Posts about Service Cuts

It's actually part of a long pattern where Metro would propose a higher level of service to the Board of Directors, but then the actual amount of service delivered is substantially lower. For FY 2002 until FY 2008, Metro would determine the actual amount and update the chart in the following year's budget. Each year, the amount of promised service would look like a big increase compared to previous years'.

In 2009, this practice stopped. Metro now no longer updates the budget document with the actual amount of service. Metro still reports the actual amount of service to the NTD, and the shortfall has grown to 18% of the proposed service level as of 2011.

Recently, The Washington Examiner reported a drop in ridership of about 5% compared to last year. In my opinion, the combination of decreasing ridership, decreasing service and increasing fares carries the specter of a transit "death spiral," where service cuts reduce revenue, forcing greater fare increases, which in turn drives more people away from transit.

Note: I reached out to WMATA for comment earlier this week and initially planned to give them until Monday to respond. However, I also told the blogger behind Unsuck DC Metro about this issue so we could collaborate, with what I thought was an agreement not to publish this information yet; Unsuck went live this morning with a post based on the information I gave, so we are publishing now. If we get a response from WMATA, we will update this post.

Ideally, WMATA would have money to add more buses to keep up the headways, but they don't. A few lines will get the extra buses, like the D12/13/14 in Oxon Hill and Suitland. Elsewhere, lines will get new schedules that keep service the same as it is today, but more honestly describe that service.

A large number of lines would lose "low-productive" late night trips (the 62, 64, A4, B2, C4, C22, C26, D2, D8, G2, H8, J2, P6, Q4, U4, U5, W2, W6, W8, Y7, and Y9). The 1F would lose late night service entirely.

Is this a good idea? It may turn on a policy question of whether WMATA should provide some minimal, long-headway service (such as a bus every 30 minutes) at times and in places where very few people ride the bus, or not. Providing the service gives a basic level of mobility to everyone, but also costs a lot of money compared to the numbers of people that actually use it.

Elsewhere, bus planners propose to increase service. For example, the U2 on Minnesota Avenue would get 30-minute weekend service that doesn't exist now, while the M8 and M9 in Congress Heights would be extended.

Some bus routes could be eliminated entirely and restructured with other similar routes. On Connecticut Avenue, the bus planners want to eliminate the L4, reroute the L1 in the State Department area, and move the L2. The L2 now breaks off Connecticut at Woodley Park and runs through Adams Morgan, then down 18th Street to New Hampshire Avenue and rejoins the line at Dupont Circle. The new route would stay off Connecticut for less time, returning via Columbia Road instead and using the Dupont underpass to save time.

This actually eliminates the bus stop closest to my house, on the L2. However, I find that the bus is too infrequent to be of much real use. People living farther north on 18th, at a greater distance from Metrorail, might feel differently, however.

The P1/2/6 would become a single P6 route. Currently, the P1 and P2 go from Anacostia along M Street SE/SW to downtown, the P1 continuing to the State Department, while the P6 runs through the southern edge of Capitol Hill and then up to Rhode Island Avenue. The new route would use M Street SE/SW, skipping Capitol Hill, and then follow the P6 north of downtown.

Another proposal restructures the R and F buses in Hyattsville. The R3 and R5 would disappear, while the R2 and F6 would pick up pieces of the R3 route. The F6 would now go to Fort Totten station, where the R3 now ends. In Tysons, the chronically low-performing and circuitous 3T loses all weekend service and the piece of its route between Tysons Corner and Tysons-Westpark all the time.

The C8 will divert about a half-mile to go into FDA White Oak and Archives II (to replace the R3) along the route. It's too bad these facilities weren't built to be on the way of a bus instead of requiring a long detour, but given what they are, this may be worth the extra time.

Surely there will be riders inconvenienced by these changes, though other riders may benefit. At a public hearing, inevitably we will hear most from those who lose out, and it's important to think hard about the loss. Some people may drive instead, adding traffic congestion. Transit-dependent riders might find themselves unable to travel at some times of the day. Riders with disabilities could start using paratransit more, which is far more expensive than fixed-route bus service.

At the same time, while it would be fantastic to serve every resident with great bus service, it's reasonable to ask how few riders justify keeping a very low-performing line. Having a slightly smaller number of bus lines which run more often provides advantages. People can more reliably depend on these routes, and can take them without long delays, attracting riders who might not otherwise use the bus.

