Greater Greater Washington

Transit


If those who pay for transit should pick the WMATA Board, where are the rider reps?

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is trying to take some of Virginia's WMATA Board seats away from the Northern Virginia counties that appoint them, and threatening to derail the federal funding for safety-related improvements unless he gets it.


Photo by Somewhat Frank on Flickr.

McDonnell's main argument is that the state pays about half of Virginia's share for transit, and therefore he should appoint two of the members. However, "half" is stretching things a lot and using some funny math. More importantly, if we accept the notion that whoever pays the bills ought to appoint the members of the WMATA Board, riders should be electing almost half the Board themselves.

Why not? Much of the criticism of the WMATA Board is that members are looking out for the interests of the local governments that appoint them, which sometimes align with riders and sometimes don't. According to a Transportation Research Board report, a number of U.S. cities, including Denver and Salem, Oregon, elect all Board members, while others elect a portion.

Michael Perkins analyzed the FY2009 budget and computed that if Board seats were apportioned based on contributions to the capital and operating budget, riders would get about 42% of the seats. That number has probably increased with the recent fare hike.

Right now, the Board has 14 members and is supposed to grow to 16, so about two elected representatives from each of Virginia, Maryland, and DC would do nicely, plus the federal government could select a rider representative or two for its unfilled appointments.

Meanwhile, the McDonnell Administration's calculation that the state pays half of Virginia's WMATA costs omits several key facts. First, it includes the 2% gas tax add-on that comes directly from Northern Virginia counties for transit. It also counts all money that goes to transit based on a formula, set by the legislature. Over time, Northern Virginia has negotiated to have some of its formula money go to transit.

The state isn't really paying so much as acting as the banker. It's like President Obama decreeing that since most transportation money is federal, he's now going to appoint the state Secretary of Transportation in all 50 states plus D.C.as well as the state Secretary of Education and most other state officials. That's just not how it works.

Most of all, McDonnell's calculations also completely discount all the money paid by riders. Virginians who ride Metrorail and Metrobus are putting in plenty of their own money, and even more with a fare hike of historic proportions. At least right now they have some elected officials who respond to their concerns representing them on the WMATA Board.

Maybe those Northern Virginia riders should get to elect two representatives instead of McDonnell appointing them. If we follow McDonnell's own logic, they have a better claim. Otherwise, let's leave the local officials in charge.

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

Add a comment »

Well, let's start off with the real problem: the Obama administration's insistence on placing federal reps. This started an ugly turn.

I'm against the idea of elected "rider reps" because giving mini-politicans their own platform isn't going to help. And it will just increase the bias towards rail over bus in WMATA.

But this is sorta clever. Politically it works.

I think we need to have some very serious arguments about WMATA governance. I fear the system is set up to reward employees and management, not the users or local area. Somebody has to take a strong stand and strangle MetroAccess and pension benefits. Clever arguments like these, however, don't result in better ideas being formed.

by charlie on Jun 18, 2010 10:55 am • linkreport

Riders are voters. We elect our government, and trust them to place people on the board who will look out for our interests. If they fail to do so, we can vote for someone else.

By your logic, tourists should get a seat on the board, too. They chip in a bunch of fare and tax revenue.

by jcm on Jun 18, 2010 11:01 am • linkreport

Charlie - Placing federal reps is not the Obama administration's idea. It came from Tom Davis, the Virginia Republican who is quoted today as supporting McDonnell.

by Ben Ross on Jun 18, 2010 11:07 am • linkreport

Is there some sort of proposed framework in place that would facilitate an actual election of rider representatives? I expect there would have to be nominations, campaigning, an impartial body to actually administer the voting procedures.

I mean, I understand the knee-jerk reaction to take Virginia's request and expand the logic and try to throw it back in their face. But what McDonnell is proposing is nowhere near as radical as some think.

by Lou on Jun 18, 2010 11:08 am • linkreport

Well, if the feds do provide dedicated funding directly to WMATA then they do have the right to have input in how the funds are spent. Only if dedicated funding is presented, otherwise the feds need to stay out.

by SteveRN on Jun 18, 2010 11:20 am • linkreport

If you think the Metro Board is parochial now, with local elected reps making up most of the membership, it's nothing compared to how it would be with a larger hand from Richmond. The state government is dominated by rural (i.e., car-focused) counties. Metro would never be able to raise parking fees or distance fares with Richmond calling the shots.

Back off, Bob - Metro is spending money raised FROM NoVa, and we know how to run our transit services better than from 2 hours away in Richmond.

by Glenn on Jun 18, 2010 11:36 am • linkreport

@Glenn; so you mean the current representatives from Fairfax aren't opposed to increasing in "distance" fares and parking?

And isn't the real issue not the current funding, which is determined by somewhat complex formulas, but the $150 million a year in new capital spending the federal agreement bring? As far as I can tell, all the money is coming directly from state coffers and not being raised in the traditional ways.

by charlie on Jun 18, 2010 11:42 am • linkreport

This whole thing makes me sick.

Governor McDonnell holding funding hostage for seats on the WMATA Board jeopardizes the safety of Metro customers insofar as it puts essential capital funding at risk.

Even if I agreed with his end goal (which do not), he is putting his agenda ahead of the safety of Metro riders period. If he cares both about the safety of Metro riders AND getting seats on the Board, then maybe he should offer EXTRA money in exchange for seats.

Bribery is no better than blackmail. I know. But jeopardizing funding that would be used to replace 1000 series rail cars. Really? That's just wrong. The end simply does not justify the means.

Put simply, I have no faith in Governor McDonnell's ability or desire to improve our regional transit system.

by Penny Everline on Jun 18, 2010 11:51 am • linkreport

@Charlie: From what I understand, it was a matter of putting a "DEDICATED FUNDING(TM)!" label on the gas tax revenue that was already going to go toward Northern VA transportation.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 18, 2010 11:51 am • linkreport

David for president, GM and gov of VA!

by Jasper on Jun 18, 2010 11:56 am • linkreport

@Mperkins; the new $50 million in capital money isn't coming from the gas tax. Or at least I read it that way -- it is coming straight from the budget. VA provides "70-80" million already and I think that that money is the one being designated. The new money is a separate budget item.

by charlie on Jun 18, 2010 12:03 pm • linkreport

@Mperkins, sorry, got cut off.

Listed as " Transportation Capital Bonds / Federal Match" 50M a year.

by charlie on Jun 18, 2010 12:07 pm • linkreport

Don't the riders get rides for their dollars? The issue here is who gets to have a say in how the dollars that are subsidising these very riders are spent. I.e., those who give the dollars get to decide how they get doled out ... and not those who are out there getting the dollars given to them in the form of services they would otherwise have to be paying for themselves.

And how Virginia apportions who gets to represent the Va. taxpayers who are giving Metro their tax dollars, is a question for Virginia and Virginians to answer.

by Lance on Jun 19, 2010 7:51 am • linkreport

Riders get rides for their dollars, and Virginia gets increased tax revenue for their dollars as transit-accessible areas densify (is that a word?)

by Matthias on Jun 21, 2010 1:16 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or