Funny, I don't hear these senators threatening a federal takeover of state DMVs.

by JTS on Feb 23, 2010 8:41 am • link • report

JTS, if I'm interpreting right, you're making a point about roads being unsafe, and more so than Metro. This may be, but rail is usually much safer than driving, and Metrorail, if I'm not mistaken, currently has the worst safety record of any urban rail system in the U.S. Furthermore, an unsafe Metro system directly affects a large proportion of federal workers. Somewhat true also of Virginia and Maryland roads, I suppose, but to a lesser extent.

by Scott F on Feb 23, 2010 9:05 am • link • report

You read my post right. I am of the opinion that the feds remain dedicated to the one percent doctrine, despite the utter stupidity and expense such a policy entails.

by JTS on Feb 23, 2010 9:14 am • link • report

Scott F is correct. The standard of performance should be similar transit systems, not the highways. It's too facile to let Metro off the hook just because driving is relatively more dangerous.

And just a small nit-pick, but now does a letter get "frustrated", as in your lede? I think it's the Senators who are frustrated, not the letter. The letter expresses their frustration.

by Paul on Feb 23, 2010 9:19 am • link • report

Oh, I'm not disputing that he's correct. It's certainly necessary. But so is an overhaul of our driving and licensing laws. You're not going to see it happen because it's easier to pick on the less monolithic entity. Ultimately, both should be done. But you're kidding yourself if you think a new, improved WMATA is going to do a lick to improve overall fatality rates on our nation's transportation system.

by JTS on Feb 23, 2010 9:27 am • link • report

Well, what exactly would it mean if the feds took over WMATA? Would they then see its budget? Would they find some incentive to great a guaranteed funding source?

Seriously, what would they do if they took over? Abolish the board and appoint a GM? How would day-to-day operations change?

by rdhd on Feb 23, 2010 9:28 am • link • report

The feds paid for the system to be built (more than 80% of the money was federal), and it was to be used in large part to get the federal workforce to and from their jobs.

They're the landlords. They own the plantation. And whether we like it or not, we must always remember that.

Congress depends on Metro to get their staffs to work, and to get them there safely. They've had it up to here with the declines in performance and safety. And so, apparently, has the Obama Administration.

When the work of Congress or the Federal Government is being threatened or inconvenienced, the feds will throw the offending local government or agency under the bus (or the train) in a New York minute. They don't give a tinker's dam about you or me or any member of the Metro board.

It is difficult to overstate how grave the situation has become for WMATA, or to overstate the need for a four-way summit involving top federal, DC, MD, and VA officials to restructure the organization and its funding base.

There's a metaphor about deck chairs and the Titanic that's all too obvious here.

by Mike S. on Feb 23, 2010 9:32 am • link • report

I, for one, welcome our new federal overlords.

by MPC on Feb 23, 2010 9:34 am • link • report

Perhaps this is a good thing. Metro is very over budget and once the Feds take over it becomes their problem which they will have to fix. They will have no choice but to either give them more money, of find a way to cut costs.

Also once the Feds take over it becomes a political issue, thus if there are major service cuts, or more accidents it makes the Feds look bad, something they will want to avoid I would think.

In reality I do not think the feds can do much better of a job then WMATA, but they would be held more accountable if they do not.

by Matt R on Feb 23, 2010 9:41 am • link • report

I asked Mr. Acosta about this yesterday in response to his question about the Federal role in Metro. I would welcome a federal takeover of the system if it means that WMATA gets the funds it needs to adequately address its capital issues. A federal takeover could possibly dislodge the seemingly irretractable structural issues that no GM has ever been able to adequately address.

As painful and embarrassing as it was, the Federal takeover of D.C.'s spending ultimately ended up for the best and left the city in a much better position overall. Congress better do this now while we have a transit-friendly administration in the White House.

by Adam L on Feb 23, 2010 9:57 am • link • report

@Matt R: And there you have it, WMATA's lack of accountability is the ultimate problem here. That, and their lack of balls when it comes to demanding dedicated sources of funding from the jurisdictions served by Metro.

by Log on Feb 23, 2010 10:00 am • link • report

Constitutionally, Federal regulation of Metro is clearly legal -- because Metro is an inter-state transportation system (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8). This property fundamentally differentiates Metro from many other systems (e.g. Cal-Train or the San Jose CA Light-Rail system).

