Metro Board Adopts Budget
The Metro board today adopted a new budget today after General Manager John B. Catoe Jr. assured the board members that the spending plan was balanced. Catoe has spoken recently about the possibility of a fare increase as early as January, and that had left some people -- including me -- confused about whether the staff reductions and other money-saving measures imposed by the new GM had indeed balanced the budget.
"This budget does not require nor does it seek a fare increase in order to be balanced," Catoe told the board.
In response to a follow up question from board member Jim Graham, who represents the District, Catoe added: "My view is that as we look forward into the future, the earlier you have any fare increase -- should one be approved by the board -- would bring in revenues to offset possible deficits in the future."
"There's no proposal before you today to discuss, consider or vote on any fare increase."
Catoe has spoken before about his desire to establish a fare increase system tied to some logical and predictable standard, like the cost of living index. He promised there would be no fare increase in this calendar year, but he knows that Metro's expenses will eventually rise to the point where cost cutting won't suffice. When a fare increase does come, he doesn't want it to be a big jolt to riders.
Graham expressed his satisfaction with Catoe's reassurances on the new budget, which takes effect July 1. But also said: "The issue of a fare increase is a very sensitive issue for this board. We have resisted these increases now for several years. Any proposal for a fare increase would be a matter for great scrutiny by this board."
The last-minute question of the budget's true state might obscure the fact that Catoe came in and did something pretty remarkable. He arrived in the middle of the movie. The Metro staff, concerned about rising expenses and flattening revenues, had proposed a big, complicated round of fare increases late last year. After Catoe came in at the start of this year, he put those proposals on hold and told the board he wanted to first satisfy himself that expenses had been cut as much as they could be.
So with very little time, he did that, cutting 220 staff positions before coming back to the board with a $1.2 billion operating budget that maintained services and avoided a fare increase. Pretty good start for the new guy.
By |
June 28, 2007; 2:04 PM ET
Metro
Previous: More Forums Set on Virginia Transportation |
Next: Douglass Bridge and Other Advisories
Posted by: ah | June 28, 2007 3:59 PM
From Dr. Gridlock: I think Catoe wants to do one thing at a time. First, he looked at the transit authority's expenses. Next, he'll look at creating a more rational system to handle needed increases in revenues. He'd likely agree with you on the point about not waiting till Metro is in dire straits before raising fares. That's what he had in mind when he talked about the possibility of a fare increase early next year, when Metro would be half way through what he hopes will continue to be a balanced budget.
A small increase then might allow Metro to maintain service through the next budget year without forcing riders to take a big hit.
Posted by: Robert Thomson | June 28, 2007 4:38 PM
It seems pretty clear that the board hasn't bought into Catoe's notion of planning fare increases. Maybe they will in the future, but so far I've not seen signs of board support. Of course, I don't know if the signals in private are any more favorable.
I'd like to see a user fee on people who run in the stations, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: WW | June 28, 2007 4:38 PM
Whether there will be fare increases is not up to Catoe. It's up to the elected officials on the board (or who appoint the board) who decide how much tax money goes into Metro.
It is utterly absurd to even think about raising Metro fares when Maryland and Virginia can spend over a billion dollars each on road projects (the ICC, the Beltway widening) that will benefit a tiny number of people. The commuters of this area should insist that full funding for Metro (meaning good service and full funding of long-term maintenance) be provided before we even think of building new highways.
Posted by: Rider | June 28, 2007 10:59 PM
It's nice
Posted by: fish_hfd | June 29, 2007 11:17 PM
retfux lrwt hpsorfn phqml xwpkr tbeax fqegimd
Posted by: iulx eflctsibm | July 10, 2007 4:37 AM
agfbhn psni rjfkgmy ocnixksy hqnrt czxi wmytkcxjn http://www.znkx.zmtwgcp.com
Posted by: yjdwzp brwepmj | July 10, 2007 4:38 AM
agfbhn psni rjfkgmy ocnixksy hqnrt czxi wmytkcxjn http://www.znkx.zmtwgcp.com
Posted by: yjdwzp brwepmj | July 10, 2007 4:40 AM
agfbhn psni rjfkgmy ocnixksy hqnrt czxi wmytkcxjn http://www.znkx.zmtwgcp.com
Posted by: yjdwzp brwepmj | July 10, 2007 4:41 AM
qjgpuizxl mgtykw cjmwhvta ilxenwc msdwhrvi tsxqznhby orytgmbxa mhtqpd qrysefgcd
Posted by: pudw ouizdx | July 10, 2007 4:42 AM
qjgpuizxl mgtykw cjmwhvta ilxenwc msdwhrvi tsxqznhby orytgmbxa mhtqpd qrysefgcd
Posted by: pudw ouizdx | July 10, 2007 4:43 AM
qjgpuizxl mgtykw cjmwhvta ilxenwc msdwhrvi tsxqznhby orytgmbxa mhtqpd qrysefgcd
Posted by: pudw ouizdx | July 10, 2007 4:43 AM
pgibvfex ynkrvhutm dhtnplomi wiftu czikjhb vywzhexsc rqakjievy [URL=http://www.uflw.whizydap.com]dtuczbxgs hicv[/URL]
Posted by: fpvm okur | July 10, 2007 4:45 AM
pgibvfex ynkrvhutm dhtnplomi wiftu czikjhb vywzhexsc rqakjievy [URL=http://www.uflw.whizydap.com]dtuczbxgs hicv[/URL]
Posted by: fpvm okur | July 10, 2007 4:46 AM
fholagr bgoldc hoirduf qfvpurtm lqbma zfwonay afegjuci [URL]http://www.bohetw.azjl.com[/URL] pzhmirjye zqajb
Posted by: tqixfma ivtx | July 10, 2007 4:48 AM
pgibvfex ynkrvhutm dhtnplomi wiftu czikjhb vywzhexsc rqakjievy [URL=http://www.uflw.whizydap.com]dtuczbxgs hicv[/URL]
Posted by: fpvm okur | July 10, 2007 4:48 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Why no fare increase? It seems like Metro always waits until it's in dire straits to raise fares. If there are going to be more frequent, smaller adjustments, why not start now with an increase of 5c on the lowest fare, with proportionate increase on longer trips? I'd rather pay a bit more to ensure service quality doesn't get any worse.