WMATA Board, JCC still silent on bus priority, rider input

As Matt and Michael wrote, we’re looking at some pretty unpleasant service cuts and dangerous borrowing from future years to close WMATA’s $40 million FY2010 budget gap, not to mention the $175 million gap for FY2011 which starts in June.

We must be very careful not to let Metro get into a “death spiral,” where falling ridership leads to budget shortfalls forcing service cuts or big fare increases, which just drive more riders away and force them into cars.

To avoid this, we need more support for transit, both from the general public and from our elected leaders. But the WMATA Board is not (yet) taking the steps necessary to generate this support. That’s because the processes continue to minimize public input, and nobody is taking action on the major requests from the Riders’ Advisory Council and advocacy groups.

Here are four elements that are missing:

Long-term planning. We keep asking for recommendations to reduce bus delays on the region’s roads, which would save money while improving rather than cutting service. So far, it’s crickets, especially from the Jurisdictional Coordinating Council, the staff from DC, Maryland, and Virginia DOTs that do a lot of the revenue analysis and whose agencies have the ability to plan traffic changes.

The general excuse is that most of these changes are longer-term, and wouldn’t bring in a lot of savings for FY2010 or FY2011. That may be true, but the budget changes under consideration reach far beyond FY2011. As Michael made so clear, many of the budget changes take money from future years. How about a policy that each of these has to go hand in hand with some kind of long-term cost reduction, like a bus priority improvement?

Last year, nobody analyzed bus priorities, and so now this year it’s too late again. If we don’t think about these options now, then we’re in the same boat next year, only the boat has more holes in it. The WMATA Board needs to stop hoping that if they just kick the can down the road some more, they can avoid any unpleasant work. That bill will come due even more than it already has.

Pressure on local jurisdictions. The WMATA Board actually has the power to outright force jurisdictions to pay more in subsidies. They’ll never do it, though, because the Board members are either elected officials from those jurisdictions or representatives of elected officials. What they can do is to call on jurisdictions to contribute more, or if they can’t contribute more this year, make some bus priority improvements now and promise to contribute more in future years when the budget is rosier.

Right now, all the press coverage of Metro’s budget revolves around the short-term issues and mainly neglects jurisdictions’ responsibilities because nobody is talking about those responsibilities. If the Board started talking about it, maybe the press would write about it. And maybe voters would demand it.

Public participation. These service cuts are considered “minor” enough not to require public hearings. But what’s wrong with public hearings? Let’s have them anyway.

Earlier this year, there was a series of town halls that probably only happened because advocacy groups pushed for them. Few people showed up, partly because of short notice (the DC town hall, for example, wasn’t even announced until about a week ahead), but largely because there weren’t specific budget proposals yet. Now there are some. People deserve a chance to weigh in.

Board members don’t really want to sit through hours of irate riders telling them what they already know: that we shouldn’t raise fares or cut service. However, just because they don’t want this burden doesn’t make it right to shirk it. Board members should conduct regular town halls regardless of whether there’s a controversial budget issue. When there is one, that makes it all the more necessary.

Choice. The Riders’ Advisory Council asked the Board to present options to riders among various alternatives. For example, the late-night and weekend headway increases to 30 minutes have already generated considerable negative comments. I oppose them too. What kind of fare increase would be necessary to retain the existing service? Could it be a higher fare on late nights only? Let’s hear which riders prefer.

Board members so far seem unenthusiastic about providing options. Some have said in the past that given the firestorm of criticism they get from each set of service cuts, they’re loathe to suggest one iota more cuts or higher fare increase then absolutely necessary. But again, avoiding being yelled at should not drive WMATA policy. Besides, they’ll get yelled at for fare increases, service cuts, reductions in car cleaning, and even deferring maintenance, so why not offer some tradeoff choices between those?

The current Board policy seems to boil down to this: Try hard to get the best transit for riders, but only as long as it doesn’t embarrass the individual governments, and don’t involve riders in any of the decisions to avoid inconvenience. As long as that’s the policy, the Board is serving their governments and their own comfort instead of riders.