I'd welcome more Federal involvement, because clearly the current leadership (board included, not just the GM and his staff) are NOT getting the job done properly. It is silly and embarrassing that Metro has such a high fatality rate, for either passengers or workers.

A good start would be for Congress immediately to pass (and the President to sign) an act putting the Federal Government in charge of regulating, inspecting, and enforcing safety for all inter-state public transportation systems. This should also require all inter-state public transportation systems to immediately implement all NTSB directives.

(The vexing constitutional question of how to regulate or oversee public transportation within any single state is irrelevant for Metro and could be considered at greater length before initiating legislation.)

by IAD Flyer on Feb 23, 2010 10:16 am • link • report

There is nothing wrong with Congress asking for Metro to be held to a higher standard that other transit agencies: they paid for it, they own the land on which it is built, they depend on it for the Govt to function, and it directly affects work and life in the region.

by SJE on Feb 23, 2010 10:49 am • link • report

I think it's bizarre that anyone who uses metro would want the feds to take it over. What on earth do you guys think we'll gain, other than an increase in the number of congressmen who don't live here and don't use the system poking their noses in and using metro to score political points back home?

Also, I don't think it's at all clear they have the authority to do so. There's a difference between regulating and running.

by jcm on Feb 23, 2010 10:52 am • link • report

"A good start would be for Congress immediately to pass (and the President to sign) an act putting the Federal Government in charge of regulating, inspecting, and enforcing safety for all inter-state public transportation systems."

WHY? Why would does this new law need to be passed? Why is the answer to any problem always more bureaucratic oversight? Why do people feel that the nanny government is always the answer?

by Bob on Feb 23, 2010 11:12 am • link • report

Perhaps the high number of deaths it has been responsible for. It's not uncommon for local governments to lose their oversight of various agencies and function and be put in receivership, though this is not receivership. It happens elsewhere, and I know that won't appease you. But the answer to your question: negligence.

by Jazzy on Feb 23, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report

And the federal government has always done such a good job in controlling costs and improving service of everything else they've taken over!

by Betty on Feb 23, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report

Gee whiz, Betty, they did a helluva good job getting DC out of a fiscal quagmire with the Control Board. Didn't they? Or doesn't reality count?

by Mike on Feb 23, 2010 1:16 pm • link • report

I don't know about the legality of the Feds taking over Metro, but I doubt they would do it if the local governments don't approve. The Feds would have to throw out the interstate compact under which Metro operates. That compact compels the locals to subsidize the system, which they did to the tune of $783 million in FY10. So right off the bat, you'd have to up the federal subsidy by that much, plus whatever it costs for the additional federal oversight.

Most of Metro's problems come down to funding. The 1000 series cars haven't been replaced due to lack of funds. Metro shut down above ground after the snowstorms in December and February due to the lack of a few million-dollar prime movers that could keep the tracks open. Other safety systems have been allowed to degrade due to lack of funds to properly maintain and test them. If the Feds are willing to put $1-$2 billion per year into subsidizing the system, they might be able to make substantial inroads into these problems. Of course, this could be done without changing the governing structure, too.

While there clearly have been some bone-headed decisions made by both Metro managers and board members, I'm not sure Federal operation is inherently better or worse than the system we have now. The Metropolitan Washington Area Airports Authority isn't a shining example of how things out to be run, either.

by Stanton Park on Feb 23, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report

@Stanton Park. The MWAA is not a federal agency. It is an independent entity.

http://www.metwashairports.com/267.htm

"What is the Airports Authority?
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is an independent body created by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. It has been approved by the U.S. Congress to operate and maintain Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport. The Authority is a public body, corporate and politic and is independent of all other bodies. It is not an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of Columbia, nor is it a federal agency. "

by Paul on Feb 23, 2010 5:32 pm • link • report

"Most of Metro's problems come down to funding"

I'd agree that they are in a fiscal pickle. That said, labor costs are their biggest expense, and one that they can deal with without additional expenditures. So far, the union has obtained pretty sweet deals for employees, and now there is the 3% pay raise. Managment has done very little to change the culture of impunity to a culture of responsibility. Until WMATA sits down with the union and gets some serious renegotiation of the terms going forward, I don't see why more money should be pledged.

by SJE on Feb 23, 2010 6:06 pm • link • report

Good for the feds if they want to take over

Can it get worse? If someone says yes, how?

by Aloy on Feb 23, 2010 6:54 pm • link • report

SJE, I feel your pain. I really really really do. When I first started to think about Metro, I was firmly on the side of the union's unequivocal right to exist and basically get what they were asking.

