Governments must commit to Metro

Transit

Governments must commit to Metro

by Chris Zimmerman • March 22, 2012 2:04 pm

At the March 8 hearing on WMATA's proposed fiscal 2013 budget, Arlington County Board member and former WMATA Board representative Chris Zimmerman argued that more governments, like the state of Virginia and the federal government, need to contribute to Metro's operations.

Photo by ElvertBarnes on Flickr.

He also encouraged the Board not to make the fare increase disproportionately hurt shorter distance riders and to consider a system of flexible unlimited passes.

Below is his testimony.

Good evening, Members of the Metro Board and Mr. Sarles:

Those of you on the Board continue to face difficult choices; the constrained fiscal situation in which Metro is forced to operate has not changed. The agency is inadequately supported by member jurisdictions, especially at the state level, and receives meager support from the federal government.

Almost alone among transit agencies in the United States, you have no dedicated revenue sources, and you are subordinate to, and dependent upon, multiple jurisdictions across state lines. In recent years, the situation has been complicated further by the increased role in governance by the federal government and by the state of Virginia, neither of which contribute to the formula by which the daily operations of the system are funded.

The system is aging, its maintenance needs are growing—and still, the region looks for you to expand service. So, I appreciate the difficult choice the Board will have to make, and recognize that a fare increase may be unavoidable this year.

No one wants to raise fares. I used to say that raising fares is the next-to-the-last thing the transit agency should do. What's worse is cutting service or maintenance. That you must not do.

As one who has sat where you sit, and who will have to vote on your final budget as part of his jurisdiction's part in the approval process, here are my recommendations:

1. Don't put it all on the riders; don't let governments off the hook. Ask compact jurisdictions to accept some of the responsibility to meet the need. Press for greater support from the state: Now that they have imposed themselves on the governance of WMATA, displacing local representation, they should be expected to help Metro close its budget gap.

The same can be said for the feds. They vote on the budget. They depend heavily on the system on a daily basis for the delivery of their work force, no less than they depend on the delivery of electricity and water to their buildings. The system is substantially designed around the needs of the operations of the federal government. They should be contributing to the operating costs of the agency as a routine matter. The WMATA Board should press for inclusion of the federal government in the funding formula.

2. In structuring a fare increase, I urge you to consider the following:

Don't make it too big; consider possible effect on choice riders (especially in view of adverse federal benefit changes). It obviously won't help anything if we push riders back into their cars.
Consider effects on those least able to pay. As you well appreciate, there are many people in this county, and throughout the region, for whom transit is not a choice, but a necessity. For them, a fare increase is simply a reduction in the limited disposable income with which to pay their costs of housing, food, clothing, and medical care.
Don't punish the folks who take the shortest trips. Those who accept higher housing costs to live near their work, and to live a transit-oriented lifestyle, are providing a benefit to everyone in the region. Increasingly, they find it difficult to get on to trains that enter their stations already full, and they seldom get to sit down. Theirs is the least-subsidized ride. They should not bear a disproportionate share of the cost.

And finally,

Do something for the riders. They bear a larger portion of operating cost here than in perhaps any metropolitan area in the country. They're still going to be asked to put up with delays and service interruptions, even though they'll pay more. Press Metro management to find ways—even small things—to make life a little better for your regular customers.
One good possibility that has been suggested is improving passes.
1. We need a good monthly pass; not just a 28-day that is simply four times the 7-day pass.
2. It's got to be useful for people who ride in the core of the system—that is, short-trip riders.
3. It's got to be on SmarTrip.
4. It should be a "flexible pass", one that lets riders choose their typical level of fare (which depends on their typical trip length) and select a pass that's works at that level. (Seattle, London and Minneapolis have done this; it is ideal for a system like Metro in which fares are distance-based.)

I thank you for considering these suggestions, and for your service to Metro and the region.

22 comments

Tags: Arlington, Chris Zimmerman, fares, unlimited passes, Virginia, WMATA, WMATA budget

Rethinking Metro's passes, part 2: Benefits and principles (Dec 15, 2009)
Get Metro a fair share (Mar 8, 2010)
How jurisdictions share the cost of Metro, and what it means for riders (Nov 3, 2009)
"Peak of the peak" makes flexible passes more crucial (Jun 16, 2010)
Metro outlines fare policy principles (Jan 12, 2010)

Chris Zimmerman is a member of the Arlington County Board, and a former voting member of the WMATA Board of Directors for 13 years. He serves on the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, Virginia Railway Express Operations Board, the Transportation Planning Board for the National Capital Region, and more. He was also the first local official to guest post on Greater Greater Washington.

Comments
Add a comment »

The feds already subsidize the budget heavily with a tax write-off to federal users of transportation. A tax write-off, I'll add, that actually violates the IRS's rules on what is and isn't a bonafide work related travel expense. That puts plenty of money into the system.