I'll walk farther to get the Circulator, since I can count on its almost-10 minute headways, but rarely take that L2, which is barely 10 minutes even at its very busiest time though it stops very close. If a bus change would make one line more like the Circulator at the expense of another line like the L2, is that worthwhile even if some people lose service? I'm in good health, but what about someone with injuries or disabilities who can't make that walk?

WMATA's bus planners have considered these factors and devised a set of changes they feel are appropriate given the tradeoffs. Soon, it'll be your turn to decide if you agree or disagree. We'll all learn more at the RAC meeting, the Board meeting, and ultimately in public communications sent out for the hearings. If you want to hear more at the RAC, it meets tomorrow (Wednesday) at 6:30 in the lobby level meeting room of WMATA headquarters, 600 5th Street, NW.

Where does the money come from? Mayor Gray's budget shifted a lot of jobs from the capital to operating budget, mostly in DDOT and OCTO. Doing this saves money in the long run, since capital spending is paid for by borrowing, and that costs interest. Brown's budget reduces this shift, but would put back $21.567 million for it if future revenue estimates come in higher than current estimates, as everyone expects they will.

Some revenue measures proposed by the Mayor remain, including combined reporting, raising the parking tax from 12 to 18%, and allowing liquor sales until midnight. The sales tax on theater tickets and live entertainment events is gone, but sales taxes on armored car services, private investigators and security services remain.

The biggest tax increase, the income tax bracket on people making over $200,000 (which was very popular with DC residents), is gone as Kwame Brown promised. But he's replaced it with another tax measure, removing the exemption for out-of-state bonds that only DC and Indiana offers.

Bringing DC's tax treatment of bonds in line with 49 50 other states makes a lot of sense. Still, replacing the income tax for this is less progressive; the Fair Budget Coalition says ¾ of the savings goes to people making over $200,000, meaning ¼ of this measure will hit households with lower incomes. The proposed income tax, on the other hand, would have only affected those making more than $200,000 and really only strongly affected those making significantly more.

In the past, many councilmembers have opposed the bond measure. Brown seems to be seeking their support by offering to repeal part of this exemption with potential future revenue estimates. However, any repeal would only apply to bonds purchased before October 1, 2011. Any bonds bought after that are going to be taxed regardless, at least unless the Council passes a separate tax repeal before next year.

There's a long list of priorities for what to buy if there are indeed rosier budget outlooks from the CFO's office in coming months. After the $21.567 million for the capital to operating shift, 50% of any additional money would replenish DC's reserve fund and the other 50% would pay for a number of other items.

The table below lists the items and by how much the revenue outlook has to increase in order for that item to get funded under Brown's formula.

The housing for homeless (#2), bond exemption (#5), and parking meter reduction (#8) only kick in if all the revenue is available to fully fund that particular item; if not, the funding goes to the next priority. That means if the future estimate is $90 million more, as Jack Evans predicted, then the money would go to police, homeless, affordable housing, mental illness, (skipping the bonds since it's not enough), the MLK library, Main Streets, (skipping parking), and then buying books. That would be an irony if Evans' guess is right and it means his priorities, the ones that just lower revenues, all get skipped.

Parking rates would decrease if revenue estimates grow by $91.6 million to $108.1 million (which doesn't fund the bond repeal), or $118.4 million or more (which does). Nobody knows what the revenue estimate will be, but Evans' guess of $90 million was seen as high last week. Kwame Brown guessed $20-60 million, which might not be enough to pay for any of these priorities, or might be enough just to fund police and restore some homeless services and a tiny bit of the affordable housing.

This budget isn't bad, but the Housing Production Trust Fund and other programs deserve to be saved even without such extreme jumps in the revenue outlook. Housing First saves the District money by housing homeless people who would otherwise end up in expensive emergency rooms, and the HPTF builds housing including in parts of the city where there's vacant land that the market can't otherwise fill with units for people who might live there.

Brown could keep the income tax hike or just repay the reserve fund less aggressively. While it's great to build up the reserve, it's also important to invest in programs that help save DC money in the long run and keep our city a diverse place with people of many different income levels.

Updates: A few details to note:

• Indiana has eliminated their exemption for out-of-state bonds, leaving DC as the only "state" with the rule.
  
• As with all non-emergency, non-temporary legislation, the Council has to pass this on two readings. The first will be today, the second June 14.
  
• Weekend and evening parking will not be changed under Brown's proposal.

