Q Transit in the Nation's

Department of

Caoital: Wiiat Lies Aliead?

Transportation ■

A Study of Projected Transit Service, Cost, and Financial Impacts on the Region Through the Year 2000

February 1986

UMTA Technical Assistance Program

Transit in the Nation's Capital: What Lies Ahead?

A Study of Projected Transit Service, Costs, and Financial Impacts on the Region Through the Year 2000

Final Report February 1986

Prepared by

Federal City Council

11 55 1 5th Street N W, Suite 81 7

Washington, D.C. 20005

Prepared for

Urban Mass Transportation Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Distributed in Cooperation with

Technology Sharing Progrann

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

DOT- 1-87-20

FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL OFFICERS

W. Reid Thompson, Chairman Chairman of the Board & CEO Potomac Electric Power Company

Harry McPherson, President

Verner, Liipfert, Bernard, McPherson & Hand

Donald E. Smiley, Vice President Vice President - Washington Office Exxon Corporation

Edwin K. Hoffman, Vice President - Project Planning Chairman of the Board Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.

Austin H. Kiplinger, Vice President - Membership-Finance President

The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc.

G. Duane Vieth, Vice President - Budget Partner

Arnold & Porter

Daniel J. Callahan, III, Vice President - Trust Fund Chairman of the Board & CEO American Security Bank, N.A.

Carl W. Ruppert, Secretary Managing Partner Price Waterhouse

Joseph H. Riley, Treasurer Former Chairman NS&T Bank

Roger A. Clark, General Counsel Partner

Rogers & Wells

PREFACE

As Chairmen of the Metro Finance Task Force and its Technical Advisory Committee, we would like to thank the members of our committees for the extraordinary commitment they made to our study of Washington area transit finance. This effort began more than nine months ago, and in the ensuing weeks and months, members of our committees have given literally thousands of hours of their time to the task of reviewing documents, attending meetings, and sharing their insights and judgments with the Federal City Council staff and our consultants.

We also would like to thank those who appeared before our committees: representatives of the Federal government, the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia, local government officials, and numerous staff members from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Their presentations were uniformly excellent and they have contributed greatly to our efforts.

Finally, we would like to single out our consultants for particular praise. Each of them — Jeff Bruggeman, Bob Peskin, Ray Ellis, and Bruce Williams from Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. ; Phil Dearborn from the Greater Washington Research Center; and George Wickstrom, Ron Sarros, and John McClain from the Council of Governments — worked tirelessly to ensure that our final product is worthy of broad-based support.

When we began this study last May, we committed ourselves to producing an honest, hard headed, realistic set of numbers regarding our region's future transit costs. We believe that we have accomplished our mission and we have done so by involving all the affected parties in the process and by reaching concensus at every major milestone. We feel confident that this study will enable the region's decision makers and the public at large to make better informed judgments about the future of mass transit in the Washington Metropolitan area.

Mac Asbill, Jr. Chairman

Metro Finance Task Force

Shiva K. Pant Chairman

Technical -Advisory Committee

* ** ***

METRO FINANCE TASK FORCE Mac Asbill, Jr., Chairman

Stephen Ailes Mac Asbill, Jr. G. Dewey Arnold Carol D. Barrett Alan S. Boyd Frederick J. Clarke Roger A. Clark Edwin I. Colodny Philip Dearborn James W. Dyke, Jr. Williams H. Edwards, Jr. Nonie England Norman Farquhar Michele V. Hagans Donald J. Heim Judith Richards Hope

Chairman Vice Chairman Co-chairman

* * *

* * *

* * *

***

Gladys W. Mack William E. Miller John G. Milliken Robert L. Nelson Mandell J Whayne S.

Thomas Thomas Walter Donald Ralph L. Robert F David A. Robert B

Ourisman Quin, Esquire Quigley Schaef er Scheiber Smith Stanley Tardio Wagner Washington, Jr,

J. Hillman Zahn

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL'S METRO FINANCE TASK FORCE

Chairman: Shiva K. Pant

District of Columbia:

Sherri Alston

D.C. Dept. of Public Works

Barbara Davis Office of the Budget

State of Maryland:

Larry Sab en

Maryland Dept. of Trans.