The real problem is runaway expenses: expenses from shorting the capital replacement budget to pay for salaries; expenses for high salaries from sub-optimally trained maintenance personnel with inflated repair schedules; salaries for a layer of middle management to coddle the maintenance personnel; expenses related to redundant bus/subway service for the sole purpose of providing an even cheaper alternative to already subsidized transportation; legal expenses related to trying to fight a mediator who's a captive of the labor union; and generally the inefficiencies of running a transportation bureaucracy from the voting booth instead of from the CEO's desk.

Metro needs to be rechartered.

by ahk on Mar 22, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report

Sigh. Same old stuff as usual. State and local governments are struggling to make due as it is, so asking for more funding is like hitting a hammer against a brick wall. Sure, some funding might be gained, but, in all likelihood, it just be a inconsequential dribble when WMATA needs a steady, robust stream. Nevertheless, a serious effort for more funding should be pursued.

What's really needed is dedicated transit funding through a 1/2¢, 3/4¢ or 1¢ increase in the sales tax for local jurisdictions. Yes, it's a tax increase, but one many local voters may readily acquiesce to. That's how other localities, such as Los Angeles, are moving forward to fund transit. The DC region would be wise to do likewise.

by Sage on Mar 22, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report

@ahk "Metro needs to be rechartered."

Yes. That certainly needs to be looked into.

by Sage on Mar 22, 2012 2:49 pm • link • report

@Sage: Unfortunately, here in Virginia, "Local" voters don't get a say in whether there is a tax to support Metro. That decision is made in Richmond by members of the House of Delegates, a majority of which have signed the Americans for Tax Reform "No tax increases" pledge.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 22, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

You're going to have to explain this one. Tax-free commuter benefits are a part of law.

by MLD on Mar 22, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins

Yes, I'm well aware taxing issues devolve to Richmond. It's very possible, though, a sales tax increase may garner traction if a strong majority of local officials push it. And, moreover, with the steady turnover in the governor's office (McDonnell is out the door in only 22 months), there's a good chance someone more amenable to a proposal might take his place.

At the very least, the ideal to fund transit via the sales tax needs to be brought up and seriously looked into.

by Sage on Mar 22, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report

@MLD, I'm pretty sure he can't back that up given, say, this...

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_2012_publink1000193740

And of course, employers are allowed to give employees free (and tax-free) parking if they want, which isn't against the rules but is pretty stupid. Not to mention that the limits for parking are significantly higher than the limits for transit. But we all knew that, right?

by Gray on Mar 22, 2012 3:25 pm • link • report

Zimmerman is no longer on the board of directors as his bio on GGW indicates. Thank God for that.

by TGEoA on Mar 22, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report

+1 ahk

by Adam L on Mar 22, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report

I also hate the "well WMATA gets a federal subsidy because federal workers ride it and they get a transit benefit" argument.

Federal workers are transit customers just like any other. The government chooses to offer its employees transit benefits, just like they do everywhere else. They do that because it is cheaper for them than providing parking. If the government did not exist, DC would not exist in its present form, we would not have Metro (because it would be a much smaller city), so the entire point is moot.

by MLD on Mar 22, 2012 4:19 pm • link • report

Zimmerman's comments are way out of line. He has no perspective on Virginia's now 5 decade old contributions to METRO...or those of Fairfax County who, for years, had no stations within its boundaries. It's absurd to suggest Washington can be 'greater' when the level of advice borders on ignorance. Just where does this money come from? It comes from taxpayers...'governments' don't have their own money...taxpayers do not want to pay more for a system that is so poorly run, is over-run by do-nothing union employees with stations that are more dirty and run-down with each passing month..

by Pelham1861 on Mar 22, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report

No one in FFX wants metro to shut down (and of course FFX residents used it before there were stations in FFX - to this day lots of FFX residents use it via express bus transfers at the Pentagon). Its in the interests of Fairfax voters for the commonwealth and the nova jurisdictions to pitch in - as Zimmerman says, raising fares to the point that we lose riders will congest our roads and harm our economy.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 22, 2012 4:30 pm • link • report

I agree with ahk. Metro has a problem with expenses not revenue. Over generous pension, health care and salaries are usually what drives the increased costs but there is rarely any systematic approach or effort given to bringing down those costs. Ultimately any managers of Metro realize that the unions are too strong and vindictive. So instead they focus on extorting more revenue from riders and local governments. Nothing will get fixed until someone stands up to the unions.

by jim on Mar 22, 2012 4:47 pm • link • report

@Pelham1861: Maybe your statements are just intended to be rhetorical bombast, but if not...could you explain how, exactly, he is "way out of line"?

by Gray on Mar 22, 2012 4:49 pm • link • report

@MLD Any transportation voucher amount where the value is not exclusively used for commuting to and from work would be considered a fringe benefit (or any carryover amount from month to month). So any lunch trips or weekend trips, are technically taxable fringe benefits. The IRS was about to crack down on this a couple of years ago and backed off because of political pressure from B. Mikulski et al.

While that may be fine that we let it slide for tax purposes, for purposes of a discussion of "fairness" WMATA's already getting a heavily subsidized break from the feds.