With more and more collisions, bus and train, and bad and negligent driving, about all I can say is I so totally hear you. But I can't quite say I am 'there' yet.

It's amazing to me that the unions don't themselves want to step up and take responsibility for the situation and DEMAND more from themselves so that they can have more pride in their work place. But ok. Big wall of silence. Fine.

I suppose I am still looking for that elixir because I continue to maintain that if you do away with unions (as negligent as some union members seem to be now and as quiet as they are in the face of many many awful events in which their incompetence has been on full embarrassing display), the result will be worse.

I don't know if punishing them by withholding funds is the answer either. Again, I understand that sentiment comes from a ton of frustration, and even threatening it might be good enough, but I think following through would likely hurt all involved.

by Jazzy on Feb 23, 2010 7:07 pm • link • report

Regardless of your opinions on unions in general and this one in particular, WMATA has tried to reduce labor costs through negotiation, arbitration, and legal action - and none of them have helped the bottom line of the budget. Labor is going to be a huge part of the system's budget, period.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2010 8:13 pm • link • report

Did I imply it wasn't?

by Jazzy on Feb 23, 2010 9:07 pm • link • report

No, I was speaking generally. Sorry if that seemed directed at you, Jazzy.

I see people talking about how Metro needs to get tough with the Union, without ever really explaining how they'd do that. The GM is not omnipotent.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2010 11:42 pm • link • report

What "high number of deaths" are we talking about?
There is no "high number of deaths" on metro.
You can no argue with people that do not start with the right facts. There is no "high number of deaths" on metro.

Metro is way safer than driving your car, whatever way you compare.

The only condition under which I'd allow a Federal Takeover of metro is if the politicians in charge are from DC, MD and VA. BTW: Why are those clowns not on this committee? WTF are dudes from CT, AL, LA and NJ doing there? Where'd the chick from AK go?

Whould the senator from NJ and CT like to see all NJ-NY-CT transit being taken over by the feds?

by Jasper on Feb 24, 2010 3:32 pm • link • report

@JTS
The Federal Government routinely uses the threat of withholding federal highway funds (which would effectively cripple any state highway system) to force the states to adopt changes it believes will make the roads safer. Also, if one state had more highway deaths than all others combined maybe federal intervention would be a good thing.

by Jacob on Feb 24, 2010 3:49 pm • link • report

Based on what I have heard from some of the people who work at the the Transit Agency, WMATA will find a way to fire their staff if they report a safety issue. The open door policy is not true.

- A large percentage of the key technical staff and decision makers at WMATA lack the required experience and/or the necessary education to do their jobs. This is like going to a hospital with chest pain symptoms and discover that a plumber calls all the shots in the operating room. Scary!

- Many clerks, bus operators, and high school dropout laborers with fake job titles make over $100k at WMATA. This is one of the main reasons for the fare increases.

- WMATA has legal immunity against punitive damages in court. The system has empowered WMATA to make fatal mistakes and get away with it. This would lead to more fatal accidents in the future.

I am not sure, whether a takeover by the Federal government can fix the problems at WMATA. But a major audit of the Transit Agency would be very helpful.

by EricHuff on Feb 26, 2010 8:18 am • link • report

@EricHuff: That's why I'm glad that NTSB appears to have broadened their search during the 6/22 accident investigation to areas like safety culture and organizational psychology. This is broader than finding out "what happened" at Fort Totten. We need to know WHY the situation that led to 6/22 was allowed to develop.

From my read of the documents available through NTSB, Metro had a culture that accepted things being screwed up as "normal". When the screwed up things line up in a row, you get accidents.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 26, 2010 8:34 am • link • report