The E6 carries an average of 373 riders per day, according to WMATA, and eliminating the route would save an estimated $385,000. To replace the Knollwood portion of the E6, Metro would extend the M4 along Western Avenue to Oregon Avenue. Most residents testified in support of the E6, and a small number spoke about changing or eliminating the N8. No one spoke in support of the N8 as is, and no one spoke on the proposed K1 or V8 changes.

Cheh, Bowser, and others testified that the E6 serves upper Connecticut Avenue and Friendship Heights, both important commercial and medical destinations for seniors. They argued that cutting the E6 would hurt local businesses and burden seniors trying to reach doctors' offices.

Knollwood employees also use the E6. One resident said the M4 begins too late in the morning for staff members to arrive on time. The M4 terminates at Tenleytown and residents connecting to Friendship Heights would have to transfer to the 30s, take the Red Line one stop, or walk down Wisconsin Avenue. Although they are close, the extra commute time and walk to Friendship Heights would unfairly burden seniors and disabled riders. Several residents said shifting ridership to the M4 would create significant overcrowding and slower service.

One Barnaby Woods resident said the neighborhood is wealthy and many residents have cars. If Metro were to eliminate the E6, he would simply drive instead. The E6 is the only transit connection for many Chevy Chase residents, and some said eliminating the service would effectively isolate this section of Upper Northwest.

Metro's budget gap is $66 million. Cutting the E6 would only save $385,000, a tiny portion of this gap. Certainly, if this argument were made for every cut, it could cumulatively fail to close the gap. But because this route provides direct transit access for seniors, it is not a wise choice. Cheh indicated at the end of her testimony that the Committee on Transportation and Public Works may have found additional funds to save the E6.

The committee report does identify sources of revenue to help fund the District's WMATA subsidy, and perhaps some of this money could continue to fund the E6. Metro is considering asking the three jurisdictions for more funding.

Some residents also spoke about the N8. The N8 runs eastbound on Yuma Street from 49th Sreet to Tenley Circle. Metro estimates an average daily ridership of only 300. Eliminating service on this route would save an estimated $516,000.

Yuma Street residents are concerned that the street is too steep and with low ridership, N8 drivers often speed down Yuma, making it dangerous for children and other pedestrians. One Yuma Street resident joked that more people had spoken to save the E6 route than ride the N8.

An American University student did speak in support of the N8, saying it helps students living in Glover Park travel to AU. She supported moving the N8 off Yuma to create a more direct connection to AU, but said the route should stay.

No one spoke on the K1 or V8 routes.

In addition to public testimony on the proposed service changes, Metro officials gave a short presentation on the FY12 budget and took questions from the audience. Residents asked about customer service and problems with the weekly bus pass.

Several residents said they have had negative encounters with bus drivers and station managers, including problems using the 7-day bus pass. WMATA CFO Carol Kissal said the agency had fixed the bus pass issue and apologized for poor bus driver service. Kissal said customers will be able to load their SmarTrip cards online this summer.

Few at the meeting spoke about extending weekend rail headways, though one man commented that stopping weekend rail service at midnight would be a mistake. A representative from Amalgamated Transit Union 689, which represents Metro employees, said the union opposes service cuts because it will hurt bus and rail operators.

The WMATA panel included General Manager and CEO Richard Sarles, WMATA board members Tom Downs and Mort Downey, and Barbara Richardson, Assistant General Manager of Customer Service, Communications and Marketing at Metro. The agency held two hearings each in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. The entire docket, including all proposed bus and rail service changes, is available here.

Evans, generally the Council's most eager to "comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted," complained that the RPP increase was "nickel and diming," and said that if the Council wants to fund an initiative, "just fund it." But earlier in the session, he presented his own committee report which recommended removing almost every source of revenue for the Council to "just fund" many important programs.

In response, Tommy Wells pointed out that last year Metro rail and bus riders suffered a significant fare increase, one which costs people a lot more than $25 or even $100 per year (the extra amount a 3-car owning household would pay under Wells' proposal.) But, as Evans repeatedly brought up during the meeting, he doesn't take transit, so he isn't sensitive to that.

Mary Cheh repeated some of her comments complaining that the Circulator expansion plan doesn't go to Ward 3 enough, and recommended a line in the Palisades. This is one of the lowest density parts of the city with very few commercial nodes and is rarely a destination for non-residents. In other words, it's one of the least appropriate candidates for a Circulator. Is she worried about getting votes from the Palisades?

