Why no discussion of bus routes besides "rationalizing"? Whatever happened to those proposal of eliminating some bus stops?

For a while, Metro started using the articulated buses in the morning and evening commutes (specifically on the S line), which worked great. This made great sense. As opposed to having one jam-packed bus trailed by a nearly empty bus, having a single large bus would increase capacity and reduce cost, right?

by Adam L on Jan 19, 2010 10:55 am • link • report

Shifting money from capital to operating is another financial shell game. The Board is correct that ultimately less capital work gets done (28 million in FY 10).
However, a close look at the current status will probably suggest that this money will not be spent on the capital side since actual is well behind plan for the FY year. WMATA may no longer have the staff or resources to undertaken the magnitude of the current capital plans. Beyond the fare increases and service reductions non of the proposed changes are anything more than temporary plugs which delay the important work to improve the performance and reliability of the system.

by interested on Jan 19, 2010 11:01 am • link • report

Option #5 - Catoe does his job and gets the three jurisdictions to pony up more, while securing a legislative commitment for annual appropriations from Congress for the capital budget. The needed expansion to three rails throughout the system and additional river crossing could be included in the upcoming jobs bill. Minimum fare would be raised to $2.25, closing the budget loophole.

So we at least need a none of the above sticker, or I'll be bringing my own to share.

by Redline SOS on Jan 19, 2010 11:04 am • link • report

First : Giving the public the power to make these decisions is akin to bowing to pressure to make gay marriage an open vote, something none of you I imagine is a good idea.

People vote for their representatives, Council Members and Mayors, etc, and they in turn appoint Metro Board members. You don't like the Board members, then you are free to exercise that displeasure at the next election.

Secondly: Using capital budgets to make up shortfalls in operating budgets is incredibly dumb and short sighted...a huge no no for any organization, specifically ones like Metro. Metro is in the financial situation it is now, due in great part with the preference to drain capital budgets in lieu of raising fares because with the unpopularity of raising fares. The only thing that accomplishes is further increasing delayed maintenance and upgrades, which many of you already blame metro daily for.

I know many of you are new to DC and think Metro's problems are brand new, but the budget and systemic decay from lack of maintenance has been ongoing for decades. Metro failed to raise fares for nearly 5 years, from 2003 to 2008, all the while suffering yearly budget deficits they instead filled every year from the capital budget.

Metro frequently went 5 and 6 years between fare increases in the 1980's and 1990's, again choosing the more popular route of destroying other budgets and worrying about it "later". Well, as we've seen in the past year, worrying about it later is no longer possible.

I am sure there is still some low hanging fruit on the Metro tree to pluck. Staff decreases, union renegotiation's, privatization of some functions etc, but the majority of metro's problems can only be fixed by realistic fare increases. A ~10% increase this year, and a regular yearly inflationary increase. Going 4 or 5 years without increases all the while Metro's expenses increase at the inflationary rate, then trying to stem the bleeding with a token 5% fare increase is pointless and has to stop.

by nookie on Jan 19, 2010 11:04 am • link • report

I would probably go a little further than David on the service efficiencies side. The 2011 budget will likely require a very large fare increase combined with signficant service reductions and possibly a small amount of additional contributions from the jurisdictions.

With about 100 vacancies in the operating department now, it would be wise to reduce service now rather than pay overtime to provide current levels of service or hire new employees only to lay them off in July.

I can support the easier cutbacks such as modified holiday schedules, early closings of stations on weeknights and weekends where there are multiple entrances, bus route and bus stop consolidation where it helps rationalize and improve service.

The Red Line restructuring results in one less train during rush hour and while that represents a small reduction in capacity, it's probably okay with the service extending to Shady Grove.

I can't support the elimination of eight car trains because the reduction in capacity during peak periods is too great. This could perhaps work combined with a "peak of the peak" fare that had the effect of pushing people out further onto the shoulders of the "rush hour" (probably more like hour and a half). I'd want to see some hard projections before I could support it though.

