virginia Metrobus operations being taken over by a joint venture of ART, Connector, DASH, and maybe CUE. Maryland is trickier though.

This topic went from unifying Metro ops to disbanding the system.  To the latter, I say NO.

Before Ride-On was created, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.  All of the small agencies were created to provide local community bus service to complement Metro.  These systems were NOT designed to run heavy duty line haul routes.  That's what WMATA is for.  In the case of lower ridership Metrobus routes being taken over, they were improved to better serve the community, but not to become something like a heavy duty Q route and such.

Metro needs to be held accountable for its service.  That's what the various jurisdictions pay for it to do.   Metro is so lucky to have local agencies where it can give them routes from time to time.  You definitely can't do that in SEPTA land.