The Circulator plan actually does include a future line expansion along Connecticut and Wisconsin, and eventually along Military from Friendship Heights across Rock Creek.

Bowser and Thomas similarly made many arguments complaining about how certain budget proposals don't do more for their own wards. It was very disappointing to have so much debate about policy based on how much investment goes into each ward when growth downtown benefits all. On the other hand, it's true that we should do more to improve transit service for neighborhoods in wards 4 and 5, as well as 7 and 8, plus 1, 2, 3, and 6.

Cheh also repeated some Board of Trade talking points that the parking meter rates might drive away potential customers for businesses. That's not false in the areas where parking is regularly not filling up; I previously endorsed studying parking occupancy and lowering it in areas that aren't filling up. The "Parking Czar" funded partly with the RPP money would hopefully solve these problems. Just dropping the rates sight unseen would make traffic worse and parking harder in many areas.

The most intelligent comment from someone other than Wells—and, honestly, one of the very few intelligent comments from any non-Wells councilmember in the whole parking discussion—came from Michael Brown (at-large). He pointed out that the issue most residents have with parking meters is having to put in large numbers of quarters or return periodically to feed meters.

That's another argument for hiring a good parking manager at DDOT as soon as possible. DDOT actually has upgraded all or almost all of the higher price meters to take credit cards or to use multispace meters, so some councilmembers may be reacting to constituent complaints from years past which have been largely addressed. Still, DDOT's parking strategy and roadmap remains a mystery, if they even have one, and it would go a long way to alleviate fears for them to devise and publicize one.

This parochial argumentation seemed more bizarre in the context of all the cuts that threaten the life or health of some of the least fortunate residents. Asking households with 3 cars to pay $100 more per year is apparently "exorbitant," to use Thomas' term, but having families unable to get basic food and shelter didn't stir up nearly as much outrage.

Nor did saving Metro service. Wells' chief of staff, Charles Allen, tweeted that it's "disappointing to see how many people don't see affordable mass transit as an issue of econcomic justice & access to jobs."

My neighborhood wouldn't benefit from the immediate Circulator expansion, isn't going to get a streetcar, and has few people on TANF. My household may well pay more in taxes under the Mayor's proposal. But I don't want my councilmembers voting against everything that doesn't benefit me personally. We should be looking to make the city better for all, and it quite simply won't make the city worse for all or even much worse for anyone if wealthy households do a little bit more.

For a DC Council that has often been quite progressive on human rights, the environment and more, it's sad to see such resistance to progressive measures on finance and transportation even from several otherwise excellent members.

The tax hike on people making over $200,000 even has strong support from residents in all wards, and even from residents who would be affected, yet so many councilmembers want to delete that proposal from the budget at the expense of the least fortunate.

The Council has still not decided on council-wide priorities for funding and spending. Contact your members and ask them to keep the RPP increase, reject the parking meter decrease, and to fund the council-wide priorities for Metro, affordable housing, and homeless services as the top priorities.

Update: Councilmember Cheh has clarified her position on both parking issues. She wants to tailor meter rates to neighborhoods (as do I) and is willing to let the DDOT "Parking Czar" work out a good approach, and says she is now supportive has always been supportive of the RPP increase. Thanks, Councilmember Cheh!

Several local jurisdictions endorsed the required increase in jurisdictional contributions up front. Arlington and Fairfax's budgets included the increases. Last week, Maryland's representatives to the WMATA Board announced that they, too, would come up with the extra contributions. A few days ago, Alexandria dedicated some of its property tax revenue to the needed Metro funding.

The WMATA Board approved a docket for public hearings with relatively few cuts. Late-night cuts, the worst of the initial proposals, are off the table. DC routes E6, K1, and N8 could still be eliminated, and some fares to Anacostia station increased.

There's still an option to increase weekend headways to 18 minutes Saturdays, 20 minutes Sundays, and 25 minutes both Saturdays and Sundays after 9:30 pm. They would cause real damage to Metro and to the economy of the entire region. Riders should forcefully oppose these cuts. But the amount of money involved is relatively small—only $6 million. We are in the realm of reasonable debate rather than fighting off catastrophe.

While in past years the WMATA Board has delayed decisions on the budget until DC made its decisions as well, this year DC's representatives approved a docket for public hearings that almost forces it to come up with more money for Metro, even though that money hasn't been publicly identified yet.

