I haven't read all the Post articles nor have I seen any leaflets or even read wmata.com (though it's my next stop), and Dick White has always seemed to me to be unresponsive and arrogant... But based on what I have read I don't think one can view the Post series as particularly virtuous or in any way more reliable or less propaganda-ridden than anything WMATA puts out. Yes, WMATA absolutely has issues that absolutely need to be worked out, but sensationalist headlines implying that any money spent on Metro is wasted money does not help the situation in any way.

If the Post really wanted to help WMATA they would run a series about how it has to beg for money from the local jurisdictions that rely on it for their economic well-being every year and how, because of that, WMATA is forever needing to cut corners in order to satisfy the short-term demands of localities that could cut funding at any time.

Howdy--

"I don't think one can view the Post series as particularly virtuous or in any way more reliable or less propaganda-ridden than anything WMATA puts out."

I agree 100%. All news sources are biased. I have read all the Post articles, and I think that in some instances the Post is spinning the stories too strongly against Metro.

"sensationalist headlines implying that any money spent on Metro is wasted money does not help the situation in any way."

I don't think the Post is suggesting that; the stories point out in multiple places that Metro's ridership is surging and that Metro is a key part of the national capital region's transportation infrastructure. The stories say that mass transit is crucial in a region known for its crippling traffic congestion.

If the Post really wanted to help WMATA

Why should the Post want to help WMATA?

Finally, what's so egregious about Metro's propaganda is that it is paid for with public dollars. I do not want my tax dollars used to fund propaganda when said money could be used to fund the operation of a transit system. I understand that Metro wants to "get out its side of the story," and I think the marginal cost of using the website to do this is permissibly small. But using staff time to distribute printed leaflets is going much too far.

How fitting that the final installment of the series will be: "Even as Metro officials complain about tight finances, they continue to spend millions on projects that have little to do with the core mission of transporting customers."

BTW, I'm going to round up some reading material on street-running light rail systems in an attempt to get a handle on its effects on urban development...from the apocryphal Web stuff I've seen so far, some say it's great, others say development occurred only after massive tax subsidies...if you have any reading material to suggest, go ahead and e-mail me: thirdrail.massysett@spamgourmet.com. Thanks!

Regarding WMATA spending public money on counter-ads: Metro gets high ridership in part because it has a good overall reputation. If that reputations suffers, ridership could suffer. If ridership suffers, farebox recovery will suffer. If farebox recovery suffers, WMATA will have less money to affect positive change and a SEPTA-like death spiral will begin. I don’t have a problem with WMATA using public funds to advertise because advertising means riders, riders mean money and money means better service. At some point a line has to be drawn - I wouldn’t want them spending $4 million on a Superbowl commercial - but passing out leaflets is pretty mundane.

Moving on.

If by tax subsidies you mean direct government handouts to help TOD get off the ground, then there are many examples where they were not used. If you mean something more general (as I suspect you do given where I suspect you read those claims; see below) then taxes and government subsidies are a fact of life that affects all development in one way or another. No discussion of urban growth is complete without addressing government subsidies and tax structures. What is often left out of discussions about them is the extent to which status-quo suburbia is subsidized by all three levels of government. For that reason it’s ironic that so-called libertarian organizations are so frequently opposed to Smarth Growth measures. I would specifically caution you about a whole network of those so-called libertarian organizations that you’re bound to run into in any web search on this subject. There is a well-connected, well-funded series of anti-transit propaganda sites with names like "Independence Institute", "Reason Institute" and "Cascade Institute". They are all under the umbrella of the Wendell Cox / Randall O’Toole camp and push for major decreases in transit spending. Though they look legit at first they are anything but. They’re about as valid a source of information as http://lightrailnow.org, which is one of the most biased websites you will ever find, though it is on the pro-transit side.

Kudos for call the "Dear Fellow Rider" progaganda. You are absolutely correct. It’s an abuse of trust to use Metro resources in this manner and adds credibility to Post reporting.The Metro has a problem with something that's published, it can write a letter, op-ed, or fix the problem.

BeyondDC--

Thanks for the links! I'll take a look...

BeyondDC--

Thanks for the links! I'll take a look...