Instead, I think WMATA needs to re-think bellying the 1000 series cars and move toward more single type of car consists. The accident in the yard at West Falls demonstrated there is little benefit from bellying these cars. This would eliminate much of the uneven and unpredictable stopping and enable the agency to run more eight car trains.

Running all eight car trains during rush hour on the Orange line would enable Metro to run a more reliable schedule with slightly wider headways (retaining the same capacity) at a lower cost (slightly few trains). It would also help some with backups at the Rosslyn tunnel. The same concept could probably also be applied to the Green Line.

The current paper schedules are not run during manual operations and when one train falls behind, it delays the whole line causing train "bunching." It would be better to widen the headways during rush hour and run eight car trains with more reliable service than the current effort.

The use of capital money is okay with me to plug the budget hole, providing there are enough service efficiencies implemented to largely fill that hole in the 2011 budget so that it isn't extended (Catoe proposed $22 million in capital funds--including the Stimulus money--with about $17 million in service cuts (annualized). I'm not against a fare surcharge as long as everyone understands the 2011 fare increase will be dramatically higher than the surcharge if we expect to avert draconian service cuts.

by kreeggo on Jan 19, 2010 11:17 am • link • report

Sorry, I meant I'd go further than Michael not David.

by kreeggo on Jan 19, 2010 11:21 am • link • report

@Nookie: We're not giving the public the power to make decisions. We're giving the public the power to comment on decisions. Ultimately, the Board will make the decision. Previously, the Board has voted only the bare minimum changes needed to close the gap, and the only comments the public could reasonably make are "we don't like this". Well, now the public can decide what they dislike most, and the Board can choose based on what they heard what they're going to do.

If you have to close a budget gap of $10M, and you only advertise $10M in gap-closing measures, then you have to do exactly what you advertised. What's the point of soliciting public comment if you have to do exactly what you're asking comments about? Better to advertise $20 or $30M worth of options, and have a choice after you hear the public.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 19, 2010 11:25 am • link • report

#5: Metro gets a new chief that gets more money from the jurisdictions that are starving metro.

#6: As a means of cutting cost, Metro will not operate on Tuesdays. This will create an immediate pressure on car drivers to support metro.

by Jasper on Jan 19, 2010 11:33 am • link • report

@Nookie - we should be able to vote on it. we ride it, the board doesn't.

by Redline SOS on Jan 19, 2010 11:39 am • link • report

@Redline SOS -
By that reasoning, the taxpayers of the 50 states should get to vote on it, since they ponied up the vast, vast majority of construction expenses for Metro in the first place. By the way, I don't think that would be a very good idea, either.

by Mike S. on Jan 19, 2010 11:44 am • link • report

On Friday and Saturday nights, that extra $9,500 per hour that Metro saves would probably end up causing more than $9,500 per hour worth of emergency room treatment for the additional victims of drunk and other unsafe driving.

by Tom Veil on Jan 19, 2010 11:57 am • link • report

@Tom Veil: which is why the region should put up the money for funding keeping the system open that late, rather than ask the riders to put up the money in fare increases or suffer service cuts.

If service is important from a regional perspective, it should be funded regionally.

@Jasper: I've thought about a regionwide "no transit" day, where everybody that normally rides transit decides to drive instead (rent or borrow a car for the day if you don't have one). Make sure to go early, because parking downtown is going to be tight.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 19, 2010 12:13 pm • link • report

@ Mike S. - they vote on it by riding it and occupying our space as tourists. Now Congress needs to fund it, since their constituents ride it. And we, the locals who have to put up with it, should be able to hold the Board accountable directly, by voting on their positions as Board members.

This Board is not representative of the Region, we elect only some of them, others are appointed. We need accountability, not just another spot on their resume.

by Redline SOS on Jan 19, 2010 12:33 pm • link • report

@Redline SOS, Mike S.:
The sticker "vote" will be nonbinding and is meant only to demonstrate to the board where people stand on the issue. It is also meant to demonstrate to those of the "voting" public that sacrifices must be made, e.g. "we can eliminate fare increases, but only by doing x, so which would you choose?".

"None of the Above" is not an answer because something has to be done. If the majority of the public votes "none of the above" then the board will just choose whichever of the four options they like the best. So don't think you're doing yourself any favors.