That share, after the bus cuts, comes to $13.3 million, in a budget that already treats transportation well while making painful cuts for needy residents in areas like affordable housing. Most likely, Tommy Wells' Committee on Public Works and Transportation will need to find that money through revenue increases like graduated RPP fees or the free parking loophole.

Much remains to be done to improve Metro's policymaking. Long-term planning of budgets and service is not what it should be. Local governments still ignore the costs they dump on Metro when they make land use and traffic engineering decisions.

But the new Metro board's approach to the budget puts us ahead of where we were a year ago on these questions too. Transit's needs are now getting put on the table, just as highway departments do their job by pointing out deficiencies in the road network. There is a chance to begin an honest dialogue about priorities among elected officials and the public.

The hearings are May 16 in Hyattsville (by New Carrollton Metro), May 17 in Alexandria (Braddock Road Metro) and upper northwest DC (Friendship Heights/Tenleytown Metro), May 18 in Arlington (Court House) and Wheaton, and May 19 in Barry Farm (Anacostia Metro). All hearings will start with an open house at 5:30, a town hall format at 6, and the formal public hearing at 6:45.

By all means, oppose the weekend rail cuts and call for preserving needed bus service. But it's also worth thanking the Board for what's right about this year's budget process.

April 13, 2011

Ms. Catherine Hudgins
Chair, Board of Directors
Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority
600 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001

Subject: FY 2012 Operating Budget Hearing Docket

Dear Ms. Hudgins:

The Transit First coalition is representing transit riders, environmentalists, labor, and community groups throughout the Greater Washington area. We commend the WMATA Board of Directors for the thoughtfulness it has demonstrated thus far in preparing the FY 2012 operating budget hearing docket. We are pleased to see that cutting back late night rail service hours is no longer being considered. However, we are concerned by the remaining proposed bus service cuts and proposed significant widening of rail headways on weekends that were discussed at the Board's most recent meeting.

While the widening of rail headways on weekends might at first glance appear innocuous, we believe it would be devastating to weekend travelers. This is because many travelers take more than one rail line to get to their final destinations. Thus, widening of headways would not only extend the wait on two legs of passengers' trips (i.e., origin to destination and then destination back to origin); it would also result in the compounded effect of extending the wait on four or more legs of passengers' trips (i.e., origin to transfer point, transfer point to destination, destination to transfer point, transfer point to origin).

Not only would the round trip be significantly lengthened in this manner, but the likelihood of missing one's transfer would also be significantly impacted. Thus, what appears to be an innocuous increase in travel time of a few minutes in a person's trip could result in an increase in travel time of over 30 minutes, for example. Because weekend rail service headways are already too wide to be considered convenient by many travelers, we believe further increasing headways would further depress weekend ridership numbers and, consequently farebox revenues.

Therefore, we urge that in addition to encouraging increased jurisdictional contributions to close the $72 million operating budget deficit, the Board propose additional revenue-generating options. We recommend establishing a $1 increase in parking fees for those Metrorail stations that have a weekday average occupancy of 100%.

Increasing the parking fee by $1 for those rail stations that have a weekday average occupancy of 100% would not only have the benefit of raising additional revenues, but would also better align parking fees with market demand, in turn resulting in better utilization of parking spaces system-wide. As you know, however, this measure must first be included in the hearing docket in order to be considered for enactment by the Board.

Again, we thank you for your thoughtful consideration and discussion of how to address the FY 2012 operating budget deficit. We urge you to include revenue-generating measures in the hearing docket such as the aforementioned $1 parking fee increase for facilities with a weekday average of 100% occupancy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Action Committee for Transit
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689
Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation
Coalition for Smarter Growth
Greater Greater Washington
Montgomery County Sierra Club
Prince George's Advocates for Community-based Transit

DDOT held its first semi-annual DC Circulator public forum on March 17th, but there was no discussion at that time of ending service on the Southwest Waterfront route. However, the 10-year Circulator development plan recommends ending service on the route due to low performance. Boardings per hour decreased from 2009 to 2010 while cost per revenue hour increased.

Some in attendance challenged DDOT's data on this route. Desir&eeacute;e Urquhart, Director of Government & Community Relations for Arena Stage, said the regional theater was closed for 10 months during DDOT's study period from January-December 2010. She said the data do not reflect the increased ridership from the newly reopened Arena Stage, which is a major attraction for folks inside and outside the community.

