http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/07/25/the-crumbling-of-the-dc-metro/ (http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/07/25/the-crumbling-of-the-dc-metro/)
Come on Feds bust Graham and Zim.
Removing one group of hacks and replacing them with an other group of hacks will not solve WMATA's problems.
Quote from: Sand Box John on August 01, 2010, 11:41:46 PM
Removing one group of hacks and replacing them with an other group of hacks will not solve WMATA's problems.
When anything seems to be beyond repair, especially something (pseudo-)governmental, people want change often for the sake of change. Often this backfires when assorted interests get in the way such as the current state of politics when people wanted change but change only meant the other side getting more angry.
I will admit that the Metro board could use some new blood and I think having politicians on board (Graham, Zim) is a major conflict of interest that gives some jurisdictions a unfair advantage. I think the rules governing the board should be rewritten to be a little more fair; a simple majority of 2/3 would work better than forcing all 3 jurisdictions to vote yes on something. Having some regular users on the board might help in relating to riders, but EVERY agency has the problem of having boards composed of people who rarely/never ride transit.
This morning, the Examiner had a story on Metro board alternates missing meetings (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Metro-board-members-play-hooky-1005888-99658089.html) that spent more time bashing the biggest offenders (Michael Brown and Marcell Solomon) than coming to some solution on the matter and trying to state that alternates should go to all meetings. I can't think of another city that has little faith in their transit board, even if the Examiner has a chip on their shoulder.
Scrabbleship
I think the rules governing the board should be rewritten to be a little more fair; a simple majority of 2/3 would work better than forcing all 3 jurisdictions to vote yes on something.
The rules are there for a reason. The jurisdictional veto is to keep two of the jurisdiction, in the words of late Cody Phanstiehl, "from ganging up on other".
Not having the jurisdictional veto would force one jurisdiction to live with decisions that are not in there interest.
IMO, a lot of the current problems are the result of installing change for the sake of change, dating back to Richard White's dismissal. The number of GMs, permanent or temporary, who have come in since White's dismissal is far too high to have any sort of consistency, especially since they keep restructuring various staffs, including the safety office. Dr. Gridlock wrote yesterday that the current board should fix the mess it created, and I think that for the sake of having consistent "leadership", not overhauling the board at this moment might be a good idea.
Quote from: Sand Box John on August 02, 2010, 09:11:05 AM
Scrabbleship
I think the rules governing the board should be rewritten to be a little more fair; a simple majority of 2/3 would work better than forcing all 3 jurisdictions to vote yes on something.
The rules are there for a reason. The jurisdictional veto is to keep two of the jurisdiction, in the words of late Cody Phanstiehl, "from ganging up on other".
Not having the jurisdictional veto would force one jurisdiction to live with decisions that are not in there interest.
It also makes things unfair when there is a full majority and it might be something in the best interest of WMATA as a whole. Jim Graham single-handedly limiting the "emergency" fare increase when Virginia and Maryland wanted it is a good example of this not being the best way to go. That's just unfair to all parties since it means that any one person can ruin it for everybody.
Imagine if any other governmental organization ran like the WMATA board. Nothing would ever get done because what is the point of wanting something if someone can derail it unilaterally? It makes me think that a board of 18 and a 2/3 majority by jurisdiction might be a better move, especially since that Examiner article revealed that an alternate makes more than the "full" members.
Zims only solution to cleaning up his mess is more tax money down the same rat hole
Scrabbleship
It also makes things unfair when there is a full majority and it might be something in the best interest of WMATA as a whole. Jim Graham single-handedly limiting the "emergency" fare increase when Virginia and Maryland wanted it is a good example of this not being the best way to go. That's just unfair to all parties since it means that any one person can ruin it for everybody.
The opposite of that argument could also be made. 2 jurisdictions going against interest of the whole.
Quote from: Sand Box John on August 03, 2010, 12:20:40 AM
Scrabbleship
It also makes things unfair when there is a full majority and it might be something in the best interest of WMATA as a whole. Jim Graham single-handedly limiting the "emergency" fare increase when Virginia and Maryland wanted it is a good example of this not being the best way to go. That's just unfair to all parties since it means that any one person can ruin it for everybody.
The opposite of that argument could also be made. 2 jurisdictions going against interest of the whole.
I can't think of a case when that would happen. I think a lot of the current problems exist over concern for an alleged subset of persons* and one person's championing for them whether they exist or not. A battle between VA/MD and DC could finally lead to some compromise of "poor inner-city Metrobus riders" vs. "poor overtaxed suburban Metrorail riders". A battle between DC/VA and MD might send Annapolis an ultimatum and may help PG upgrade their service. DC/MD vs. VA might send a message to Richmond.
* Are there really people who are very poor, but pay cash for each Metrobus ride, never ride on Metrorail, but somehow aren't near a place that sells Metrobus passes or Smartrip? I think it's a myth.