Mr. Catoe specifically addressed the issue of getting additional funding from the jurisdictions in the blogger roundtable. He said that there simply was no more money to be had and that if Metro insists on waiting for the jurisdictions to pony up, Pepco will be shutting off the lights.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 19, 2010 1:55 pm • link • report

And there isn't money to be had from the member jurisdictions. All of them are facing the same kinds of budget issues that Metro is.

by Alex B. on Jan 19, 2010 2:10 pm • link • report

January 27 is a Wednesday.

by michael on Jan 19, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

Would've liked to see an option that does NOT transfer money form capital to operating, and instead fills that via fare increases and service cuts...I'd lean more towards fare increases than service cuts personally.

by Froggie on Jan 19, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

My favorite suggestion is "get more money from the jurisdictions". Every time we talk about metro someone says that, but nobody says exactly how. Clearly would should replace Catoe with a Corleone who can make them an offer they can't refuse, because every single jurisdiction has their own budget shortfall to deal with, and none of them are looking to increase their contribution to metro.

by jcm on Jan 19, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report

Froggie, I'm not sure such an option is possible given the parameters already established from Metro's previous meeting. Given the cap they placed on the fare increase, as well as the backlash against service cuts, I'm not sure they could really get there.

However, I, too would like to see those options as baseline scenarios. If you had to bridge this gap with all cuts, what would that look like? If you had to do it with all fare increases, what would that look like? Seeing each extreme would better frame the plausible options available to the board.

by Alex B. on Jan 19, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report

@Michael: Fixed, thanks. Duh.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 19, 2010 2:40 pm • link • report

Alex: I understand such an option may not be possible, given how the Metro board shot themselves in the foot at the previous meeting. But perhaps if enough people get vocal about it, they'll realize their error and make corrections.

And maybe I'm being too much of an optimist...

by Froggie on Jan 19, 2010 3:00 pm • link • report

@Froggie: The $40M budget gap is for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends July 1. The board is set to meet January 28 to discuss and approve whatever actions need to be taken to right the ship. Any actions approved will be implemented March 1 at the earliest (It takes time to program and implement any service changes or fare increases). If we use any more time to make corrections, that will require another 14-day advertising period for public hearing, and another round of board discussions. This would likely delay implementation by another month or more.
The longer you delay, the higher fares have to increase and the deeper service cuts would have to be in order to balance the same amount of shortfall in a shorter time period.

I'd rather see a 10 cent fare increase apply to 4 months than a 20 cent fare increase apply to 3 months, even if the latter means we don't delay as much capital spending. And that's assuming you can get the DC delegation to even allow the public to consider a 20-cent fare increase.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 19, 2010 3:13 pm • link • report

At this stage in the game, the "corrections" are moreso for FY11 than the rest of this year.

And since you put it in those terms, I wonder what $6.4 million in service cuts would look like...

by Froggie on Jan 19, 2010 3:17 pm • link • report

The only proposed station entrance closure that concerns me is McPherson Square. If I remember correctly, they proposed closing the east entrance (14th Street) evenings (and weekends?).

In my mind, it would make more sense to close McPherson's west entrance since it is very close to Farragut West and because the McPherson Square east entrance is 1) the terminus of the newish (and seemingly growing) 14th St./Adams Morgan Circulator service, and 2) aside from Mt. Vernon Square, is most convenient to residential areas like Logan Circle.

(Yes, I realize Farragut West's east entrance closes on weekends, but why not close the west entrance there instead? It's not a far walk to Foggy Bottom or Dupont Circle from the western side of Farragut West.)

This approach ensures continued easy weekend access to the White House for tourists and a relatively convenient Blue/Orange station for Logan residents (AND the burgeoning nightlife around 14th & K).

by Matt on Jan 19, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

Additional funding - It's very simple actually...every resident living in the entire Region serviced by Metro pays an additional .5% income tax straight to Metro, jurisdictions cannot touch it. There homes and salaries benefit from Metro's existence, they can pay back into it, regardless of whether they use it or not.

