DC needs to exhibit regional quality leadership on transit issues: and right now, maybe it isn't

Today's Post reports that hearings on bus service cuts are in the making. See "Proposed Metrobus Cuts To Get Public Hearings." From the article:

The service cuts, proposed by the jurisdictions served by Metro, would affect 42 Metrobus lines across the region, with the largest impact in Prince George's County. Fairfax County did not recommend any service cuts. Ten lines would be eliminated, including five in Prince George's. Another 12 lines would have some routes or segments eliminated. Two lines -- J7/J9 and W19 -- would charge $3 express fares instead of the current $1.35 fare. And 14 lines could undergo wider gaps between bus arrival times. ...

The board voted 4 to 2 in favor of giving riders a chance to comment on a fare hike vs. service cuts. Virginia and Maryland members, who supported the idea, said riders had told them that they would rather pay higher fares than lose service.

"I'd rather give customers an opportunity to respond to options rather than lose those bus routes," said Elizabeth Hewlett, who represents Maryland. A 5-cent fare increase would generate $15 million to $17 million.

Most transit systems across the country face major budget deficits due to falling tax receipts on the part of state and local governments. Various types of taxes: sales; property; income; gasoline excise; fund transit systems, and all of these sources are drying up. Not to mention increased costs for energy and the costs relating to rising demand.

While no one likes the idea of increases in the cost of transit fares, it can be worth considering, especially if it comes at the cost of massive service cuts. The deficit that WMATA needs to make up--either by increases in fares or cuts in service--at this point is pretty paltry, $29 million.

Is it worth keeping fares the same at the cost of service cuts that disproportionately impact bus riders, and will make it difficult for many people to use transit? See "With No B37, Bay Ridge Gets Too Big" from the New York Times about similar questions being asked in New York City--and New York City faces multi-billion dollar funding deficits. The Washington region's transit funding problems barely register in comparison.

But WMATA isn't considering even a small increase in fares, because the DC representatives on the WMATA Board adamantly oppose fare increases. The way procedures work for how the Board of Directors conducts business, each jurisdiction must have at least one "yes" vote (there are representatives on the WMATA board from three jurisdictions: DC; Maryland; and Virginia) to consider fare increases.

While fare increases are never desired, sound public policy means that they should be considered, when the alternative is significant cuts in service, even if those cuts in service will mostly impact suburban riders, rather than Washington residents.

For good background on bus service more generally, see this Washington Post article from 2005, "Progress Has Passed Metrobus By: Outdated System Is Plagued by Unreliable Schedules, Inefficient Routes" and this editorial, "Missing the Bus."

While it is true that there is always the potential for improvement in scheduling and routing, improvements in scheduling and routing should be real improvements, rather than reductions in service that disproportionately impact those in need.

The sad thing about this is that from a historical standpoint, it is a familiar posture. Generally, when transit systems were privately owned, fares were regulated by the Public Service Commission of the relevant jurisdiction. (In DC, it is the same PSC that today reviews matters concerning public utilities--telephone, natural gas, and electricity.) Generally, these boards worked to keep fares low, often below the amount required to maintain the system and provide a fair rate of profit. This led many transit systems to become grossly unprofitable and led to such systems being taken over by local, regional, and state governments and/or public authorities.