I still don't get the logic behind this... FY2009 DC paid $203.3M in operating subsidies, and $66.2 in capital; MD paid $208.7M in operating, and $64.4M in capital; and VA paid $128.4M in operating, and $48.3M in capital. Yet, for a total of $150M in capital, the feds are going to get an equal seat at the table? It really doesn't make much sense to me.

If anybody "deserves" a seat at the table, it's riders. We paid over $600M in fares last year. Time for a revolt.

by Adam L on Jan 24, 2010 11:26 am • link • report

Not sure if the Feds have to actually designate one of the new appointees as such, but they are required to name at least one regular passenger among the four new appointments.

Also, those operating subsidies from the jurisdictions have not kept pace with the riders' share, so it is time that DC, MD and VA increased their ante.

by KevinM on Jan 24, 2010 11:46 am • link • report

Acosta is on the National Capital Planning Commission and came to DC from the Chicago Transit Authority - so he has a good background. Definite plus for the Metro Board.

by andy on Jan 24, 2010 12:02 pm • link • report

Good point about Acosta and the CTA. I've added a mention of that.

by David Alpert on Jan 24, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

The feds also put forth at least $200M per year in formula grants through the DOT appropriations process.

If you were to divide representation on the board by financial contributions, it would look something like this:

One "vote" is $25M per year in funding, based on FY2009's total (capital and operating) budget.

Total votes: 71

Federal Goverment: 10 votes
Local Governments: 30 votes
DC: 12
VA: 7
Arlington: 2
Alexandria: 1
Fairfax: 4
MD: 11
Prince George's: 6
Montgomery: 5
Riders: 29
Metrorail: 23 (includes parking and advertising)
Metrobus: 6
Banks: 2 (debt financing)

by Michael Perkins on Jan 24, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

Regarding federal funding, the feds actually provide about 250 million annually in formula funding. The 150 million provided this year under the dedicated funding legislation is above and beyond formula funding that transit agencies would usually receive.

@Adam L For a truly radical approach to Board representation, you could do what BART does and have elected positions for districts to represent ridership in the compact jurisdictions. To be really regional, these positions could cross jurisdictional boundaries. You could make these positions additive to the existing Board members.

by jnb on Jan 24, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

These first two appointments are very heartening. Mort Downey has an extensive background in transit, with a particular genius in understanding financial issues. He was a key part of the resuscitation and turnaround of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Agency, as well as working on the federal level and in private consulting. As we've seen, Metro needs all the help it can get in dealing with its finances, and Mort should be able to provide excellent oversight in that area.

Marcel's excellent qualifications have already been noted above.

And a sidenote re: Adam L's question about the role of federal financing, don't overlook the key role played by the federal government's subsidy of federal employees' transit fares. A 2004 Post article quoted Metro as saying that over 150,000 employees received monthly transit benefits -- that's a huge sum.

by Ellen McCarthy on Jan 24, 2010 3:06 pm • link • report

Re: Federal funding

Thanks to all of you who pointed out that the Feds already give WMATA a lot of money in transit grants and "subsidies" to federal employees. But I'm still not buying it.

Transit agencies across the country get those USDOT funds, but they're not required to have federal appointees are their boards. JNB points out that this money is extra, on top of what WMATA would normally get. That's all well and good but Rep. McMahon of New York got an extra $1.2 billion in funding for the MTA in the latest jobs bill that passed the House in December. That money, one could argue, is also "above and beyond" what the MTA would normally get in DOT funds, yet I can't find a similar provision in the legislation that would require federal representation on their board. In fact, I don't believe that the federal government requires active representation in any state or local government/agency that accepts federal funding, earmarked or otherwise.

In truth, I don't really have a problem with the federal board members. If they can bring a voice of reason to the process, than I wish them well. However, what happens when the money is spent and we have a less-than-transit-friendly administration in the White House? I guess we'd just be out of options?

by Adam L on Jan 24, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report

Good first start. Next, get rid of political hacks on the Board who don't regularly ride Metro.

by Fritz on Jan 24, 2010 4:15 pm • link • report

These two sounds like excellent additions to the board. With the added benifit that Jim Graham's term as Chairman is up, maybe things will work out.

by James on Jan 24, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report

What's this obsession with having people who ride Metro?

If Bill Gates offered to manage Metro, would his confirmation be contingent on whether he rides or not?

I guess the logic is that if they ride Metro, they can 'see' the problems firsthand? That's a TERRIBLE idea. You don't want knee-jerk decisions made from anecdotal evidence. You want your decision made from objective and reliable data; you don't need to ride Metro to get briefings with the newest data.

by MPC on Jan 24, 2010 8:27 pm • link • report

Why wouldn't firsthand observations be reliable data?

