Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you mean "no dedicated source of funding?" Fares are a dedicated source of funding.
Dedicated funding source is an ongoing or one-time revenue source that must, by statute, be contributed to a specific fund or purpose.
Fares are operating revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
And so are the MD/DC/VA municipal contributions provided every year.
Those are not dedicated sources of funding. Those are annual appropriations. Under normal circumstances, having a public transit authority subject to the whims of annual appropriations is a bad situation. In the case of WMATA, we have an authority that is subject to the budgetary and political ebb and flow of 4 participating appropriation processes.
Dedicated funding source is an ongoing or one-time revenue source that must, by statute, be contributed to a specific fund or purpose.
Fares are operating revenue.
Those are not dedicated sources of funding. Those are annual appropriations. Under normal circumstances, having a public transit authority subject to the whims of annual appropriations is a bad situation. In the case of WMATA, we have an authority that is subject to the budgetary and political ebb and flow of 4 participating appropriation processes.
A statutorily dedicated funding mechanism would be ideal. But, a regional agreement has been sufficient since Metro's inception. Regional appropriations, using a specific formula applicable to surrounding jurisdictions, are in fact a dedicated source of funding because the appropriations are part of a regional agreement with WMATA. An established percentage of funding is an established percent of funding. That sounds pretty dedicated to me! Of course it could be better, no doubt about it.
I would surmise that if DC Metro really wants a dedicated funding source, it should tap into DC's traffic camera program revenues. The City is awash in money, and yet Metro goes without a truly dedicated funding source? DC City should get serious about its relationship with WMATA and start throwing some of that traffic camera money right on over to Metro for a much-needed overhaul.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 11-10-2014 at 11:51 AM..
Reason: spelling
I have been to may countries and I have travel on may Metro trains around the world. Metro train are considered as mass mode of transportation, easy convenient and less costly, but it seems that Metro in DC is just opposite. It is very costly and furthermore there is two fare rates for same place/distance of charges (off peak and peak rates). Even consider metro of other US cities like New York, DC metro is expensive.
Yet another things, I could not understand that, despite of charging so high fare, there is lack of basic service like availability of public restroom at metro station. (Normally other part of the world they have those). What riders will do in case of any emergency(health problem)?
WMATA has a lower subsidy rate than most other subways. NYC's subway is ancient and built in a different cost era.
I would surmise that if DC Metro really wants a dedicated funding source, it should tap into DC's traffic camera program revenues. The City is awash in money, and yet Metro goes without a truly dedicated funding source? DC City should get serious about its relationship with WMATA and start throwing some of that traffic camera money right on over to Metro for a much-needed overhaul.
With just two days left before the end of the fiscal year, D.C. Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DeWitt warned that traffic-camera revenue is seriously below expectations, The Washington Post reported. The city estimated that red-light and speed cameras would bring in $93.7 million. But as of the end of August the total was just $26.1 million. That means, barring a massive outbreak of speeding and red-light running in September, there could be an approximately $70 million hole in the $6.3 billion budget.
By statute my ass. A regional agreement is sufficient. Regional appropriations are in fact a dedicated source of funding because the appropriations are part of a regional agreement with WMATA. Fares are a source of dedicated funding as well. Whether these amounts of funding vary from year to year is no different than any other business or entity, public or private, who adjusts prices to cover expenses, development etc. Taken together, these dedicated sources of funding factor into fare prices, facility development, etc. You're splitting hairs.
You're confusing defined terms with personal semantics.
When someone says 'dedicated source of revenue' anyone that has a passing knowledge of public policy - let alone specific knowledge about transportation policy or the volumes of literature/coverage about WMATA on this very issue - will know how it differs in concept and function from operating revenue and annual appropriations drawn from the general public revenues of the Compact Members.
What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that Medicare Part A trust fund revenues, Medicare Part B premium revenues/co-pays and CMS program management account funded by annual appropriations from general revenues are all the same type of funding mechanism.
The Compact only lays out a cost-sharing formula for operations subsidy and a cost-sharing split for capital improvements. Those funds must be annually appropriated by each funding partner from general funds, and because of that they are all a part of an annual negotiation of how much they are going to appropriate together. If Maryland, for example, decides one year that they aren't going to prioritize investments in WMATA for whatever reason, from budget constraints to competing budgetary interests, it can derail capital investments from all of the members of the compact.
You're confusing defined terms with personal semantics.
When someone says 'dedicated source of revenue' anyone that has a passing knowledge of public policy - let alone specific knowledge about transportation policy or the volumes of literature/coverage about WMATA on this very issue - will know how it differs in concept and function from operating revenue and annual appropriations drawn from the general public revenues of the Compact Members.
What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that Medicare Part A trust fund revenues, Medicare Part B premium revenues/co-pays and CMS program management account funded by annual appropriations from general revenues are all the same type of funding mechanism.
The Compact only lays out a cost-sharing formula for operations subsidy and a cost-sharing split for capital improvements. Those funds must be annually appropriated by each funding partner from general funds, and because of that they are all a part of an annual negotiation of how much they are going to appropriate together. If Maryland, for example, decides one year that they aren't going to prioritize investments in WMATA for whatever reason, from budget constraints to competing budgetary interests, it can derail capital investments from all of the members of the compact.
I agree with you...and I edited my post prior to you posting this. See above.
Metro can't even afford itself, so they have to charge the passengers as much as they can.
Yes, it seems like that but in the age of competition, if riders think train is cheaper, they will leave their cars behind and ride train otherwise it will keep running empty and in loss. Unless there is some incentive, promotion and benefits for riders to increase its numbers, rider will prefer their own private mode of transports (Cars), which give rise to another big and congested problem like parking.
DC needs to charge a congestion tax like London. basically you have to pay a daily fee to drive your car in the downtown core. People drive their cars because they don't pay the true cost of driving themselves. The true cost includes congested roadways, more pollution and parking difficulties. If these costs were charged to the driver and not borne by the people living in DC, then more people would make the calculation that the train is in fact cheaper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
