Second Ave. Sagas
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
Second Ave. Sagas

News and Views on New York City Transportation

Public Transit Policy

The ills of an unfunded federal mandate

by Benjamin Kabak March 2, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 2, 2010

I don’t often delve into the arena of the federal transportation policy. Generally, the feds are happy to toss some money the MTA’s way and leave the country’s largest mass transit system to operate on its own. Most of the time, it’s a comfortable arrangement for everyone.

Yet, sometimes, the FTA rears its head and requires the MTA — and the rest of the country — to enact costly safety standards. Does the federal government foot the bill? Of course not. Are these standards generally too costly and overprotective to meet the demands of the problems they are trying to solve? Of course.

Most recently, I examined how, in the wake of recent WMATA collisions in Washington D.C., the FTA was considering implementing local transit safety oversight measures that would require a higher level of safety standards than necessary. The costs would fall on the shoulders of the local transit agencies, and the FTA would ensure adherence to the standards by threatening to take away subsidies for those authorities unwilling to comply.

Today, we hear about another unfunded federal mandate that could cost the MTA nearly $700 million out of its capital budget by 2015. The MTA says its commuter rail lines don’t need this safety system because Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road trains already come equipped with sufficient safety controls. Tom Namako of The Post has the details:

The feds want a system installed that allows a computer to reduce a train’s speed in a number of situations. The MTA trains are already equipped with a similar system, but it kicks in only when one is in danger of crashing into another…

“It’s a lot of money,” said Bill Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. “And my belief is that the MTA’s railroads are substantially safer than many of the similar ones in the rest of the nation.”

Metro-North hasn’t seen a passenger die from a train crash in its 27-year history. The LIRR hasn’t had a fatality since the 1950s. Still, Congress mandated in October 2008 that all commuter railroads in the country install what’s known as positive train control after 25 people died in a California crash. But that California railroad — like most others in the nation — was using far less sophisticated equipment than the MTA’s, sources and documents say. Now LIRR and Metro-North — the country’s first- and second-largest systems — have until the end of 2015 to install the safety measures.

In a letter to the feds earlier this month requesting an exemption from these standards, the MTA highlighted how this system would provide only a “marginal benefit” but would bring with it “significant cost and risk to a rail system which currently has a high degree of safety. This one appears to be a typical no-brainer. If the federal government won’t pick up the price tag and if the marginal safety upgrades aren’t worth the significant costs, the MTA should not be expected to pick up the price tag.

I understand the purpose of federal safety standards. After all, someone needs to make sure that our country’s chronically underfunded rail lines are operating with acceptable safety parameters. But the FTA needs to show some flexibility, and here, that should lead to an exemption for the MTA.

March 2, 2010 10 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare HikesMTA Economics

Is the subway fare too low?

by Benjamin Kabak March 1, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 1, 2010

Take a look at the table above. It’s from the Feb. 22 Transit Committee meeting materials, and it presents an overview of how much straphangers paid for their subway rides in 2009. To me, it almost suggests that the fares are too low.

As you can see, despite a base fare of $2.25, the average New Yorker paid just a $1.41 per ride. Yes, this represents an increase of eight cents over 2008, but in real dollars, New Yorkers are getting a good deal on their subway rides.

This cheap ride, of course, comes from pay-per-ride bulk discounts and the prevalence of unlimited-ride MetroCards. In presenting this fare information, the MTA also provided a breakdown of MetroCards by type. In 2009, 49.6 percent of all subway riders paid with an unlimited ride card, and another 36 percent took advantage of the pay-per-ride discounts. The remaining 14.3 percent of subway and bus riders used cash or didn’t buy enough to qualify for the pay-per-ride discounts. Those are the tourists, the infrequent riders and those who cannot afford to spend more than the cost of the next ride they plan on taking.

For New Yorkers who complain about higher subway fares and fare increases, this real cost of a ride skews just about everything. In the packet, Transit mentions the cost of a subway ride in 1996 before the MetroCard discounts went into effect. That year, the average cost per ride was $1.38. Based on inflation alone, we should be paying an average fare of $1.89 or 33 percent more than what we pay today. Instead, we pay an average fare that equates to $1.03 in 1996 dollars. That’s a cheap ride indeed.