Other residents said the data do not reflect higher ridership during Nationals games and suggested expanding service on the route to connect with the Union Station-Navy Yard route via M Street SW. Another resident wants the route to serve Howard University more directly.

In addition to projects near the ballpark, future development of the Southwest waterfront could turn the neighborhood into a major activity center. A main goal of the Circulator is to connect multi-use activity centers in the city. The plan does call for reinstating the route at some point in the future.

Critics included Alexander Padro from ANC2C, which includes parts of Shaw, Chinatown and the Mall. He called the end of the Waterfront route "shortsighted" and said his ANC would discuss a resolution to oppose cutting this service.

The plan would also add several new routes and raise the fare to $2 cash, $1.50 SmarTrip. While most of the comments at the meeting focused on keeping the Convention Center-Southwest Waterfront route, some in attendance had questions about other routes.

Trudy Reeves from ANC3C suggested running the Woodley Park-Tenleytown route on Wisconsin Avenue to complement Metrobus service on that corridor. A former ANC commissioner from Columbia Heights said the Adams Morgan-Woodley Park line should connect lower Ward 4 with upper Ward 1, including Washington Hospital Center and Howard University. An open house preceded the public comment portion of the meeting, but no comments during the latter part concerned fare hikes or any other proposed routes.

Riders can comment on DDOT's proposal until April 8th.

This article originally said the Convention Center-Waterfront Circulator had already been canceled. DDOT is proposing to suspend it but has not yet done so. The Mall route was the one canceled on April 1.

Which lines will get built will depend on many factors, but DDOT's transit head Scott Kubly said they are hoping to advance lines through Anacostia, over the 11th Street bridge and over to the Southwest Waterfront, and also to extend the H Street/Benning Road on both ends to Benning Road Metro in Ward 7 and K Street downtown.

Circulator. There's $12 million in Circulator funding. Kubly believes that's enough to extend the Union Station-Navy Yard line across the South Capitol Street bridge to Anacostia, Skyland and the Giant shopping center.

DDOT has already canceled the Mall route and plans to suspend the Convention Center-Waterfront one. It will also go ahead with plans to expand hours on Union Station-Navy Yard, reroute that line to pick up on Columbus Circle and take a more direct route along 2nd Street, add ADA features to the buses, and the other immediate steps in the plan.

Metro. There's a $6.2 million more for WMATA, which the budget document claims is a 4.7% increase. That just happens to be exactly the same percentage as the Maryland draft budget.

WMATA had asked for a $32.6 million increase to avoid any service cuts. Had the DC budget included a bigger increase than Maryland's, and given that Virginia counties are likely to offer more, it would put pressure on Maryland to do better. Instead, DC seems to be giving tacit agreement that 4.7% is what Metro will get.

Without more, Metro will be forced to increase rail headways and cut buses. While there may be a few bus cuts that make sense, this will surely go farther. We managed to avoid service cuts to transit for two tough years; it would be too bad to lose vital service that people of all incomes depend upon just as an economic recovery seems within reach.

However, I'm not sure this is actually a 4.7% increase. It seems that they only increased the local bus contribution by 4.7%, not the overall subsidy. A 4.7% increase across the board should be $11.6 million, not 6.2.

It's a little bit tricky to tell in this budget. Gray's budget staff have made a strong commitment to transparency in this budget, after being frustrated by some very opaque Fenty budgets. In transportation, however, two things are going on simultaneously that make it hard to follow.

First, they are moving a lot of money from one section to another, like transferring the WMATA subsidy into its own section, moving money between capital and operating, and more. Second, some budget areas are increasing and decreasing. As a result, there are large areas that go from zero to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and others that move in reverse. That makes it difficult to follow which functions within DDOT will end up with more budget and more staff, and which with less.

Capital Bikeshare. The budget calls for accepting advertising on Capital Bikeshare stations, for total revenue of about $500,000 a year.

The money will go into the general fund. That's helpful to close a big budget gap and avoid even deeper cuts to important social services. However, many had hoped the money could go toward expansion and making Capital Bikeshare self-sustaining.

There's an argument that advertising revenue from city programs that can earn some revenue should also help contribute to other functions that can't, like education, public safety or social programs. There's also a strong argument for creating programs which can run like businesses, earn their own money and spend it to grow themselves and also add value for residents.

Off-street parking tax. The tax on parking garage spaces would rise from 12% to 18%. Most of this will actually come from parking operators' profits rather than drivers, according to people familiar with the parking industry. That's because the overall demand for parking governs the rates right now, rather than the costs of the garages and operations.

