Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

A fresh rejection of commerce from Metro

By

Stephen has previously written on DC Metro’s potential to make money by leasing its valuable real estate to vendors, but Metro officials have now further entrenched the organization against making efficient use of its property. WMATA denied a weekend farmers market use of the parking lot at the Naylor Road station. The Washington Post reports, “Angela Gates, a Metro spokeswoman, said it is against WMATA rules to allow the sale of food and drink on its property.”

In this instance, it sounds as if the Temple Hill, MD residents who proposed the market were not intending for vendors to pay Metro to use the parking lot; however, suggesting a user fee for the parking lot space could have made much more sense than outright prohibiting potentially profitable endeavors on Metro property.

The Post continues:

Officials say the market falls in line with the transit-oriented development envisioned for the area.

Renee Sprow, director of the Maryland Small Business Development Center Network, said the group has not given up. Informal discussions continue. And Funn said a formal request for reconsideration will be submitted.

Assuming that Metro remains opposed to vending in stations, WMATA could at least revisit the issue in its parking lots given its dire fiscal condition. Riders often shop for food adjacent to stations and carry food purchases onto trains in other locations around the city. At the Clarendon Metro, a farmers market already operates directly outside Metro escalators.

While Metro remains completely opposed to using its valuable real estate to benefit its finances and its customers, the Chicago Transit Authority is taking the opposite approach. Recently, CTA hired Jones Lang LaSalle as a property manager to undertake improvements at its vacant properrties available for lease. In the last two years, CTA made about $32 million from leasing its retail and office space.

Given WMATA’s staggering operating deficits, the agency should look to imporving profitability without harming riders in any way it can, particularly with solutions that could draw increased ridership.

Comments

  1. Farmers markets make a good time-sharing of use as well, for parking lots that aren’t the best use of property surrounding the transit station anyway.

    Commuter train parking lots are empty on the weekend, so a farmers market is a very good idea to get some use out of the space.

    Here, the Ashby BART Station has a flea market on the weekends. Im guessing BART gets some money, and its a good use of a lot thats probably fairly empty on the weekend.

  2. Farmers markets make a good time-sharing of use as well, for parking lots that aren’t the best use of property surrounding the transit station anyway.

    Commuter train parking lots are empty on the weekend, so a farmers market is a very good idea to get some use out of the space.

    Here, the Ashby BART Station has a flea market on the weekends. Im guessing BART gets some money, and its a good use of a lot thats probably fairly empty on the weekend.

  3. It sounds like BART is generally more open to creative revenue options than Metro is. Are its finances in any better shape?

  4. As I understand it, they get just under 50% of revenue from fares, and the rest is made up with sales taxes. I don’t think they’re at risk of a crisis, anyway.

    I’ve heard they have plans to increase concessions, which seems like a good idea. And they’ve developed at least one parking lot, though I think the developer was required to add underground parking. They’re certainly sitting on some valuable parking lots with potential. There was a plan for the MacArthur station, but that seems like it’s on hold (and also would have required a whole lot of parking to be built).

  5. BART’s not at a crisis because of its complex funding mechanism. If BART is starved for funds, it takes food away from local bus systems.

    Go outside of San Francisco, and you’ll see that the 15-20 minute trains connect to buses that often run every 30 minutes in the densest parts of Oakland and Berkeley and hourly or worse in outer Contra Costa or San Mateo counties. This has led to a perverse “flight to quality” problem where transit riders orient their trips aroun BART but avoid the local buses altogether.

  6. As I understand it, they get just under 50 of revenue from fares, and the rest is made up with sales taxes. I don’t think they’re at risk of a crisis, anyway. I’ve heard they have plans to increase concessions, which seems like a good idea.

Meta