Montgomery County officials are urging the Metro board to keep its Riders' Advisory Council, the sole direct rider liaison to transit agency officials.
“Eliminating the RAC at the same time Metro’s top priority is attracting riders back to the system with a greater focus on the customer experience is both counterproductive and counterintuitive,” the letter reads. “It would decrease transparency at a time when riders are being asked to deal with continued service changes and delays because of needed, but disruptive maintenance.”
Maryland officials said a similar letter was being drafted by leaders in Prince George’s County.
Metro faces declining ridership driven in large part by inconsistent and unreliable service — particularly off-peak — but officials say the riders' group is a strain on staff resources and represents an outdated model at a time when so much feedback is collected through social media and other digital platforms. By eliminating the 21-member RAC, Metro would prioritize Amplify, the digital survey community where riders can provide feedback online.
The Montgomery County Council raised objections to the Amplify model.
“We do not believe that new methods for collecting rider feedback and social media are adequate substitutes for the type of direct dialogue the RAC provides,” the letter says. “There are no adequate substitutes for face-to-face interaction with actual riders.”
The board’s intention to eliminate the RAC comes on the heels of a six-month study that looked at how to streamline the operations of the group, which critics contended suffered from poor attendance and a lack of focus. Metro board members Christian Dorsey and Jack Evans had both previously said the panel had no intention of eliminating the group.
But when dedicated funding effectively eliminated half the board, support for the RAC was eroded.
“I don’t think some computerized questioning to get responses from riders, which the staff called Amplify, is a substitute for board members having direct communication with the [rider representatives],” Metro board member Michael Goldman said. “I think we should give the reform plan a chance.”
Unified opposition from D.C., Maryland or Virginia board members could block the resolution to eliminate the group, under the board’s jurisdictional veto — though board members said they were unsure whether it applied in this case. Goldman’s Maryland colleague, Clarence C. Crawford, did not immediately respond to an email asking how he intends to vote.
Berliner, who drafted the letter, said any shortcomings of the RAC fall on the board’s shoulders. The group reports directly to the board.
“How is it at the time when you’re gonna focus on customer service and attracting riders, that you eliminate the bylaw provision of having this council?” he asked. “This is a creature of the board’s. If the board does not think that it is being effective, then fix it.”
Among Virginia board members, Dorsey — who oversaw the RAC reform plan — said he disagreed with members who favored eliminating the RAC.
At the Oct. 3 RAC meeting, Dorsey apologized to members for the board’s going back on its word.
“I am very sorry. That means nothing, but I hope you find it genuine and sincere,” he said, adding that he would ask his colleagues to reconsider.
“I know at this point I don’t think that I’ll have the votes to carry that, but who knows,” he said. “People’s minds can change.”