TO: Chairman May and PRTC Commissioners

TO: Chairman May and PRTC Commissioners

FROM: Alfred H. Harf

Executive Director

RE: PRTC Comments on the Super NoVa Transit / TDM Vision Plan Materials Presented at the July 2012 Stakeholder Workshop

Recommendation:

Authorize the Executive Director to send a letter to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) regarding the subject study, applauding the initiative and offering several constructively critical observations for VDRPT’s consideration.

Background:

The Super NoVa Transit / TDM Vision Plan is a long range, examination of how the region’s transit / TDM services can be improved over time, resources willing. Assisted by the consultant team, VDRPT began this inspired effort last year and the work is now nearing completion. The study product (together the product of a companion statewide transit / TDM study) will underpin the needs assessment VDRPT intends to incorporate in its SJR-297 Study Report, the subject of another item on this month’s Commission agenda.

In July, VDRPT hosted a work session to invite reactions by the NoVa transit and TDM providers to Super NoVa study products seen for the first time at the work session (see attachment). There was a spirited discussion at the work session, and VDRPT invited all those present to furnish their more considered reactions after they had the opportunity to thoroughly review the material. PRTC management has done so and drafted a letter for the Executive Director’s signature that the Commission is being asked to approve for transmittal (also attached).

Fiscal Impact:

Not applicable.

Attachments: as stated

WHEREAS, for the past year, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) has been engaged in a long range planning effort focused on Northern Virginia region broadly defined (hereinafter referred to as “the Super NoVa Study”); and

WHEREAS, the Super NoVa Study is intended to fashion a vision for how the region’s transit / TDM services can be improved over time, resources willing; and

WHEREAS, VDRPT has sought to meaningfully involve transit and TDM providers as well as the public at-large in this vision planning effort, so the resultant vision has broad-based support; and

WHEREAS, VDRPT is inviting reactions to a set of study products presented to the region’s transit and TDM providers at a work session in Northern Virginia in July; and

WHEREAS, PRTC management participated in the work session and has prepared a set of reactions to the study products as described in a letter accompanying this staff report and resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has been briefed on the study products and management’s reactions; and

WHEREAS, the Commission concurs with management’s reactions, applauding the initiative and offering several constructively critical observations;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) authorizes the Executive Director to sign and send the letter as drafted.

Ms. Amy Inman

Planning & Project Manager

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

600 E. Main Street

Suite 2102

Richmond, VA 23219

Re: Comments on the Super NoVa Transit / TDM Vision Plan Materials Presented at the July 2012 Stakeholder Workshop

Dear Ms. Inman:

At its September 6, 2012 meeting, I briefed the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) on the subject study and more specifically the materials that were presented at the July 2012 workshop. I applauded the fact that the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) saw fit to sponsor this planning effort, characterizing it as an inspired examination of how the region’s transit and TDM services can be improved over time, resources willing. I also praised the thoughtfulness of the effort, including the soundness of the stated aims and VDRPT’s skilled melding of outreach and analytics as a foundation for recommendations. Lastly, I made several constructively critical observations, and the Commission authorized me to communicate these same observations to you for VDRPT’s consideration.

1. As a starting point for the vision plan, there should be an explanation for why transit and TDM services exist as they do today. The present day situation is no accident, and a brief history of how these services have evolved would be very helpful background. That history would highlight that transit services in the region began as private, for-profit services, serving only markets seen to have profit-making potential, and that profitability all but ceased by the mid-twentieth century owing to a variety of well-chronicled demographic and developmental changes. The history would go on to recount that, despite the loss of profitability, transit services were recognized to be essential public services, such that the federal, state, and local governments began subsidizing these services to sustain them.

The evolution of these governmentally-sponsored services would also be told, explaining why Northern Virginia’s jurisdictions opted to launch their own local bus services rather than relying solely on Metrobus for bus services the jurisdictions deemed to be in the public interest. The history would conclude with a commentary about the complexion of today’s bus services, making what I think are four essential points:

§  The locally-sponsored bus services in the WMATA Compact area complement the Metrobus regional routes and serve as feeders to Metrorail;

§  The locally-sponsored bus services are configured the way they are to serve each sponsor’s residents, such that services are confined to only those areas / destinations that a local sponsor perceives to have importance to its own residents;

§  The varying levels of locally sponsored services in each area are a measure of how much importance each jurisdiction ascribes to providing such services, shaped by the jurisdiction’s philosophical outlook on taxes and governmental service priorities; and

§  The variation in locally sponsored services promises to remain so long as there continues to be a substantial reliance on local funding to provide said services, such that population, demographic, and development density measures are not the only determinants of where service is present.

This history would become even more understandable if the narrative were accompanied by a summary of the magnitudes of federal, state, and local support invested in transit / TDM region-wide and perhaps by jurisdiction, so the significance of each sponsor’s participation can be readily seen.

1. The vision plan also should inform its audience about the economic fundamentals of transit / TDM. The use of “place types” as a typology is a very thoughtful way of imparting an understanding that transit / TDM services need to be right-sized to each situation, but it is at least as important to impart an understanding of the economics of each service type. Some general observations about what can be expected in terms of riders per revenue mile, riders per revenue hour, and farebox recovery for each service type would serve the useful purpose of insuring that new / expanded services as shown are inherently a prescription for increased public expenditure.

1. The idea of a Super NoVa transit operating agency (and a unified operating plan) should be scuttled, and the other “policy” recommendations made in the operations area should acknowledge that they build on what already exists since these are policies that in some measure are already being practiced. As I suggested earlier, it is no accident that transit and TDM services exist as they do today, and there are good and sound reasons for why they are not unified or “all under one roof”, institutionally speaking. For example, some are organized to accept federal assistance (like PRTC) while others are not, all have fixed facilities that are ideally situated in relation to their geographic operations, and all are also sized to mirror their sponsoring local governments’ “appetite” for publicly-funded transit / TDM services. Institutional consolidation would be ill-advised because the differences I’ve illustrated here can’t be ignored, whereas the “policy” recommendations made in the operations area warranting advancement where sensible can be advanced without institutional consolidation.

A few examples help to illustrate this point. Virtually all of the providers are already part of a regional fare collection joint venture (SmarTrip), and plans are in a formative state to migrate from the current proprietary system to an “open” system allowing the fare medium to be used as a payment medium for other purchases. Transit operations are already marked by innovative delivery, including but not limited to PRTC’s own “flex route” local bus operation and the real time information dissemination that multiple operators are now providing or are planning to provide. Most of the NoVa local bus services are out-sourced to take full advantage of economies that contracted operations promise. And finally, there are active discussions about integrated corridor management being spearheaded by VDOT and VDRPT. With regard to route simplification, this is an aim of each operator within the confines of its own operation, tempered by service coverage and other quality of service considerations.

*****

Thank you for considering PRTC’s observations. I would be pleased to discuss them at further length if you think that would be purposeful.

Sincerely,

Alfred H. Harf

PRTC Executive Director