Maybe, then, the MTA’s problems aren’t only declining state subsidies, lower-than-expected tax revenues and the loss of student transit support. Maybe the MTA’s problems are that the fares are just too low. The agency might be in a weaker financial position today than in 1996 because fare revenues have not kept pace with inflation, and as labor, fuel and other costs have risen, the fares have declined markedly since 1996.

So, who wants to advocate for a 33 percent fare hike?

March 1, 2010 50 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MetroCardService Cuts

Revisiting the economics and politics of student transit

by Benjamin Kabak March 1, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 1, 2010

Student protests and parental complaints about the MTA’s proposed student MetroCard cuts are on the verge of taking center stage this week as the MTA Board gears up to hold hearings on its slate of service cuts. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign has a prime to the hearings, and I wanted to take a few minutes today to once again revisit the issue of free student transportation in New York City.

Since the MTA announced its plans to cut free student travel, advocacy groups and students have been up in arms. Just last week, a group of students delivered a letter to the MTA Board, a protest I said had the right message but the wrong audience. (Streetsblog too questioned that protest and the head of the Transit Riders Council urged the students to target City Hall.) Yet, before the traveling service cut circus hits a borough near you, let’s revisit a pair of arguments that continue to plague the student MetroCard debate.

1. The city and state are the ones who should be funding transit and not the MTA

Over the last few months, MTA officials have continually tried to lay blame for the student transit funding disaster on the state and with good reason. “I would love to see students have free trips to school but I believe that’s a responsibility that the city and state have to come to,” MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder said last week.

“We agree that school children should not have to pay to get to school, but funding this service is the responsibility of the State and City,” Jeremy Soffin, agency spokesperson, said to me recently as well. “The MTA has been called the yellow school bus for New York City, and that’s a good analogy. All over the state school kids get picked up by yellow school buses, and they don’t pay to ride. But the bus doesn’t show up unless state or local government pays the bus company.”

The reality is that the state and city have failed in their responsibility to fund transit. When the Student MetroCard program started, it was, as Metro reminded us today and I wrote in December, set to cost $135 million, and the city, state and MTA were to carry equal funding burdens of $45 million. That was in 1995, and since then, the city has never increased its contributions while the state’s have declined to $6 million. The MTA is left covering the costs, and as the below graph shows, those costs have soared.

The MTA knows it can recoup nearly $214 million in revenue by the 2011-2012 school year by charging students, and unless the city and state want to pay for student transit — a burden the state and localities carry elsewhere through New York — the MTA just should not be expected to pay.

2. A family will have to pay $687 per school year per student for transit

Some transit advocates have alleged that full-fare student transit will cost a family $1068 per student per year, but that number is simply wrong. That is the cost of 12 30-day unlimited ride MetroCards — or one year’s worth of travel. The only problem with that assumption is that students aren’t in school 12 months a year. In New York, students have 180 school days over nine months.

As I explored in depth in December, paying only for two rides per student per day for school days only would cost a family $687.90 per student. Paying for unlimited rides throughout the school year would cost just over $800 per student. For many families, these costs are a significant burden, but the true cost of transit to and from school is 64 percent lower than what may would have you believe. It’s irresponsible math to allege otherwise.

Some parents may claim that the Student MetroCard program allows their student to travel elsewhere after school. As long as that third trip is to an activity, then students are permitted to do so with their cards. Otherwise, the MTA is simply subsidizing free transit that isn’t related to school at all. The agency shouldn’t be expected to do that.

In the end, many New Yorkers, such as Michael Gould-Wartofsky who wrote a Huffington Post column on the topic, will try to blame the MTA. This is indicative of the MTA’s fat-cat culture, they’ll say, and it shows a callous disregard for students and families — especially lower class students and families — in New York City. It’s nothing of the sort. It is but another example of the why politicians scapegoat the MTA, and it’s one that should not be tolerated.

