Budget
Should Metro use capital money for operations?
At this morning's budget discussion, WMATA Board members expressed diametrically opposed positions about using capital funding to close part of the $175 million budget gap.
Photo by kennysarmy.
The current budget proposal recommends deferring $30 million of the capital program to help close the operating budget gap. However, Peter Benjamin, one of the Board members from Maryland, expressed his strong opposition to continuing to raid the capital program for operating funds. The Board did that last year, and he fears that continuing or expanding the practice ignores critical maintenance needs.
DC Councilmember and current Board Chair Jim Graham, and DC Alternate Director Anthony Giancola, both spoke up for using capital money. Graham even suggested using additional capital money, such as the $150 million that Congress has approved and the $50 million in matching funds that DC, Maryland, and Virginia will have to identify. However, this money was all specifically intended to address Metro's capital needs.
Those needs are enormous. Metro has to replace its aging and unsafe 1000-series railcars, for example. But there's so much more. Metro estimated they need $7.6 billion over the next 10 years. If all the federal and local matching money goes to the capital program, that will cover $3 billion of the $7.6 billion. That means to keep the system from crumbling, governments will somehow need to come up with $4.6 billion more Graham opened his remarks by saying, "The District of Columbia disagrees [with Benjamin]." Does the District of Columbia really disagree? If you live in DC, tell Jim Graham what you think, one way or the other, at grahamwone@gmail.com.
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
how can they possibly pretend to have any knowledge of the situation if they don't ever get down in the trenches with us proles sometimes?
by IMGoph on Dec 3, 2009 11:35 am • link • report
by Froggie on Dec 3, 2009 12:15 pm • link • report
One of the issues is just to bridge the next few years of poorly performing economy until things turn around. A possibility to bridge that gap is to use some capital money for operating now and obtain low cost loans through the federal government programs now available to pay for those capital projects that would otherwise be deferred on the assumption that loan repayment will occur in better economic times. Not an ideal solution, but may be preferable to massive service cutbacks and severe loss of transit ridership.
by kreeggo on Dec 3, 2009 1:23 pm • link • report
Ford to City: Drop Dead. Ultimately, Wall Street forced the issue, and NYC had to get its financial house in order. Today capital funds are still not used for operating expenses. It is a big no-no. Have faith that will will come out of this - and we will.
by bob previdi on Dec 3, 2009 5:10 pm • link • report
Add a Comment