Once again we are faced with severe budget issues at Metro and once again the first thing that is made public in terms of cost savings is service. Years ago it was fare increases that were the masked man standing in the shadows of Metro's scary movie. Has there been talk about cutting some of the cushy staff positions that pay more than one of Donald Trump's minions? Is there any talk of revisiting some of the contracts that allow or even guarantee enough overtime to allow bus drivers and rail operators to earn a nice six-figure salary? Yes, there are more than 800 staffing positions on the chopping block but there is no assurance that any of them will actually happen. Instead, the public is giving a litany of cuts in service that are certain to impact most riders.
Cutting weekend service back from its recently-added 3 a.m. might not get too much of uproar but cutting weekday service at 10 p.m. certainly would and that's the point... getting the attention of the paying, riding public and focusing them on the issue. That way the board can magically come up with some other "ideas" that don't involve service cuts on weeknights when late night workers or restaurant goers or whatever might need Metro. Does Washington's transit system really want to be known as one that closes its doors at ten o'clock? What would that say about Washington as a "fun" place to visit? It would make it sound more like Des Moines.
The problem, in large part, is that Metro is not set up to make money. It doesn't matter how many passengers it can convince to ride its buses and its trains. That was proven on January 20 of this year when the system provided service to more people than it was intended to and still wasn't able to turn a profit for the day. That means that excellence is not the answer to budget problems. Instead the answer is to eliminate that which is already there or, in the words of the system's General Manager, to convince the local jurisdictions to give Metro more money.
I would like to see some calculation from Metro as to what it would take in terms of fares for the system to run at or near a profit. Yes, there are those who will say that there are few if any transit systems in the world that operate at breakeven or at a profit. Why is that? Has somebody figured out the monetary or social value of the reduction in vehicle miles traveled because of their local transit system? Do those calculations factor in some value (in a monetary sense) to the reduction in emissions?
+++++++++
I took a bit of time but Ray Lahood, the new U.S. Secretary of Transportation, has started to enter things onto the blog that his predecessor started. I am sure that the idea of random thinking and a direct connect to plain old folks is probably foreign to long-term bureaucrats but I think that it's a good idea. Even if a staffer ends up doing most of the heavy lifting that is writing (and take if from me, writing can work up a sweat when it's not done right) the communication and insight is a valuable way for the citizens who use the rails and buses and roads and highways to learn why things are done the way they are. The opening line of Mr. Lahood's February 4 post is: "Today I announced the creation of a new team at DOT to coordinate the Department's role in President Obama's economic recovery program." Yikes. I think I'll go watch the traffic signals change along Clarendon Boulevard, it might be more riveting. Mr. Lahood needs to add a little zip to his presentation and realize that his audience is different from some collection of agency sycophants at Le'Enfant Plaza. He should hire a local joke writer or find someone who can add a little zip to the blog.
Steve Eldridge is a long-time reporter,
observer and commentator on the Washington region's transportation
issues. You can contact him directly by writing to: Steve@SprawlandCrawl.com.
Unless otherwise requested, letters or portions of letters can be used
within future columns. Letter writers will be identified by their first
name and city/neighborhood.
> Has somebody figured out the monetary or social value OF mobility?
typo.
Also, for the sake of fairness, drastically increased gas taxes may be substituted for tolls in my above question.
It should go without saying, of course, that the current gas tax only funds a fraction of the current highway budget, which is itself only a fraction of the costs associated with highways.
Posted by: BeyondDC | February 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM
I would like to see some calculation from FHA as to what it would take in terms of tolls for all highways and roads to run at or near a profit.
Yes, there are those who will say that there are few if any transportation systems in the world that operate at breakeven or at a profit. Why is that? Has somebody figured out the monetary or social value mobility?
Do those calculations factor in some value (in a monetary sense) for environmental costs?
Posted by: BeyondDC | February 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM