Metro Talks Finances, Seeks Input on Budget Shortfall

At a public forum last night in Northern Virginia, transit officials, representatives from local jurisdictions, and Metro riders discussed the value and needs of the area's major transit operator in the wake of the economic recession. Metro faces a projected budget shortfall of more than $100 million for operations in fiscal year 2011 in addition to capital improvements estimated to cost $11.4 billion over the next 10 years, according to the opening presentation by John Catoe, Metro's general manager. Officials responded to comments and questions from forum participants about how Metro can balance its budget.

Most commentators emphasized that service cuts would be detrimental, both to the region as a whole and to the lives of many users reliant on the transit system. Some commentators viewed fare increases as unwelcome but preferable to service cuts. Users of MetroAccess, a paratransit service operated by Metro for people with disabilities, were concerned that the level of service they receive now, higher than what is mandated by federal law, could be reduced.

Fairfax County supervisor Pat Herrity (Springfield) recommended consideration for contracting bus service and "giving these bus routes back to the jurisdictions," citing how his county contracts bus operators for the routes assumed from Metro in Reston and Centreville. "Competition is something that could lead to lower fares, increased service, and a better system," Herrity said, after noting that Fairfax Connector's contractors have saved the county money and improved service.

Metro's biggest expense category, "personnel" in the presentation's pie chart, led to discussions about Metro employee salary and the benefits packages. Catoe insisted that reports that some employees receive extraordinary compensation due to overtime are rare cases that should become rarer. Pensions, another large personnel expense, are in a sticky situation, according to Metro director Chris Zimmerman, who explained that Metro's obligations to fund pensions for employees was inherited from the bus operations the infant transit agency assumed 30 years ago, and for legal reasons can't be modified without arbitration.

A number of commentators and officials, including Herrity and Zimmerman voiced support for priority bus improvements -- road and route modifications that allow buses to bypass normal traffic -- which could reduce costs by allowing buses to move more people faster with fewer vehicles and less fuel. Catoe was recognized for his personal experience implementing dedicated bus lanes in Los Angeles, and he said busways that once existed in the D.C. area's past should be brought back.

Catoe's presentation detailed the value of Metro service to the greater community in terms of transportation, economics, and the environment before providing a background on the budget situation.

• Metro's biggest sources of funds are state and local contributions (39%), fare and parking (33%), and federal contributions (20%);
• Metro's biggest uses of funds are personnel (45%) and capital costs (i.e., new buses, trains, stations, etc., 35%); and
• average fare subsidies per passenger (i.e., estimated cost of a ride not covered by its fare) are $37.89 for MetroAccess, $2.46 for Metrobus, and $0.54 for Metrorail.

Also noted are some of the "cost drivers" of the budget gap (slide 16 or page 9):

• contractual union wage and benefit obligations,
• pension contributions,
• fuel and energy inflation,
• escalating claims costs,
• security,
• maintenance of an aging system, and
• decreased due to ridership decline.

[I actually had to leave at 9pm before the meeting wrapped up (to catch a bus, naturally). So if anyone at the meeting, especially anyone who stayed to the end, has anything to add, please comment.]

Photo credit: Metrobus by Jason Lawrence.