This is a frustrating national issue. The other cities in the United States with complete Metro systems (us, New York, Boston, Chicago) are all facing similar budget problems. They are also some of the most important economic dynamos along with us. They have a similar relationship with their Metros in that they have grown together and are inseparable. Without mobility, the economy suffers.

It's such a shame that no one at the national level seems to understand that funding existing mass transit sytems is as much about the economy as it is about quality of life. It's reflective of the Conventional Wisdom wrongheaded mindset that cars and roads are "necessities" while transit is only for "them". Transit is for everyone and it brings about economic multipliers that are invisible.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 9:17 am  

I agree that this is very important. We need a dedicated funding source from all three states that Metro operates in. Most likely, we will need to solve this problem with multiple methods including a cut in service and a price increase. But a dedicated funding source will provide much needed continuity. And modest federal funding would be helpful for larger expansion projects. Targeting areas to cut will be integral and hopefully the management is up to the task.

by Vik on Feb 5, 2009 9:23 am  

There is a conundrum there. Once you cut, it's hard to get it back. That's what happened to the old streetcars and private bus companies before they collapsed and the (then) fledgeling WMATA had to take them over.

The local governments will see and demand more cuts, blind to the fact that they'll be cutting their own legs out from underneath them. WMATA will be drowned in a bathtub.

Cuts are not the long-term solution. It we cut WMATA more, it'll make it more difficult to increase mobility in our region. Meanwhile, we will still be burning fantastic amounts of fuel for cars, and bulldozing woods for subdivisions. If we cut WMATA, all the urban revitalization and smart growth of the past two decades will stop in its tracks and reverse itself.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 10:02 am  

It depends. For instance, sometimes it's easier to cut taxes and have someone add on to them later than add a tax and cut it later . I have a hard time believing that metro can't become leaner and more efficient, that's why we have to be nuanced on what we cut. But these problems have to do with the economy. When the economy turns around we will be able become looser w/ regards to spending. We have to make tough decisions in this environment and we have long needed an adjustment with our spending. But we need a dedicated source. Regardless of what kind of problems we're facing now, a funding source is vital to the long-term interests of metro.

by Vik on Feb 5, 2009 10:20 am  

I agree with the need for a funding source. However, we just came through a period of supposed prosperity and WMATA was limping along as usual. I think that if we cut WMATA, no local government will increase its share in the future, regardless of how much it can afford in future boom times.

It's just too politically easy to generate anti-anything sentiment by claiming they are "too bloated" or "have too many people." It's easier to rally behind an intellectually lazy argument to do nothing than it is to rally behind a more rigourous plan.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 10:26 am  

what they need to cut are some of these inane highway projects before they cut Metro. The ICC - for one- is a total waste of scarce resources.

by w on Feb 5, 2009 10:40 am  

The point is that we don't have money to sustain the service that is needed. This economy is in shambles and Metro will need to compromise like everyone is. I'm not saying we don't raise fares by 10 or 20 cents or so, but we will need to cut as well. When the economy turns, w/ the phony housing bubble reliant economy a thing of the past, with people needing to be more modest, mass transit will be an asset and gov'ts will be stupid not to fund it, I have no reason to think that service won't get better when the economy turns. The reason that metro didn't get much done during boom times is b/c of a lack of leadership and organization as well as lack of a funding source, if we get that settled, the foundation will be there in the future, but we are going to have to take some lumps right now like Chris said.

by Vik on Feb 5, 2009 10:51 am  

I forgot to add that I think we should stop, and I think we will, being so biased towards new road projects. So I don't think we will just revert to what we have been doing in the past, largely b/c the market for big homes in the exurbs will be less IMO, people are already sick of the traffic and I think a lot of people are coming around to the fact that we can't just pave new roads indefinitely.

by Vik on Feb 5, 2009 10:55 am  

"the phony housing bubble reliant economy a thing of the past, with people needing to be more modest, mass transit will be an asset and gov'ts will be stupid not to fund it, I have no reason to think that service won't get better when the economy turns."

Vik, I wish I shared your optimism on that point. I think it will be a while before our elected leaders understand the relationship between mobility and economy. They'll cut and cut and then wonder why the service is lower. They'll wonder why car traffic increases and Metro service decreases. Then they'll come to the conclusion that it's because "people don't really want the Metro". Then they'll continue to cut and cut. Then they'll use the money to build more highways and parking lots. Then they'll wonder where all the smart growth went. They'll conclude that no one wants it. Meanwhile, we'll be worse off then when we began.

It would be the 1960's and '70s all over again. We'll never get out of this suburbia/car-dependence/environmental degradation/infrastructure budget/lack of affordable housing mess. It's a cycle. Once you take one step, it's easier to take the next. Once you cut the Metro, it's easier to cut it again.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 11:01 am  

Here's the problem: the people who are running things know no other way. Kunstler is right: we will try to sustain the unsustainable while wasting billions and trillions of dollars and countless barrels of oil in the process.

Look at the stimulus package. See how easily the entrenched Senators jettisoned transit monies to use them as a political bargaining chip to make a tax cut deal with the Republicans. They don't get it and won't ever get it. They were born and bred to be suburbanites. No offense to them, but they are a product of the time of their upbringing. And their upbringing told them that cities are bad and suburbia is good, that trains are bad and cars and parking is good, that the solution to car traffic is to build more lanes, roads, and parking rather than moving people without using multiton steel boxes on wheels. They choose not to see the unintended consequences of the past 60 years of car-dependent sprawl.

(It's very ironic that the younger set often relates cars with traffic jams and frustration and walking and trains with freedom.)

Maybe in the future when we have leaders who see land use as a part of the solution to climate change and economic growth, we can accept that a cut in the Metro won't be permanent. However, the current leadership treats transit and land use as a some minor thing that's only for "them", despite all the hard evidence. Therefore, we can't trust them to fund what they don't understand.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 11:12 am  

Welcome, Chris. I hope you'll become a regular contributor in your scant free time between your many roles. It's always great to hear our elected officials speak practically about the issues we face.

by Joey on Feb 5, 2009 11:32 am  

I can't remember where or when I read this, but cavan's comment reminded me of someone (NYT?) saying that, older generations equate cities with Magnum P.I., NYPD Blue, and Hill Street Blues, where younger ones equate cities with the Real World, Friends, and Seinfeld.

I know this is a really stupid thing to bring up in light of such a serious and sad post. I am in total agreement with cavan's last about the unintended consequences of sprawl; to see transit suffer so much when it can provide such immense benefits literally makes me sick. I mean, seriously, if you are in a transit-oriented community (or one that has the potential to be TO), what better way to tighten your belt than to eliminate gasoline and auto insurance out of your expenses?

I'm guessing I have tunnel vision on this (usually do), but I can't help but see this issue in very stark terms. Why are (inefficient) auto dependency and sprawl not treated as interdependent national security issues? There most certainly a place for vehicles and suburbs in our society, but when congress makes it ridiculously cheap to buy anything, refuses to impose a incentive-changing gas tax, and subsidizes roads and far flung development, I can't help but see a relationship between the consequences and conflict abroad.

by JTS on Feb 5, 2009 11:33 am  

JTS: You read that right here on this article.

by David Alpert on Feb 5, 2009 11:41 am  

* I agree that metro needs more money. It's obvious. 'Nuff said

* I disagree that we should bash the Federal Government constantly for not chipping in enough. We should look at our local governments; county, district and state. After all, they do most of the infrastructural planning. They build most of the roads.

While we can be rightfully angry at some Oklahoma senator for blocking funding for metro, we can't do anything about it. He does not respond to us. We can't really be surprised that a California senator wants more roads; she's from California - a state with horrible roads.

We need to make sure that *our* elected representatives make the necessary money available. We need to tell Virginia and Maryland that it's all nice to build a new Springfield-Interchange, Woodrow Wilson bridge and ICC, but that transit needs equal treatment.