“Nowhere else in the United States is the public transportation system responsible for the costs of transporting students to school,” MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said. “In other municipalities throughout the country the local government will provide that transportation free of charge, and in most cases, provide a fleet of yellow buses.”

March 1, 2010 21 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

The political problem with the MTA

by Benjamin Kabak March 1, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 1, 2010

Throughout this week, MTA Board members and division heads will sit through a series of public hearings on the Authority’s latest proposed service cuts. Generally, a vocal minority of bus riders, paratransit users and student groups will browbeat the board members over cuts that will decimate bus riders, pare down Access-a-Ride and eliminate free student travel on New York City Transit’s buses and subways. Most people will heap tons of blame upon the shoulders of MTA Board members who have few avenues other than service cuts and fare hikes, and some of the city’s elected representatives — those same representatives who won’t fund the MTA — will dare to speak out against the authority.

In a certain sense, these public hearings are a legally mandated charade. No matter how many people step up to the microphone to yell at the MTA Board and to urge the authority to save Student MetroCards — a program for which the MTA shouldn’t be carrying the bulk of the funding burden anyway — the MTA Board probably won’t listen. Maybe a few bus routes will get spared; maybe some of the cuts will be shuffled; but in the end, the Authority has to solve a $751 million budget deficit without raising the fares. That the Authority scheduled two hearings per night for four days this week tells me all I need to know about how the Board plans to respond.

None of this, however, is really the fault of the MTA Board members. It is the fault of New York’s elected representatives who continue to absolve themselves of any responsibility to a public transit that moves over seven million New Yorkers a day. It is the fault of residents and voters who are unwilling to educate themselves on public transit issues and listen to politicians who, through the MTA, isolate themselves for making proper and tough decisions on public transit. And it may even be the fault of those who formed the MTA in the first place and tried to isolate it from the political process.

Over this past weekend, I spent much of it working on a big paper I have to write for law school. The paper is going to focus on some theories of local government law and the way MTA funding highlights the tensions between urban and suburban transit interests. The first section of the paper explores the events that led up to the creation of the MTA, and it is a tale that has its origins in the founding of the subway. Without going too much in depth, the New York City Transit Authority was established in the mid-1950s after the subways had become so highly politicized that no one wanted to take responsibility for ensuring adequate funding levels through fare revenue.

The origins of this problem rest in the early 1900s when the city forced those who contracted to build and operate the subways to agree to a fare cap of sorts. Only through mutual agreement could the IRT and later the BRT raise the fare from a nickel, and even though these companies saw their profits turn to deficits, city officials and a whole slew of mayors knew that allowing a fare hike was the equivalent to political suicide. Even after Fiorello H. LaGuardia oversaw unification and improved the efficiencies of the subway system, the fares remained a nickel until 1948 when the city simply could not afford to shoulder the operating deficits.

By 1953, city leaders knew they had to remove responsibility for subway funding from the direct control of politicians and sought to establish a public authority that would, ideally, operate as efficiently as Robert Moses’ Triborough Bridge Authority. The NYCTA, though, was a conceptual disaster. It couldn’t raise revenue through means other than a fare hike, and it was, as Clifton Hood described in his book 722 Miles, largely unanswerable to the public. It become a bureaucratic scapegoat as municipal leaders failed to acknowledge the subways as a public good and, as Hood writes, failed to “overcome the deep-seated opposition to public investment in rapid transit.” Removed from the sphere of politics, no one took responsibility for the NYCTA.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because history is repeating itself. The MTA has become a far more transparent organization than ever before. It has laid its books open for all to see and has tried to reason with politicians. But a deep aversion to higher taxes and more user fees as well as the easy ability to scapegoat the MTA leads politicians to slam rather than help the authority. Sitting here today, it’s easy to see how we haven’t learned from history, and maybe the MTA — or the NYCTA — is an experiment in government that never really had a chance. It isn’t a failed one per se, but as the MTA tries to solve a massive deficit by cutting services the city needs, I have to wonder when, if ever, our politicians will wake up to reality.

