The Washington D.C. Metro transit system is in dire straits. Woefully in need of funding for maintenance and repairs, the system has been limping along, inconveniencing a city full of federal workers and contractors, who need the transport to and from work.

At what point, officials recently asked, should the federal government intervene — if at all?

Failing transit system

The D.C. Metro is a rapid transit system administered by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and serving the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Metro operates as a bus system, but mostly as a subway.

Two electrical mishaps in the last two years caused smoke incidents and led to multiple line disruptions, 84 hospitalizations and one death. This resulted in plans to address the system's need for maintenance. Metro has since been going through a period of repair that has been both inconvenient and infuriating to both commuters and tourists.

It didn't take long before riders, residents and more importantly government officials contemplated waving the white flag of surrender: Maybe Metro simply needs help.

Earlier this month, a Washington Post editorial suggested that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should step in to rescue the ailing transportation system. According to the Post, the reasons for intervention are obvious, especially when one takes into account that doing nothing would be allowing "Metro to wither ... ensuring the Washington metropolitan area's economic degeneration and imperiling the federal workforce."

This is an important aspect of the argument, according to 2016 figures quoted by WMATA, "35 Metrorail stations serve federal facilities and 42 percent of Metrorail's peak period commuters are federal employees." In many ways, for the federal government to properly operate, Metrorail has to as well.

The Post argues that "Metro's problems are not only about money, but without money they will not be addressed. It is now apparent that the funding needed to cover a projected operating deficit of $290 million next year, plus much more in capital needs in coming years, exceeds available resources."

Historical precedent

The federal government injecting itself would not be anything new. In the 1990s, the feds intervened to manage Washington, D.C.'s finances, which were in the middle of a budgetary meltdown at the time.

As of October 2015, and at the behest of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was directed to assume temporary and direct safety oversight of the Metrorail system.

According to the FTA, while the role is temporary, the responsibility for improving the safe operation of the DC Metro system, "including the performance of daily inspections and preventative maintenance, sits squarely on WMATA. The FTA WMATA Safety Oversight Team's role is to verify WMATA's progress on implementing safety-related Corrective Action Plans and remedial actions, and to ensure that WMATA is effectively carrying out its own critical maintenance, operations, and training programs."

Proponents of a fed takeover point to these two examples as precedents for how the federal government can bail out the financially floundering and unmaintained transit system.

Begrudgingly open

One major proponent of a takeover would be Jack Evans, the chairman of Washington Metro's board of directors. Calling for an oversight panel to run the system, Evans only sees the efforts of a small, powerful, federally chosen group working to pull Metro from its doldrums.

In such a fiercely politically partisan environment, one would expect there to be similarly-toned opposition, but opposition seems hesitant at best and exhaustingly annoyed at worst.

Sure, no one in Congress is normally willing to consider using taxpayer money to rescue the transit agency, but once one considers just how often D.C. Metro has found itself either strapped for cash or behind on maintenance, it can be easy to see how once hard-lined fiscal conservatives can softened to the idea.

According to a Washington Post article, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), for example, was noted as being "lukewarm" to the idea, saying he'd be open to the idea of a takeover "if we don't see continued progress." Similarly, Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan issued a comment through his spokesman who said, "As the governor has made extremely clear, making Metro as safe as possible and returning fiscal stability to the system have to be top priorities."

The biggest point of contention seems to be deciding where the funding will come from with representatives like Mica vehemently refusing to offer up taxpayer money. However, once that caveat is agreed upon (if it ever could be), many lawmakers seem open to the idea, if not begrudgingly so.

Still, there are some downsides to a federal takeover. According to the Greater Greater Washington blog, three issues stand out above others.

  • Would the feds be as responsive to public interest as local agencies would?
  • Are WMATA's issues its own, or the result of failing American transit infrastructure?
  • What would a federally-run Metro look like under a different administration?

The points raise good questions about whether a fed takeover while helpful to the transit system would be beneficial for the system's increasingly shrinking ridership.

This may be a case of "be careful for what you wish for," but with so many ongoing issues, maybe even Metro's long-suffering riders should take a cue from their lawmakers and keep an open mind if not begrudgingly so.