OPINION:
The only real debate concerning the financial state of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority is whether it is on the brink of a death spiral or is already dead. There is also broad agreement that WMATA is the hub of our local economy and has become too important to fail. Operated right, Metro can and should be a driver for growth that can easily and efficiently serve daily riders and the District’s millions of visitors.
Metro’s financing troubles are well known. Billion-dollar annual operating deficits are looming, billions in federal pandemic relief are ending, ridership has collapsed and local jurisdictions are buckling under the annual payments needed to keep the system afloat.
Even at pre-pandemic ridership numbers, 75% of WMATA’s annual deficit (currently $750 million) would remain. Metro has always relied on a growing base of government subsidies, but at every opportunity to add new lines, officials promised greater ridership and the hope of less government dependence. Sadly, these projections always overestimated future revenue and underestimated costs.
Whether it is the rarely used Yellow Line or the newly completed but nearly empty Silver Line, most of Metro’s sprawling system operates well below projections. The growth of remote work, declining and aging populations in the Washington area and a recently signed union contract that added over $400 million to Metro’s annual operating costs are hard to overcome. Unused capacity is difficult to unwind.
What now? Receivership as discussed in the Thomas Jefferson Institute’s “The Case for WMATA ‘Bankruptcy’” or a dedicated sales tax as proposed by many local officials. Oddly, the path to avoid bankruptcy and to build the case for a dedicated funding source both require the same first step.
To anyone who has lived in the area for any amount of time, the headlines describing Metro’s financial crisis sound familiar. But those headlines were in the early 1990s and were for the pending collapse of our nation’s capital, not Metro. The depth of the crisis is almost identical.
The District faced annual deficits of $500 million, it had underfunded its capital budgets for years and its infrastructure was collapsing as a result. It also had a bloated bureaucracy with hostile unions opposed to any reforms. Sound familiar? Things were so bad that Congress created a financial control board to oversee its operations. This board fortuitously appointed a little-known chief financial officer named Anthony Williams to oversee the District’s finances.
Mr. Williams served a mayor who had no authority to fire him. The Financial Control Board was the only entity that could remove him but was itself appointed, and thus impervious to the political pitfalls that would normally befall anyone making significant financial and personnel cuts.
Mr. Williams’ most significant achievement was the speed at which he balanced the city’s budget — a feat that had eluded his predecessors for years. He did this by implementing strict cost-cutting measures, streamlining government operations and prioritizing essential services. While these actions were not always popular (especially with voter-rich unions), they were necessary to restore financial order and rebuild trust in the District’s leadership.
Mr. Williams also recognized the importance of economic development in fostering long-term financial health. He aggressively pursued initiatives to attract businesses and investment to the city, revitalized neighborhoods and created job opportunities for residents. The result was a surge in economic activity, which generated increased tax revenue and contributed to the District’s fiscal recovery.
Another key element of Mr. Williams’ success was his focus on accountability. He implemented rigorous financial reporting systems and empowered oversight agencies to ensure public funds were used responsibly. This commitment to good governance instilled confidence in the District’s ability to manage its finances and led to the dissolution of the Financial Control Board.
Mr. Williams also laid the groundwork for continued progress in areas such as education, housing and public safety. His emphasis on data-driven decision-making and performance measurement created a culture of accountability that propelled Mr. Williams into two successful terms as mayor. His efforts have endured well beyond his departure from office, and he is considered by many to be one of the greatest mayors in our country’s history.
This is exactly who WMATA needs. To avoid bankruptcy and restore faith in Metro, WMATA needs a data-driven, results-oriented financial officer with unfettered powers, the ability to rewrite contracts and the ability to think outside the box to generate revenue. In fact, Mr. Williams echoed this thought in a letter this past February to local leaders, calling for an independent and empowered entity to take over Metro’s operations.
Dedicated funding sources such as a regional sales tax should be off the table until WMATA’s “death spiral” has stopped. Such funding would remove any downward pressure on costs and would lead to unrestrained tax increases that would lead to more people moving out of our region. WMATA has to maintain the discipline of having to request funding for its continued operations, and local jurisdictions should make clear that their checkbooks have limits — something Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin did well earlier this year.
Anthony Williams’ abilities are well known. He has a record of accomplishment that put Washington on sound financial footing, and he has recently spelled out a credible path to do the same for Metro.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority needs you, Mr. Williams. Let’s make Metro work.
• Frank R. Wolf was a member of Congress from 1981 to 2015. Derrick A. Max is president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.