The Maryland Transit Association will be meeting with people from the community to unveil the ridership study and discuss the Purple Line (see dates and locations below). Unfortunately, the nature of the meetings exhibit that this is really not an open or informative process despite the numerous meetings.
I called MTA to ask some questions and got Mike Madden, the Project Manager, himself. (It turns out that his phone number is posted on MTA's Purple Line website). I asked if MTA would be posting the ridership study on its website prior to the meetings. At a previous Purple Line meeting, I had suggested that it would be helpful if MTA put the information up for the public and was told that this was a good idea.
Mike Madden had "no recollection" of this and explained that there would not be time because MTA would be "refining" its estimates right up until the last minute. At that point, I asked if it was wise to hold all these meetings so soon if the estimates weren't complete yet. Mr. Madden stated that the final estimates wouldn't change much from the preliminary estimates.
I asked if I could see the preliminary estimates if that is the case. Madden said "No, because no information is going to be released before the public meeting." When I asked if it could be posted to the website after the first meeting, he seemed doubtful as the pace of meetings would preclude his staff posting information on the website.
Mike Madden was unmoved by my argument that the public could give better "feedback", a key purpose claimed for the meeting on invitations, if the public had access to information before the meetings. He said that they could respond based on what they saw at the time.
The public shouldn't expect to take much information away from the meeting. Mike Madden said that they would not have copies of the ridership study and that there might or might not be handouts with information on them. At previous meetings, MTA staff was unable to answer specific questions about how cost and ridership estimates were developed.
As it turns out, Mike Madden explained that there will be no public presentation at the meetings, just poster boards with information so the public can ask questions. Perhaps this isn't a bad format. It allows members of the public to ask questions that concern them, though it also prevents members of the public from hearing each other's questions and answers to them.
In short, the meetings are an odd mixture of secrecy with psuedo-openness. The public is welcome to view the findings but not the study behind the findings. Even the findings will be presented only when deemed appropriate by MTA and the public will not be able to receive copies or even summaries of them. It all appears designed to provide an image of consultation without the substance of it.
One wonders why MTA cannot simply make the information more available. If the study has been done properly, surely the ridership numbers should be able to stand up to genuine public scrutiny. MTA will no doubt point to its numerous public meetings as evidence of public consultation. However, the meetings are designed solely to convey MTA's conclusions while hiding the basis for them.
These meetings aren't really a request for "feedback" or even designed to explain the ridership study but a promotional tour. Listening to the public can be tedious and no doubt it is tiresome to present the same information in meeting after meeting. However, it is part of the job and we deserve a genuinely open process--not one designed to promote MTA's preferred Purple Line route in the guise of informing the public and getting public input. MTA can do better.
Monday, December 3, 2007
East Silver Spring Elementary School
631 Silver Spring Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
College Park City Hall
4500 Knox Road
College Park, MD 20740
Monday, December 10, 2007
Langley Park Community Center
1500 Merrimac Drive
Hyattsville, MD 20783
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Cafeteria
4301 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Thursday, December 13, 2007
(Snow Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2007)
West Lanham Hills Recreation Center
7700 Decatur Road
Landover Hills, MD 20784
7 comments:
At Maryland Transit Administration Focus Group meetings in early May and early June 2006 MTA reported that 11,000 people currently travel by bus in the Langley Park-Bethesda corridor and that fewer used the bus between Langley Park and New Carrollton. They also noted that many of those people who travel short distances would still continue to use the bus once a Purple Line is built. Assuming that 8,000 current bus riders will initially use (or be forced to use it because their bus service will be curtailed) the Purple Line, and 3,000 people will give up their cars to use a Purple Line, that is only 11,000. A 2002 study, when the Purple Line was going to be built as a subway system, found that there would be 28,000 riders (56,000 trips by 2020). Assuming this might be true, that represents 0.01% of the current populations of the two counties involved. It will be interesting to see what numbers MTA will now come up with and how they will try to justify them, especially now that MTA is looking to increase the number of stops, thus creating a slow, costly to the rider (and taxpayers), system. Greg Bradsher, Silver Spring
This is really disturbing. There must be a way the public can force the government to release the full ridership survey. Any ideas out there?
As a relatively new Bethesda resident, I was also disturbed to learn at a recent Purple Line community meeting that the underlying assumptions about growth etc. on which the ridership survey must by law be constructed are from a regional planning document that was published in 1990 - almost 20 years ago!
Also, re: the previous post, it was clear at that briefing that despite the fact that ridership would almost certainly be higher if the IPL were part of Metro, the additional cost would not justify the expense in the minds of the project staff. While the issue of which route will be approved is still allegedly an open one, the staff had clearly already decided that the bus route will not have sufficient ridership and the Metro option will cost too much, making light rail the clear winner in their minds despite the fact that the process is still ongoing.
All of this outrage about the MTA not releasing the complete ridership report before the upcoming meetings is more than a bit premature, considering that the report has not been written yet. Has the MTA ever declared it will not release the report? MTA has been consitently saying the numbers that will be presented at the upcoming meetings are preliminary in nature, may change slightly as the study is completed, and the report will follow. I too want to see the report, but I do not expect to see it before it is finished.
Wayne Phyillaier
Wayne, Thanks for the comment. I'm pessimistic because the public is entitled to look at the report before it is asked to give feedback. One cannot assess its conclusions without detailed information on how they were constructed. Mike Madden was quite clear in his conversation with me that he disagrees and the public will have no advance opportunity to look at the report. As a result, the public will not be in a position to assess it and then to ask questions based on it. At the last meeting I attended, no one was able to answer a number of audience questions on the study. If it's a good study, it should survive real scrutiny.
David:
I agree our ability to provide good feedback will be hampered by not having the ridership numbers before the next meetings. I suspect the MTA was too optimistic in its earlier statements that the numbers would be out earlier, and then the study was also slowed by late requests for additional alignment variations to be evaluated. Perhaps it would have been better to not go ahead with the open houses that had been promised in winter, but to reschedule them to spring to let the ridership study be complete and reported. I don't think MTA is trying to play games here, but they just were not able to keep their schedule together as well as we would like.
There will be public meetings again following the release of the AA/DEIS this spring and before the final alternative selection. If MTA releases the full ridership study report well before then, there will be time for public scrutiny of the study methods and to provide informed input before the critical decisions are made.
I believe that the ridership numbers are secret because they are probably too small to justify the real motivation for the purple line: Development. There are many proposed hi-rise condos slated to be developed near the 12 or so stops. When I see buses go down Thayer Ave, they are rarely full.
It should be mentioned that one of the proposed routes takes over an acre of Sligo Creek Park, home to diverse wildlife and a valued green space. In addition it will cross in back of ESS Elementary School. More info at SSTOP.ORG
Thanks again to everyone for the thoughtful comments.
I think Wayne's point that the report is preliminary is why MTA should release the logic behind the ridership numbers. We are still at the point when they can correct errors and get it right. If one cannot see the report until it is finalized an unalterable, public input cannot help shape the report. Once the final report is released, MTA will be unwilling to alter it even if significant problems are revealed.
Requests to evaluate alternative alignments don't seem to explain delays in the process. MTA has consistently narrowed the number of alignments it has been willing to discuss. It has been unwilling to seriously consider or analyze any alignments other than those already under consideration.
Again, many thanks for the comments from everyone.
Post a Comment