jhilgen

MetroAccess vehicles, which provide para-transit services to disabled D.C. residents (photo by Joshua Davis via Flickr)

(Jim Hilgen -- WAMU, Washington, DC) For nearly 20 years, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority has offered a program called MetroAccess, a door-to-door ride for people who can’t use other forms of public transportation. The problem the service faces, however, is that it's not cheap. And for what Metro spends on the program, it's still fraught with issues.

"If you are going some place the very beginning of the day, and they get you there early, and the place isn’t open yet, and you’re standing outside waiting," says Anne Timley, a vision-impaired D.C. resident who uses MetroAccess as her main means of getting around. "And that has happened to me a couple times. You know you don’t feel safe just standing out there on the street just waiting for some building to open. "

It’s not a surprising story to Patrick Wojahn, chairman of the 'Access For All' committee at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). He says customer service on MetroAccess has long been a bone of contention. "Missed appointments, having to wait for hours after they schedule an appointment for somebody to actually come and pick them up, for terrible customer service through the paratransit system," he says, ticking off the issues.

MetroAccess was created in 1994, after the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act -- which required public transit systems across the country to make improvements to their services for disabled riders. Christian Kent, who heads Metro's Office of Accessibility, acknowledges the service is not perfect, but also notes that MetroAccess was never intended to be a permanent transit solution.

He also throws out some statistics: the service works approximately 92 percent of the time for the 2.4 million customers who utilize it every year, he says.

"I do think that there were many people who felt that if we got to that point in time where bus and rail were fully accessible, paratransit would become much less needed," says Kent. "But that has not proven to be the case."

According to WMATA's 2012 budget, MetroAccess will cost $116 million -- or 8% of the transit authority's operating budget (pdf). Revenue from fare-paying passengers is projected to be $6.3 million. Earlier this year, WMATA raised fares on the service to twice the amount of a comparable Metrorail or bus trip to a maximum of $7, up from the base fare of $2.50 charged in 2010.

Timley is one of those for whom bus and rail are not real options, at least at the moment. She lives in Fairfax County, and the layout of the suburbs can make it hard to get to bus stops. And that is often an issue that lies beyond Metro’s control.

"Once the bus stop is put in, Metro does not take charge of it," says Timley. "The county then has to make sure there’s a sidewalk leading to it, make sure it has the curb cut. As pedestrians, you are also competing with the money needed for new roads and for fixing roads and maintenance of roads."

In an era when transit agencies and local governments are already scrounging for funds, riders hoping for substantial changes to MetroAccess may be cooling their heels for quite a while.

Photo Courtesy of Armando Trull

(Washington, DC)

The Washington, D.C. metro area has the worst commute in the country. Drivers in the metro D.C. area spend an average of three days per year in bumper to bumper traffic, according to 2011 rankings from Texas A&M University released this morning.

Chicago and and Los Angeles ranked second and third in the traffic congestion study, with 71 hours and 64 hours, respectively.

Rounding out the top 10 list are Houston (57), New York (54), Baltimore (52), San Francisco (50), Denver (49), Boston (47) and Dallas (45).

The TTI survey shows nationally, commuters spend 34 hours sitting in traffic. That means both Chicago and Washington motorists are stuck in traffic at more than double the national average.

What does all this mean?

For one, it means that some 37 gallons of fuel per car are being wasted in traffic jams in the Washington Area. The cost of that fuel, added to wages lost, hits Washington area commuters in the wallet to the tune of nearly $1500 a year. That’s not to mention the cost of lost productivity and the effect that highway stress can have on individuals.

2010’s rate of 74 hours lost on the roadways is an improvement over the 2007 number, when commuters were left idling an average of 89 hours.

There are efforts underway to create some congestion relief in the DC area, the Intercounty Connector in Maryland, the Beltway high-occupancy toll lanes and the extension of transit rail in Virginia and several smaller projects, but officials fear that none of it is enough.

Projections by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and its transportation oversight committee, suggest that without significant investment in highways and transit, congestion could stifle the region’s desire to grow. By 2030, the regional population is estimated to increase by 1.2 million, newcomers drawn by 874,000 new jobs.

And with Congress in a belt-tightening mood, it seems that there will be little in the way of funding support to move meaningful projects forward.

The TTI report says congestion cost Americans more than $100 billion in 2010. That compares to an inflation adjusted $24 billion in 1982. Engines idling in traffic burned 1.9 billion gallons of gasoline. The researchers suggest that the number would increase to 2.5 billion gallons and delays would cost $133 billion by 2015.