Would it be popular? No. Is it necessary? You betcha.

by Redline SOS on Jan 19, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report

@Matt,

When closing a station entrance, they usually end up closing the one without elevators. For McPherson, the elevators are at the 14th Street entrance, so they would likely close the Vermont Ave entrance instead.

@Redline SOS,

There is no way you can pass an income tax increase in all of those jurisdictions, yet alone get it done in the timeframe needed here.

by Alex B. on Jan 19, 2010 4:08 pm • link • report

@Matt
Whenever Metro decides to close one mezzanine at a station, it *must* be one of the mezzanines that does not have an elevator. Because McPherson Square-East has the elevator, it will stay open.

In fact, the one you think should be closing is the one they're proposing to close (West).

by Matt Johnson on Jan 19, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report

Everyone should keep in mind that the issues being discussed on the 27th apply only to balancing the FY 10 Budget. Any revenues or expense savings must be generated or accounted for by June 30, 2010. As for the FY 2011 Budget much discussion and work is yet to be done before the adoption of a budget in June. During that period each jurisdiction will have more clarity about their revenues and spending for other services primarily schools.

by Interested on Jan 19, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report

Why isn't Metro going after more ad revenue? I'd rather have Coca-Cola painted on every bus and rail car than see any more service cuts. We could have closed circuit tv in every station feeding us non-stop tv commercials. I'd rather have that than service cuts.

by Julie on Jan 19, 2010 4:48 pm • link • report

@Julie,

Doing all of those things you mention won't come close to closing Metro's budget deficit. Chris Zimmerman has said so multiple times. Furthermore, such ad contracts take time to ramp up, they would not be useful for the current gap - not to mention that the advertising industry in general is in poor shape thanks to the recession.

by Alex B. on Jan 19, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report

I was wondering how much money closing a station entrance saves. I guess there's some energy costs for the escalator and faregates, but that seems minimal and could just as easily be recouped by shutting off some of the escalators but leaving the entrance open.

If it's just the savings of one fewer station attendant at each station, that's:
(20 hours on Sat + 17 hours on Sunday)=37 hours
x 10 stations
x $20/hr [I really just guessed on that, but with pensions and benefits and stuff it could be]

That's $7400 a weekend, or $384,800 a year. It doesn't put a dent in a $16 million deficit, but it isn't chump change.

by stacy on Jan 19, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report

@Stacy,
According to Metro's budget cut proposal, weekend mezzanine closures are expected to save about $168,000 over the remainder of FY10. (About 1/3rd of the year). That's about $500k for a full fiscal year, so you're not far off. And I'd rather have that than half a million in other service cuts.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 19, 2010 5:07 pm • link • report

Alex B.,

I didn't say ad revenue is the only solution--I asked why it's not being discussed, and what I meant was, why isn't it being discussed by Metro? Why isn't it in any of the four options? This isn't about closing a "current gap"--this is about the fact that Metro has been running unsustainable budgets for at least a decade and needs to revamp its entire business model. The demand is there: it needs to keep up the supply! And since it's a monopoly, only public pressure will keep up the quality of service. Most of the comments that have been posted are not something I'm going to disagree with or criticize, but ad revenue hikes need to be sought aggressively--now and forevermore. Metro is doing the equivalent of threatening a strike: telling local governments to pony up more money or they're reducing services. I strongly feel that local governments SHOULD pony up more money, but the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. You have a massive, captive audience that I am CERTAIN advertisers would love to exploit in much more creative ways than they have so far.

by Julie on Jan 19, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report

Julie: They've addressed ad revenue in presentations. They bid out a big contract to an ad company to put ads up. The previous contract was signed at the height of the ad market and they got a lot of money. That's expiring this year. They will do a new contract but are sure to get less money.