March 1, 2010 25 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City TransitService Advisories

In subway shake-up, line managers lose some oversight

by Benjamin Kabak February 26, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 26, 2010

Update (12:25 p.m. Sunday): For many people, a managerial shake-up at New York City Transit won’t mean very much. It can be seen as some backroom wheelin’ and dealin’ by the MTA. But this announcement from the MTA about some personnel moves at Transit is intriguing for what it portends.

The news is this: Steve Feil, senior vice president of the Department of Subways, is out at that position. He will be the new Vice President and Chief Maintenance Office of the Subway division, responsible for maintenance and some technical functions of the subway system and is going to help Jay Walder realize his goal of bringing more technological innovation to the city’s transit system.

“Steve is a respected transit executive who has worked in many of these areas himself and has done so from the entry level up to the highest levels of senior management,” Transit President Tom Prendergast said. “He also has a keen appreciation for the need to embrace and utilize new technology with direct experience in its implementation at some of the older, more established agencies like Amtrak and NYCT.”

He will be replaced Carmen Bianco, formerly of the MTA and Amtrak. Bianco was Assistant Vice President for System Safety at Transit from 1991 to 1995 and held similar positions at NJ Transit and Amtrak. Tom Namako of The Post reports that this will be one in “a series” of changes, and although riders won’t notice the impact, the way the subways are run on a managerial level will change.

The MTA says that the biggest change will come through a restructuring of its maintenance procedures. For the last few years, the Group & Line General Managers had been overseeing maintenance on a decentralized level, but this scheme had left the line managers bogged down in maintenance calls. The line managers will remain in place for now but will focus more on transportation and customer service.

I’ve heard rumblings for weeks that the new Transit team may be doing away with the line managers, and Feil’s departure moves that one step closer to reality. Until today, the line managers had been reporting to Feil, and with Biacno assuming control and stripping the line managers of their maintenance oversight, the storm clouds are swirling.

In the grand scheme of Transit, this isn’t that big of a deal. Riders won’t notice the difference, and it’s hard to say if the line manager program has produced a net benefit for anyone. In light of the current fiscal climate, the MTA needs to trim its management structure anyway.

On an other note, all weekend service changes have been canceled due to the snow. Enjoy a shuttle bus-free weekend wherever your travels may take you.

February 26, 2010 10 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA

A new effort to target homeless undergound

by Benjamin Kabak February 26, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 26, 2010

For many homeless people in New York City, the subways are an alluring spot. Getting in costs just two dollars; they’re open 24 hours a day; and train cars and stations provide shelter from the elements. Yet for the millions of New Yorkers who use the subway to commute around the city, homeless people can make the trips unpleasant and the subways unsightly. In a move designed to combat the growing number of homeless people taking up residence at various train terminals, the MTA and the Bowery Residents’ Committee have pledged to increase outreach efforts and the number of case managers targeting the subway’s homeless.

According to Heather Haddon of amNew York, a new $1.5 million contract is set to commence in March, and case workers will target areas such as Penn Station and Grand Central where the homeless concentration is particularly high. Over the last few years, the number of homeless people in subways has risen, and an increased attention to this problem will serve both social needs and commuter comfort.

February 26, 2010 8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSecond Avenue Subway

Along Second Ave., handling buildings with care

by Benjamin Kabak February 26, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 26, 2010

As the MTA has dug into Second Ave. along the Upper East Side, the agency has come across buildings that are not up to code. Landlords haven’t ensured that their buildings are structurally sufficient, but instead of fighting in court and potentially delaying the already-delayed subway line, the agency opted to pay for building bracings in the fall. Earlier this week, agency officials promised to do a more thorough examination of the “fragile” buildings along Second Ave., amNY’s Heather Haddon reported. “It really proved to be much more problematic and challenging than was originally thought,” MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu said.

For the authority, this admission is a positive step forward. The Second Ave. Subway represents a unique challenge for the MTA because it is the first subway line built through a densely populated neighborhood marked by very old residential buildings. This city and others around the world simply haven’t witnessed the construction of a subway of this magnitude through built-up neighborhoods in generations. That the MTA is so keen to learn from the mistakes makes me believe that, if Phases II-IV of the SAS ever see the funding they need, the construction efforts will grow markedly smoother after Phase I opens in late 2016.

