 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
Today's Issues Contact Your Area Legislators To Amend H.R. 3496 (“Davis Metro Legislation”) to Add a Riders’ Representative to the Metro Board of Directors What H.R. 3496 Provides NowCongressman Tom Davis and a number of area Congressmen recently introduced H.R. 3496, Federal legislation authorizing $1.5 billion in additional Federal funding for the purchase of new Metrorail cars and Metro buses over the next decade on the condition that Metro becomes more accountable to the public for its actions. The bill as introduced would require Metro to appoint an independent Inspector General and to add two Federal officials to Metro’s existing 12-person Board of Directors (four each from Maryland, District of Columbia and Virginia) and would require those jurisdictions to approve “dedicated funding sources” (such as an area-wide sales tax) to guarantee long-term funding for Metro. [Most major transit systems already have such dedicated funding.] A mark-up session (considering amendments) for H.R. 3496 is planned by Davis’ House Government Reform Committee this fall. There is no similar legislation in the United States Senate. MetroRiders.Org Urges You to Contact Your Legislator to Amend H.R. 3496 to Add a “Riders’ Representative” to the Metro Board 1. Current Metro Board Is Considered Out of Touch With Passenger Frustrations Since MetroRiders.Org launched last fall, no issue has irritated Metro customers more than the revelation in a Washington Post story that “Most Metro Board Members Don’t Regularly (or Ever) Ride Metro Bus or Rail.” Board members were portrayed as busy local politicians who make policy decisions for Metro in a vacuum—without experiencing the daily frustrations of regular transit users. MetroRiders.Org first testified last February before Chairman Davis’ Government Reform Committee urging that a Riders’ Representative be added to the Metro Board. New York City’s transit system has a riders representative on its Board by statute: “Metro riders here deserve no less.” 2. Metro Board Favors Only Riders Advisory Council, Not a Riders’ Board Member The Metro Board Chairman responded that he favored establishing a Riders Advisory Council (RAC) to advise the Board rather than a having a Riders’ Representative added to the Board. The Metro Board has been developing an 18-person RAC since February 2005, and its members will be appointed by year’s end. The RAC would meet one evening each month and would make periodic appearances before Metro Board meetings as requested but would not be a full participant in Metro Board and Committee meetings. 3. MetroRiders.Org strongly favors adding a new Metro Board member specifically to represent Metro riders. The Riders Advisory Council (RAC) is far too limited and remote a mechanism to articulate riders’ views to the Metro Board. A Riders’ Representative on the Board would participate in all Metro decision-making, would have full and regular contact with all other Board members and could make sure that the Board was always aware of the riders’ views on all issues. 4. Area Legislators Seem Sympathetic to Adding a Riders’ Representative to the Metro Board Chairman Davis said during his recent hearing on H.R. 3496 that he is “open to the idea of adding a Riders’ Representative” to the Metro Board. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-8 MD), a member of the House Government Reform Committee and a cosponsor of H.R. 3496, has endorsed adding a Riders’ Representative to the Metro Board. Other area legislators have stated that Metro has to be made more accountable to the public as a condition of its obtaining Congressional support for more Federal funding, and that adding a Riders’ Representative to the Board was an option they were considering. 5. Letting Your Own Legislator Know of Your Support for Adding a Riders’ Representative to the Metro Board is Both Easy and Important Adding a Riders’ Representative on the Metro Board won’t happen if you (all) don’t actively support the idea as a necessary amendment to H.R. 3496. Lobbying your own local legislator (see contact information below) is easy to do, even if you’ve never done it before. Just phone the office of your legislator (all area code 202 numbers) and ask for your legislator’s transportation staffer (names or email addresses provided below) and give or leave a message along the following lines: “My name is ___________ and I’m a constituent of the Congressman/woman. I’m a Metro rail/bus user and I want the Metro Board and management to be more responsive to customer issues. I urge him/her to support an amendment to H.R. 3496 (‘Davis Metro Bill’) to add a Riders’ Representative to the Metro Board of Directors. Do you think he/she will support such an amendment? Thanks for considering my views.” Leave your phone number if you only reach the staffer’s voicemail. Alternatively, you could send the same message by email or regular mail (each Congressional office has a preferred way of hearing from constituents). 6. Please call, email and/or send a note today. If you put it off, you probably won’t do it. We also urge you to be recorded on this issue on the MetroRiders.Org website, by responding to the Current Poll Question on this issue. Click here to connect to our Current Poll Question.
Contact Information for Washington, D.C. Area Members of U.S. House of Representatives as of September 2005VIRGINIA Hon. James P. Moran (D-8 VA) (CoS) Hon. Frank R. Wolf (R-10 VA) (CoS) MARYLAND Hon. Elijah E. Cummings (D-7 MD) (GRC) Hon. Steny H. Hoyer (D-5 MD) (CoS) Hon. Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-8 MD) (CoS) (GRC) Hon. Albert R. Wynn (D-4 MD) (CoS) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (CoS) = Cosponsor of H.R 3496 (GRC) = Member, House Government Reform Committee |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