by David Alpert on Jan 19, 2010 5:25 pm • link • report

David,

I am talking about NEW types of ad revenues--not just some billboards. Closed circuit TV is being done now in office building elevators and public restrooms. Advertisers like captive audiences. You have a choice not to look at a billboard, but you do not have a choice (unless you're deaf or have earplugs) not to listen to something being piped at you. What if there was closed circuit TV blaring a movie trailer before opening weekend? That is way more effective than a billboard. Metro cannot keep doing business as usual because it's a failed business model. We cannot wait for some important Senator's staffmember or friend to die in another Metro tragedy to get some massive infusion of federal capital. Metro needs to tap the private sector more creatively than it has.

by Julie on Jan 19, 2010 5:32 pm • link • report

Julie, I am horrified by some of the suggestions you're making. Metro's appeal lies significantly in the fact that it has a less obnoxious environment than other forms of transportation. What you're describing is a place where nobody can read, listen to music, or watch a movie of their own choice without constant distraction. People who don't like that will likely drive, and those who can't afford that will just have to suffer and unprecedented level of commercial saturation. No, thanks, I'll bike.

by Neil Flanagan on Jan 19, 2010 6:02 pm • link • report

What bus routes are they planing on rationalization why hasnt that been made public?

How much money is spent keeping station entrances open is it worth the public outcry?

How will the station entrance closing effect the surrounding communities and bus routes. I can see many pissed off due to closing entrances at Stadium Armory, McPherson Square & Friendship Heights because of having to walk long distances to the bus bays espacally at Friendship Heights & Stadium Armory.

Will there be signs directing people to the other entrances/bus bays etc.

I would rather pay extra a 50 cents on fare than for entrances at either Stadium Armory or Friendship Heights stations to close because of where the ones with the elevators are located unless they plan to move the buses there.

by kk on Jan 19, 2010 9:45 pm • link • report

Really Neal?

HORRIFIED? Well, excuse me, but I reserve that word for sentences like this: I'm HORRIFIED that 200,000 people died in an earthquake in Haiti.

Or, closer to home, I'm HORRIFIED that a mechanical function in the Metro system caused D.C. residents to get maimed or killed in a train collision last year. I'm HORRIFIED that people get run over by Metro bus drivers. I'm HORRIFIED that my friend with severe rheumatoid arthritis has to take two buses for over an hour commute from Southwest Waterfront to Friendship Heights every day because she cannot count on finding a working escalator or elevator at both stations.

Not everybody has the kind of job where they can walk in all sweaty and messy and change clothes. Some people need to arrive in a presentable state from the get go. Some people go straight to conferences or courtrooms or lecture halls, or a small sandwich shop or coffeeshop, and are not going to have the opportunity or time to change outfits. Some people have physical disabilities. In short, not everybody can bike to work.

Nobody hates noise on the Metro more than I do, but we all have to wake up and smell the burning rubber. Metro is financially crippled and has to take drastic action. When they talk about raising fares a paltry nickel or taking money from the capital funds and putting it in the operating funds, they are demonstrating that they still are not willing to face reality. They need to raise fares much higher, to start with, and they are never going to get more political support for government funding if they provide even worse service than they provide now.

The system as it is being run is going to be run financially into the ground until the federal government is called upon to bail it out because it's "too important to fail". That is reality. There are three jurisdictions here which are good at pointing fingers at each other and asking the others to pony up more money. Metro has no authority to tax--all Metro can do is beg and whine.

Everybody wants a clean, safe, quiet, comfortable mass transit system, Neal, but until somebody starts thinking outside the box for how to MAINTAIN it that way financially, what we are going to get is a system that continues to decline. Fewer stations, fewer personnel, fewer trains, fewer cars per train, fewer buses: this is not a model for maintaining a business, this is a model for shrinking a business.

We need a Metro lottery or slot machines in the stations. We need something MORE. I am asking people to think outside the box. The old ideas are just bandages, they are not curing the patient. Do you remember when people in Silver Spring started driving to the city because they were afraid to take the Metro after that collision and because the train service had slowed down drastically? That was reality. That was people choosing driving over the train--not because of noise, but because the basic service had declined.

by Julie on Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm • link • report

@kk: I encourage you to read the docket at:

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=4248

I think in short the changes in DC cut off some of the the 50s line trips at McPherson square going southbound during certain hours, cut off some of the 80 similarly going westbound, and consolidate the N routes during certain times so it's only the N6. I'm typing this from memory so please review the docket for details.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 19, 2010 10:19 pm • link • report

What about offering naming rights of stations/lines/bus routes to companies.