We need to bang on the doors of our county and city board members telling them we want more transit. And that we're sick of them promoting more roads, and more roads. Same for our state legislators and our federal legislators.

We need to *demand* that any single person that runs for election takes a position on transit funding. We also need to make sure that pro-transit officials, follow-up on their promises, and vote them out if they cheat on us.

Last, we need to be prepared to pay more for transit. Because one or the other, things need to be paid for.

by Jasper on Feb 5, 2009 11:41 am  

I'm fine with an additional 1% sales tax or something similar in WMATA compact jurisdictions. I spend pretty much every waking moment and buy 99% of my stuff in WMATA jurisdictions and I'm happy to pay.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 11:44 am  

@ David

Sorry! GGW was my second guess! Infinitely more credible than NYT any day.

by JTS on Feb 5, 2009 11:45 am  

Well said Mr. Zimmerman.

And congratulations to David for attracting a prominent non-blogger contributor. You're going mainstream!

I fully expect to see a GGW hosted debate for the next council elections.

by Reid on Feb 5, 2009 12:17 pm  

JTS: Seems that you might have missed the list of older television shows set in big cities, some of which glamorized urban life: Ann Sothern, My Little Margie, That Girl, Family Affair, Make Room for Daddy, Patty Duke Show, the Odd Couple, All in the Family, Love on a Rooftop, Barney Miller, Get Smart, Taxi, the Jeffersons, Bosom Buddies, Different Strokes, Bob Newhart Show, One Day at a Time, Kate and Allie and Rhoda. In addition,there were characters like Sally Rogers on the Dick Van Dyke show, and Rhoda Morgenstern in her wedding gown riding the subway.

Just remember that you shouldn't necessarily believe everything you read on the Internet, or even on GGW.

by Andy on Feb 5, 2009 12:17 pm  

IMO, Jasper's pretty much spot on. While I understand Cavan's concern, I think he's going too much into a doomsday scenario...

by Froggie on Feb 5, 2009 12:56 pm  

A small voice of dissent: stimulus money needs to be something that can be cut quickly, because we can't run $2 trillion deficits for more than a few years. What Metro is asking for is permanent operating money. There is $170 million missing, and from this op-ed 130 is from the state funding dropping off, and $40 is from stock market losses.

That $170 million is state money isn't coming back. Do we want a permanent federal subsidy? I mean we get one already, and so do some other transit systems.

I agree that federal money for new lines (cough, dulles) is a waste. But I'd rather see federal stimulus money not being used for operating funds, and instead being invested in something that will play back 10x. New power plant for metro? a fleet of hybrid buses? Metro get a wind farm in the mountains?

I love and respect Chris, and I've raised money for him in the past, but we need to figure out where $130 million is going to come from once the federal money runs out.

by charlie on Feb 5, 2009 1:54 pm  

My stars andy, you mean the internet is full of opinions and half-truths? Someone needs to edit the "Internet" page on wikipedia!

Thanks for the advice, dad, but David (and cavan) still make great points.

These things are all about perception, and as long as there is a prevailing anti-transit attitutde (it's for others, not us, who came from the suburbs and see no need for it compared to the need for more roads and parking), we will continue to fight a losing battle.

I find it interesting to see so many students graduate and shun the suburbs (and their cars) in favor of the city. I think perception has a lot to do with that. Hopefully, with their generation, things have permanently changed, but we need more time to see.