Having firsthand experience hardly precludes someone from making objective decisions. Moreover, people who never ride Metro are perfectly capable of making knee-jerk decisions based on anecdotal evidence, especially because they have no frame of reference to judge the credibility of the second-hand information they're being given.

by steve s on Jan 24, 2010 9:34 pm • link • report

@MPC

I would agree with you if I believed that Metro actually produced objective and reliable data. In addition, data doesn't tell you everything. Service interruptions, for example, generally look like this: http://wmata.com/rail/disruption_reports/yesterdays_service_report.cfm?ReportID=1694

Even if members of Metro's board even bothered to look at the service reports, they don't tell you anything. They don't tell you that when that rush-hour train went out of service that the platform was so crowded that you were almost pushed over the edge and that the next three rush-hour trains were full to capacity. That glorious knowledge can only be gleaned by actually riding the system.

by Adam L on Jan 24, 2010 9:34 pm • link • report

The kinds of things that you would learn by riding Metro are no the kinds of things that Directors of the Board should be worrying themselves with.

Does the BOD of Wal-Mart concern themselves with a cleanup on aisle 12? No, that's what you have a CEO, GM, and store managers for.

by MPC on Jan 24, 2010 10:56 pm • link • report

The only two airline execs of the past decade worth the powder to blow to hell - Gordon Bethune of Continental and Herb Kelleher of Southwest - found time to work baggage over major holidays, take unannounced flights, visit operations in non-hub cities, and both had open door policies for employees at least one day a month. Gordon started as a mechanic, became proficient as a pilot, and more than once took delivery of a new jet and flew it from the Boeing plant in Seattle to Houston.

Because Gordon and Herb were so close to their operations, they knew quickly what the real-world ramifications were to any decision they made. They knew what their employess and their customers were thinking. Catoe didn't, and the current Metro Board seems somewhat out of touch as well.

by Mike Silverstein on Jan 24, 2010 11:09 pm • link • report

So basically you're saying that the private sector is better because they have the incentive to respond to their customer's demands.

That view is very unpopular on here, so you better tone it down.

by MPC on Jan 24, 2010 11:22 pm • link • report

It would be funny if WMATA blackmailed the Feds

They could add Pentagon, Capitol South, Federal Center SW, Federal Triangle, Medical Center, Smithsonian to the list of stations to close then reroute all metrobus's away from those stations bet some extra money would be coming there way asap.

by kk on Jan 24, 2010 11:29 pm • link • report

Strictly speaking, that more extortion than blackmail.

by MPC on Jan 24, 2010 11:35 pm • link • report

MPC,

I think the argument would be that Southwest is better, not the private sector as a whole. After all, the rest of the major airlines are also private sector and they manage to consistently suck at customer service.

I think, like anything else, there are examples of good government and bad government, just as there are good companies and bad companies. What's better, government vs private sector tends to degenerate into a silly freshman poli sci debate pretty quickly.

by TimK on Jan 25, 2010 8:29 am • link • report

Downey is a former Chief Financial Officer and Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transporation Authority in NYC and also worked for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which operates the PATH rail system.

by Steve Strauss on Jan 25, 2010 10:11 am • link • report

I think Adam L has a legitimate point of view but I ultimately feel that the federal board members will be a plus because they will bring some regional perspective to a board that often looks at issues through their local lenses.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Compact amendment that provides for them is only effective for the ten year period of the additional federal funding. Further, they are not "full" board members because while they have voting power, they do not have the jurisdictional veto. Still if I were on the WMATA board and the feds who are providing formula money, grants, transit subsidies and $150 million extra per year for capital spoke on an issue--I think I'd listen carefully before making my decision.

by kreeggo on Jan 25, 2010 10:31 am • link • report

Has Downey done any consulting business with Metro recently? Will his board seat make it a conflict for him or his firm to accept work from Metro?

by Gavin Baker on Jan 25, 2010 10:37 am • link • report

kreeggo: I believe that the Compact change is permanent, not just conditional on the Federal funding or just temporary for 10 years. DC tried to write the Compact so that the Federal members only voted in years when Congress ponied up the money, but MD and VA didn't go along. I believe these Board members will be there permanently.

by David Alpert on Jan 25, 2010 10:41 am • link • report

Again, there are reasons why Metro has a BOD and a GM. The things that you're suggested the BOD do is what the GM is already charged with doing.

Now, if the GM isn't doing his job, that's one thing, but I don't see how riding the buses and trains reveal much about strategic planning and long-term capital use. Riding the system will give insights into operational issues at best, which is what the GM is for.

We don't need a bunch of George Steinbrenners, when what we're really after is a quality Cashman.

by MPC on Jan 25, 2010 11:55 am • link • report

@David: I stand corrected--as usual I should not rely on memory. There is no limitation on the federal board members--they are there unless and until the Compact is changed.

by kreeggo on Jan 25, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report

The federal representation should be positive and is scheduled to begin on Thursday. Nonetheless the issues will be substantial and likely painful. Much of the 106.m system was paid for by direct federal contributions. Perhaps one should wonder why the U.S. wasn't represented sooner.

by Interested on Jan 25, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report

It's really not that hard to understand, for any that still don't get it. The Metro BOD makes critical decisions regarding operations of Metrobus, Metrorail and MetroAccess; having direct, first-hand knowledge of the real world consequences of these decisions provides context and is without question a good thing. There is no doubt that having regular riders on the board is a positive thing.

by KevinM on Jan 25, 2010 4:53 pm • link • report