Gallery Place = Verizon Station
Friendship Heights = Microsoft Station
Navy Yard = Nationals Station
Brookland = Catholic University/Catholic Church Station

Red Line = IBM line

30 bus = Georgetown bus line.

you get the point.

by kk on Jan 19, 2010 10:36 pm • link • report

It would be great if Metro could get more money from the "Contributing Jurisdictions". Then we would not need to discuss severe service cuts and even higher fare increases. However, that is not going to happen anytime soon. MetroRiders.org has been saying for a long time that the jurisdictions should have been called upon to contribute more, but the members of the WMATA BOD have built in conflicts of interest, and so they do not want to press their respective jurisdictions for higher subsidies. That is why MetroRiders.Org has also called for the feds to name as many as four "regular riders" to the new positions on the WMATA BOD.

Generally I am with the previous poster kreeggo- I support the cutbacks such as modified holiday schedules, early closings of stations on weeknights and weekends where there are multiple entrances, bus route and bus stop consolidation. I also don't like the elimination of eight car trains' although it might work combined with a "peak of the peak" fare, but I also would want to see the numbers before making up my mind on that. What a shame that Chairman Graham vetoed any consideration of a higher surcharge or fare increase for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Really, I'd rather pay more than have service cuts.

@Julie- Metro should indeed think outside the box, but advertising is not going to be the answer to Metro's problems. In fact, Metro has just about maxed out it's revenue potential from advertising, and it is likely to get smaller returns in the foreseeable future from advertising in any way shape or form.

by KevinM on Jan 20, 2010 8:26 am • link • report

I would much prefer to pay more in fares than have service cut. As a car-free citizen of DC, I depend on Metro to get me everywhere in this city and a raise in fares would be much more economical than having to take cabs places, which would be my other option.

by Stephanie on Jan 20, 2010 10:38 am • link • report

Definitely $.10 fare raise if not $.20. The demand for commuter transportation can't be flexible enough that an extra $2 a week will make a difference to many.

by Alan on Jan 22, 2010 4:45 pm • link • report

I agree with Alan.

A $.10 hike would only amount to a dollar per week for the average commute of five round trips. This is not going to hurt the poor, and people that tell you it will are out of touch. The truth is that the most vulnerable workers are the ones that tend to get their pay docked if they show up late, or maybe even get fired if they show up late. They need a reliable public transit system more than anybody. I have a friend who sometimes has to take a taxi to work when her buses don't come--even when she allows plenty of time. She cannot afford that, but if the buses don't come, she needs a way to get to work. And at reverse commute time, a parent who is late to pick up a child from daycare often has to pay a late fee there, as well.

by Julie on Jan 22, 2010 5:53 pm • link • report

To be fair, if you take both bus and rail it will be a $0.20 raise each way, so that's about $2.00 per week. Still not huge.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 22, 2010 5:56 pm • link • report

Sadly, the $.10 increase is the maximum that can even be considered in this time period(until the end of the current fiscal year). If the $.10 increase is put into effect, it will still most likely be necessary to have some cutbacks in service and to rob the capital budget for as much as $6 million.

Nearly everyone agrees that higher increases in fares and fees would be acceptable, and of course that will come soon enough. When the new fiscal year begins riders will have to be ready to pay significantly more. However, having said that, I still maintain that there is only so much that can be accomplished towards balancing Metro's fiscal problems by raising fares and fees; additionally, there isn't much fat left in Metro's expenditures, so that only leaves one avenue to get to where Metro needs to be, funding wise. The contributing jurisdictions will have to step up to the plate. Local and regional politicians will have to get their collective heads out of the sand, and make the hard choices that are inevitable. There is no way around it. even if jurisdictions are cutting budgets, their even tighter resources have to be prioritized, and they had better keep Metro near the top of their short list, or the alternative is that our regional transit system will become useless.

by KevinM on Jan 23, 2010 1:03 pm • link • report