Nevertheless, Barbara Lang, head of the DC Chamber of Commerce and author of the atrocious transition report about getting commuters in and out of DC, hates the plan. She said that "people that are going to be impacted are people like me who provide parking for their employees."

That sounds like an added benefit to this plan, not a drawback. Not only does DC raise some revenue but the organizations which are most distorting the transportation market get an incentive to stop. People who pay each day to park already are shelling out for parking. They know it's not free. They are making an economic choice between driving and other modes, and some have few alternatives.

But when Lang or another employer provides free parking but doesn't provide free SmartBenefits, the employee isn't choosing between the cost of Metro and the cost of driving. They're choosing between paying the cost of Metro themselves or having their employer pay for the parking. That's a huge incentive to drive even if transit is a great alternative.

In addition to raising the parking tax, DC should also finally get around to closing the free-parking loophole with the "Clean Air Compliance Fee," which would also charge a similar rate to employers who own their own garages and therefore don't pay a parking company for spaces. Barbara Lang hates that, idea, too. That could be another sign that it's another great public policy.

Other taxes. Another measure institutes "combined reporting," which ensures multi-state businesses pay a share of their taxes to DC instead of sheltering it in other states. This is a sensible measure and somewhat overdue.

Finally, the budget contains a tax increase on incomes over $200,000. I've endorsed a tax on high income earners before. Several councilmembers, including Kwame Brown and Jack Evans, and several candidates for the at-large seat have already come out against the budget on those grounds. It'd be interesting to see if they can find an alternative to the $35 million this will raise.

Already, this budget does hit the poor fairly hard, including cuts to affordable housing and homeless services. Some of this could end up costing DC more in the long run, like homeless people who might end up in emergency rooms far more often as a result.

In upcoming articles, we'll look at some other potential revenue sources and other elements of the budget.

This article originally said the Convention Center-Waterfront Circulator had already been canceled. DDOT is proposing to suspend it but has not yet done so.

Cronin worries that lost tax revenue to the city will exceed the amount WMATA will save if service is cut. "I want to see the numbers make sense," he said. He predicts his business will probably drop 20% on Fridays and Saturdays, and that a number of the city's establishments will go under. "The whole District will be damaged by it," he worries.

Cronin predicts such a dramatic loss because weekend parking in Adams Morgan is already at critical mass, and there will be no method of transportation to replace Metro. "It's a horrible parking situation," he laments, "We do a valet, but the valet fills up."

The Woodley Park station, about a half-mile away from one of the top club districts on the East Coast, is one of the most utilized Metro stations between midnight and 3 am. Cronin also expressed concerns over drunk drivers, and taxi shortages plaguing Adams Morgan come last call. "This is the capital of the free world, and to have a Metro that doesn't run past midnight is just embarrassing."

Just outside the District, the concerns about cutting Metro's late-night service are not tied to losing business. At Union Jack's in Ballston, operations manager Anthony Murphy actually believes business will increase if the changes take effect. (Full disclosure: I am a former bouncer at Union Jack's in Bethesda and Anthony Murphy is my brother.).

Union Jack's. Photo by the author.

Even with the potential for more business, there are concerns about the changes. Murphy worries about drunk driving. "If a bar can be held accountable for a drunk guy getting behind the wheel of a car, then the Metro should also be held accountable if they make this change."

Union Jack's will also likely close their kitchens earlier. "Many of our back-of-the-house employees depend on Metro to get home," Murphy said, "This change could create a lot of unemployment in the industry." Murphy's wife, Paige, also relies on Metro to get to her job as a bartender at the Chesapeake Room on Barracks Row near the Eastern Market Metro station.

The increase in business, it seems, is just not worth the added liabilities. "Metro should do a bake sale or a car wash or whatever they have to do to get the funds to not keep the Metro from shutting down earlier, but also maybe have it stay open later," said Murphy, calling the service cuts an "irresponsible move."

Indeed, bar owners throughout the city are weary. If the late-night service cuts happen, it could mean drastic changes in revenue, increased liability issues, and difficulty for employees getting to and from work.

In the meantime, Metro will continue to serve tens of thousands of customers during weekend late nights. And for hundreds of gussied up bar patrons, the late night parade across the Calvert Street Bridge will remain a staple of the Adams Morgan night life experience.