BTW, the "one day at a time" logo was imposed on a superhighway during the opening montage:

http://www.tv-intros.com/o/one%20day%20at%20a%20time.jpg

by JTS on Feb 5, 2009 2:31 pm  

Andy there are a bunch of shows that you list that did not glorify city-life. They were set there, sure, but they didn't glorify it.

by Reid on Feb 5, 2009 2:36 pm  

charlie: The feds make up a substantial portion of the transit ridership, yet they don't pay any taxes to the jurisdictions where they are located. Congressional employees who live in DC can even skip paying taxes to DC and pay them to their home states instead. Therefore, while in NYC a big company whose employees use transit contribute through taxes to the system, the federal workers don't. The feds should contribute to Metro on an ongoing basis to make up for this. The $150 million a year for ten years is reasonable and they should follow through, then continue it indefinitely beyond that.

by David Alpert on Feb 5, 2009 2:47 pm  

"These things are all about perception." JTS, My point is that David and Cavan's descriptions of other people's percerption is way off base. They have frequently generalized with bizarre statements about what other people, mostly people older than them, think. In this instance, they claimed that perceptions about life in urban areas was being formed by watching Magnum PI, Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue. I listed a small sample of other shows set in urban environments which do not emphasize that aspect of city life. There certainy are others as well as movies that might be better described as forming the basis for non-urban residents' perceptions of urban areas.

"I find it interesting to see so many students graduate and shun the suburbs (and their cars) in favor of the city." Perhaps every generation thinks that they are different from the earlier generations, but if you looked a little deeper, you might find that, at your age, your parents and their generation had many of the same attitudes that you have. And 20 years from now, you will be wondering how you might have held some of your current opinions.

BTW, my comment about the Internet was mostly aimed at the unsupported opinions and arguments whose bases are unsupportable assumptions presented in GGW. There have been some posts here where contributors have provided useful information and cogent arguments, but they are far outnumbered by posts that do not rest on a solid foundation.

by Andy on Feb 5, 2009 3:05 pm  

David, I think yo make a very good point, and agree with this as a reason for the federal subsidy. In fact, I think that this also points to the need to adjust how much each of the jurisdictions contributes to WMATA. As you point out, DC doesn't tax its workers (federal or private for that matter) unless they also live in DC. Yet DC's payment to WMATA is based on the number of stations in DC, many of which are employment centers, and thus largely serving workers who pay their income taxes elsewhere.

by Andy on Feb 5, 2009 3:12 pm  

Wait a minute, David. Most Federal Workers don't get to continue claiming residency in their home states like people in the military or congressional workers.

Even if they did, at least for Virginia, the localities that contribute to WMATA (like Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax) are mostly funded through property* and sales taxes anyway, which you can't escape by claiming residency in another state. So most Federal workers that live and shop in the WMATA service areas are doing their part by contributing to local governments, who then contribute to WMATA.

I think you have a different case if you were to mention that the Federal Government gets to occupy valuable land tax-free, paying nothing on its immense downtown office space and a certain large defense property (I forget what it's called, some geometric shape or something) near the Potomac River.

*If you're a tenant, you're implicitly paying the property tax through your rent or the owner is paying out of potential profits, I forget what are the relative elasticities and therefore the tax incidence for housing rent).

by Michael Perkins on Feb 5, 2009 3:28 pm  

Michael: Correct, I meant "feds" to mean the federal agencies that occupy the office buildings and defense installations. A major employer in NYC is paying a lot of property tax, much of which goes to help fund transit that gets that employer's workers to the office. The overwhelmingly largest employers in our region don't. Plus, some federal workers (Congressional staff and military) don't even pay the income taxes.

by David Alpert on Feb 5, 2009 3:47 pm  

David, with all respect, those arguments have been used before: to justify the federal subsidy that we already get. We're talking about an additional $130 million a year on top of that. I'm not arguing against federal money for metro. I'm arguing against using stimulus money to fund operating expenses. Oh, and that applies to EVERY system in the country that is cutting back because their states also have a budget crunch.

by charlie on Feb 5, 2009 5:45 pm  

I live in central California. The last time I was in DC was 25 years ago and I remember having positive experiences on the Metro. It is with great confidence that I planned my inauguration trip around the Metro and I was super impressed with the job they did. I tip my cap to the WMATA

Best wishes. I hope they continue to be strongly supported by federal monies.

by Teresa on Feb 5, 2009 6:14 pm