Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-11, has coaxed the U.S. House of Representatives into passing a bill that would funnel $1.5 billion into the Metro transit over the next 10 years as long as Virginia, Washington, D.C, and Maryland promise to match the money.
Unless there are critical elements to the legislation that Washington Post reporter Lena Sun is overlooking in her story today (a possibility not to be overlooked), Davis is not tying the subsidy to any new measures that would ensure performance or accountability.
“For years,” Sun explains, “Metro’s leaders have appealed to local governments to provide a steady, consistent flow of money so the transit system will not have to compete with other public needs, such as education.” A consistent flow of money. Sounds eminently reasonable, doesn’t it?
Here’s the question: How will Metro management and unions respond to the knowledge that they have a “consistent flow of money” for the next 10 years? Will the knowledge electrify them with a surge of creativity and innovation? Will management make the hard decisions? Will workers relax their demands for higher-than-market compensation and featherbedding work rules? Or will the entire organization slack off, perpetuating scandalously poor management of past decades, knowing that Metro is accountable to no one — not the marketplace, not even the politicians.
Congress may be crazy enough to pass this legislation, and President George W. Bush hasn’t shown any inclination to veto anything that entailed spending more money (except for stem cell research). But the deal is contingent upon the states contributing their share. That puts Virginia in a position to nix the deal if performance and accountability measures aren’t built into the package. Metro is a critical piece of Northern Virginia’s transportation infrastructure, but that’s all the more reason to insist that Metro get its act together.
Update: Examiner.com has an excellent editorial on this topic. Money quote: “Here’s a better idea: Stop subsidizing the waste and mismanagement inherent in an obsolete 1950s mass transportation concept, and force Metro to cut costs, become more efficient and undertake a crash course to learn how transit systems around the country are using competitive contracting to ease burdens on taxpayers while improving service to customers.”