February 26, 2010 15 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City TransitTWU

With money tight, has OPTO’s time come?

by Benjamin Kabak February 26, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 26, 2010

Throughout the world, major transit systems operate with just one person in charge of each train. In London and Hong Kong, Moscow and Paris, one-person train operation has become the norm. Using CCTVs and modern-day technology, one person is in charge of driving the trains, opening and closing the doors, making announcements and generally overseeing the trains. These systems run smoothly and have realized significant cost savings by cutting out a generally unnecessary employee from every train.

In New York, though, OPTO has had a tortured history defined by tensions between the MTA and the TWU. For years, the MTA has had the capacity to run OPTO routes. The L line has been OPTO-compliant since 2005, and with wider train control booths now in every train, nearly every other line could be converted into a one-person route. Yet, at every turn, it has become a major labor battle.

In 2008, Roger Toussaint nearly agreed to allow the MTA to move ahead with OPTO plans, and as late as May, Transit was moving ahead with OPTO plans. But two events put this off the table. First, the TWU’s rank-and-file nearly revolted. As a TWU Contract Bulletin from last year notes, many union members believed allowing OPTO to be the equivalent of “sell[ing] us all out.” Next, when the MTA and the TWU had to go to arbitration, the MTA withdrew its OPTO proposals. Much ink has been spilled over the “why” of it, but many consider that to be a mistake.

Now, the agency is going to try to eliminate conductors in order to save money. According to Pete Donohue of the Daily News, MTA officials have “quietly” asked transit leaders to reconsider their stance on one-person train operations. Neither the MTA nor the TWU heads commented for the article, but as the agency faces a potential $750 million shortfall, OPTO is clearly an idea whose time has come.

In an oversimplified world, OPTO, if implemented tomorrow and if the agency could fire all of its conductors, would save the authority approximately $170 million. I arrived at that figure by pulling the 2008 salaries from the Public Employees Payroll Database the state has established. The agency employees 3024 conductors, and all but 157 operate trains in revenue service.

That is, of course, not a completely accurate calculation. The MTA would have to pay its train drivers a few dollars more per hour to serve as the lone conductor/driver, and Transit would have to outfit it stations by moving the CCTVs currently in place in the center of platforms to the front of the trains. The one-time costs might be substantial, but the savings would be realized on an annual basis.

Even still, union members would object, and the MTA would probably have to overhaul their work rules. A very thorough comment left by a Transit employee on an August post about OPTO delves into the various problems with the current system and implementing one-person train control. Still, it authority owes it to its customers to try to cut costs via this path.

In the end, OPTO would simply give the MTA more flexibility. It could run shorter trains every ten minutes overnight at nearly cost to the agency as it now runs longer trains every twenty minutes, and this proposal would truly help spread the pain. In an editorial accompanying Donohue’s piece, the Daily News argued that the TWU should either give up its pay hike to save jobs or enjoy its raises while suffering through layoffs. It’s a devil’s choice for union leaders hellbent on saving every single job, but as the MTA sees its precariously financial state decline even further, it might be time once again for a push toward OPTO.

February 26, 2010 75 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesService Advisories

Amidst slush, Transit scales back service

by Benjamin Kabak February 25, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 25, 2010

With a heavy and wet snow blanketing the New York City area, the MTA has implemented its inclement weather service schedule. For information on commuter rail and bus service changes, head on over to the authority’s website. For those of you relying on the subways to get around the city tonight, check out the inclement weather service plan. The B, V and W trains will end service earlier than normal. Most express trains will run local for all or part of their routes, and the Queens-bound G trains will terminate at Court Sq. It’s messy and slippery out there. So be careful on the way home tonight.

February 25, 2010 6 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare Hikes

Is Walder hedging on 2010 fare hikes?

by Benjamin Kabak February 25, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 25, 2010

As the MTA’s finances have gone south, the authority has held the line on their preference for service cuts over fare hikes. Since the fares have gone up in each of the last two years and are scheduled to increase again in 2011, the agency is hesitant to use a fare increase as a fiscal band aid yet again this year.