What we've found is that raising fares pushes people to their cars (and bikes) until gasoline rises. However, there's no reciprocal adjustment in costs.

WMATA is a professional lying organization. They lied about "fail safe" automated trains (were actually fail dead, and were told not to intermix non-intermixable parts). They lie about their on time rates and their repair rates. They're so bad at lying they don't even care anymore when they get caught lying; they simply go on the offense.

by ahk on Mar 22, 2012 4:53 pm • link • report

Nothing about pensions or limiting MetroAccess, which are the two budget items killing WMATA.

And overtime.

Nothing about how contractors routinely rip off WMATA.

Hell, nothing about corrupt Metro Police stealing coins.

WMATA is making a lot of improvements. Metro is better with Zimmerman off the board.

Hell, what about wokring AC units in buses? Or asking drivers to turn them on when it 84 degrees outside?

by charlie on Mar 22, 2012 5:01 pm • link • report

I wholeheartedly concur with the comment above that WMATA's worsening financial outlook revolves around "costs," and not revenue. Until the issues pertaining to its skyrocketing personnel expenses—pension, health care, retirement age—are adequately addressed, the continued reliance on squeezing additional revenue from transit riders and scrambling for more government dollars is a recipe for a meltdown.

WMATA really needs to address its cost problem first before running off to statehouses for more funds. It is very unfortunate that in recent years the agency has shown little inclination to even mention these vexing issues, let alone make an attempt at reform. Any appeal for additional funding, no matter how urgent, will make little headway unless reforms are being pursued to contain costs.

What was the word in the recent report that struck a nerve concerning the viability of WMATA's future finances? Hmm. Let's see. Unsustainable. Could you repeat that, please? Unsustainable! I'm sorry, it's not registering. Once more, please. UNSUSTAINABLE! Um, yeah, got it. Thanks.

by Sage on Mar 22, 2012 10:23 pm • link • report

Save money at WMATA,, good idea,, but at least they spend money, so wisely, on some very important things. It was a cool special contest they ran,,to find just the most nasty voice they could for the new perfectly pleasant "door opening" anouncement. Who doesn't love hearing the dumdudmdum and the nasty [deleted for violating the comment policy] telling you to "get back, door opening" and the oft repeated 6 times at every stop,,,"get back, door closing DUM DUM DUM" with alot more of those awesome really loud thumping Marimba tones. Just makes taking the Metro anywhere into a very enjoyable musical experience. Would you have wanted WMATA to save money and kept the sweet little "door closing" that we used to have to endure, over and over when we once had a pleasant environment and a safe system,, Ah,, the good olde days. Who really likes to suffer a quiet, and safe transit system, anyway?

Well, guess what!!! the train operator can lower the obnoxiuos new door chimes, but noone asks them to do it, many riders are stupid too, and love to be dumped on by the managers of Metro. But we could really save money if we across the board fired these [deleted for violating the comment policy] who have made metro a screaming , nasty noisy , obnoxious place to travel.and killed so many innocent friends of ours. . SO What, right, what can you do with stupidity like this? Enjoy it, 'til your brain cracks open!!or the bus runs you down in the street.

by Daniel Wolkoff on Mar 23, 2012 5:50 am • link • report

I think Zimmerman's bio is out of date and he surely isn't 1 of 2 voting members...Arlington was stripped of their voting rights, remember?

by Arlington Civilzation on Mar 23, 2012 10:05 am • link • report

Thanks for pointing that out, Arlington Civilzation. I've updated the bio.

by David Alpert on Mar 23, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

I'm sorry to see this get lost in other GGW posts. I think Metro funding is the most important regional issue and it's what draws me here.

Valid points here. Metro has cost issues but needs more funding nonetheless.

However, two quibbles.

@ Michael Perkins--
Unfortunately, here in Virginia, "Local" voters don't get a say in whether there is a tax to support Metro.

True, but "local" voters doesn't get a say in Maryland, either. That decision is made in Annapolis.

@ Sage--

State and local governments are struggling to make due as it is, so asking for more funding is like hitting a hammer against a brick wall.

Yes and no. There is no money because the local entities have not chosen to make Metro funding a priority. I think Zimmerman is arguing to change this. This is also a point in favor of dedicated funding.

Hopefully someone here at GGW will address the cost issue more comprehensively because commenters raise it all the time.

by WRD on Mar 26, 2012 11:12 pm • link • report

I think Chris Zimmerman is right on the money. I also think that the current WMATA jurisdictions need to pony up their fair share: From 2007 to 2011, the amount of passenger revenue collected by Metro increased by 36%, due to the hefty fare hikes riders have incurred. During the same period, area jurisdictions increased their contributions by only 12%.

The result is that Metrorail riders pay one of the highest portions of transit-system revenue (62%) in the United States. Metrorail now takes over 1 million people off our roads daily; so it is a valuable transportation asset to the entire Washington region. It is unfair to ask Metro passengers to suffer another fare increase when area jurisdictions have not been contributing their fair share.

by ToddReitzel on Mar 31, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report