“Throughout the situation,” Jay Walder, MTA CEO and Chairman, said, “it has been my intent to hold to that scheduled increase. I believe that having regularly scheduled increases is preferable to increasing fares and tolls in other circumstances, and we’re trying very much to stay in that mode.”

I’ve often wondered if Walder’s Moby Dick-like aversion to fare hikes is misguided. I’d rather pay more for the subway service we have than suffer through longer waits, more crowded trains and generally less convenient service. In a poll I conducted on site a few weeks ago, 78 percent of voters agreed. Still, the cuts are coming closer.

Yet, now the MTA faces a greater deficit than originally anticipated. By recent accounts, the authority is $750 million in the hole for 2010, and it is but only the end of February. Unless the economy turns around in a hurry, that financial picture will grow darker as the year goes on. “Our financial position is dire, Walder said yesterday. “I don’t think I can overstate that. Clearly I’d like to look at every avenue we can do for ways we can reduce our costs, ways that would be less painful for our customers and our employees.”

So maybe, says Michael Grynbaum of The Times, picking up on Walder’s hedging, fare hikes

February 25, 2010 12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts

About The Author

Name: Benjamin Kabak
E-mail: Contact Me

Become a Patron!
Follow @2AvSagas

Upcoming Events
TBD

RSS? Yes, Please: SAS' RSS Feed
SAS In Your Inbox: Subscribe to SAS by E-mail

Instagram



Disclaimer: Subway Map © Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Used with permission. MTA is not associated with nor does it endorse this website or its content.

Categories

  • 14th Street Busway (1)
  • 7 Line Extension (118)
  • Abandoned Stations (31)
  • ARC Tunnel (52)
  • Arts for Transit (19)
  • Asides (1,244)
  • Bronx (13)
  • Brooklyn (126)
  • Brooklyn-Queens Connector (13)
  • Buses (291)
  • Capital Program 2010-2014 (27)
  • Capital Program 2015-2019 (56)
  • Capital Program 2020-2024 (3)
  • Congestion Fee (71)
  • East Side Access Project (37)
  • F Express Plan (22)
  • Fare Hikes (173)
  • Fulton Street (57)
  • Gateway Tunnel (29)
  • High-Speed Rail (9)
  • Hudson Yards (18)
  • Interborough Express (1)
  • International Subways (26)
  • L Train Shutdown (20)
  • LIRR (65)
  • Manhattan (73)
  • Metro-North (99)
  • MetroCard (124)
  • Moynihan Station (16)
  • MTA (98)
  • MTA Absurdity (233)
  • MTA Bridges and Tunnels (27)
  • MTA Construction (128)
  • MTA Economics (522)
    • Doomsday Budget (74)
    • Ravitch Commission (23)
  • MTA Politics (330)
  • MTA Technology (195)
  • New Jersey Transit (53)
  • New York City Transit (220)
  • OMNY (3)
  • PANYNJ (113)
  • Paratransit (10)
  • Penn Station (18)
  • Penn Station Access (10)
  • Podcast (30)
  • Public Transit Policy (164)
  • Queens (129)
  • Rider Report Cards (31)
  • Rolling Stock (40)
  • Second Avenue Subway (262)
  • Self Promotion (77)
  • Service Advisories (612)
  • Service Cuts (118)
  • Sponsored Post (1)
  • Staten Island (52)
  • Straphangers Campaign (40)
  • Subway Advertising (45)
  • Subway Cell Service (34)
  • Subway History (81)
  • Subway Maps (83)
  • Subway Movies (14)
  • Subway Romance (13)
  • Subway Security (104)
  • Superstorm Sandy (35)
  • Taxis (43)
  • Transit Labor (151)
    • ATU (4)
    • TWU (100)
    • UTU (8)
  • Triboro RX (4)
  • U.S. Transit Systems (53)
    • BART (1)
    • Capital Metro (1)
    • CTA (7)
    • MBTA (11)
    • SEPTA (5)
    • WMATA (28)
  • View from Underground (447)

Archives

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

@2019 - All Right Reserved.


Back To Top