Alexander Eckmann Maryland DOT

State of Virginia:

Sally Cooper

Va. Dept. of Highways & Trans

James W. Atwell

Va. Dept. of Highways & Trans,

Montgomery County, Md. :

Edward Daniel

Montgomery County Department of Transportation

William H. Treworgy

Office of Management & Budget

Prince George's County, Md. ;

Dee Allison

Prince George's County Dept. of Public Works & Trans.

Robert O. Duncan Prince George • s County Office of Budget

Fairfauc County, Va. :

Shiva Pant

Fairfax County Dept. of Trans.

Dr. James P. McDonald Management and Budget

Arlington County, Va:

Mark Kellogg

Public Works Planning

City Of Alexandria, Va. :

Clifford Rusch Deputy City Manager

City of Fairfax, Va.:

Richard R. Fruehauf Trans, and Utilities

City of Falls Church, Va. :

Henry Bibber

Planning & Development

Northern Virginia

Transportation Comm. :

Rick Taube Northern Virginia Trans. Commission

Washington Suburban Transit Commission:

Joanne Price

Transportation Planning Board (COG) : Al Grant

Trans. Planning Board

Greater Washington Board of Trade:

Carol Barrett Community Development Bureau

William G. Fry Dewberry and Davis

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

Harry Barley

UMTA Liaison:

Sam Zimmerman Director

Office of Methods & Support

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ' I.l

II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE WASHINGTON AREA II. 1

III. OPERATING STATISTICS III.l

INTRODUCTION III.l

METROBUS STATISTICS III. 2

Analysis Approach III. 2

Near-Term Changes III. 2

Stark-Harris System Changes III. 3

Full System Changes III. 5

LOCAL BUS SERVICE III. 8

METRORAIL SERVICE III. 9

IV. RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE IV. 1

AREA SYSTEM IV. 1

DATA BASE IV. 2

NETWORK DEVELOPMENT IV. 4

WORK TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING IV. 6

NON-WORK MODELING IV. 8

VERIFICATION OF MODELING APPROACH IV. 10

PROJECTED RIDERSHIP IV. 10

FARE REVENUE ESTIMATION IV. 18

V. OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS V.l

INTRODUCTION V.l

BASIC COST MODEL STRUCTURE V.2

Union Labor Costs V.2 Front Line Supervisory Non-Union

Labor Costs V.3

Administrative Non-Union Labor Costs V.3

Parts, Supplies, and Service Costs V.3

DRIVING VARIABLES V.4

Bus Driving Variables V.4

Rail Driving Variables V.4

INFLATION CONSIDERATIONS V.5 ANALYSIS OF PRIOR WMATA OPERATING COST

EXPERIENCE V.6 CALIBRATION OF METROBUS AND METRORAIL

COST MODELS V.7 Separation of Fixed, Mileage- and Hour- Related Costs V.8 Adjustments to FY86 Calibration V.9 APPLICATION OF WMATA METROBUS AND METRORAIL

COST MODELS V.9

LOCAL BUS OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS V.13

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

VI. RAIL CONSTRUCTION VI . 1

VII. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COST PROJECTIONS VII. 1

METHODOLOGY VI I . 1

INPUT ASSET VALUES V11.3 METROBU& FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 3 Metrobus Facilities and Equipment, except Buses and New Maintenance

Facilities VII. 4 Bus Rehabilitation and Replacement

Costs VII. 4 New Metrobus Maintenance Facilities

Costs VII. 4

Results VII. 6 METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND

REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 6

Metrorail Facilities, except Track VII. 6

Track Replacment Costs VII. 6 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND

REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 13

Metrorail Equipment, except Rail Cars VII. 13 Rail Car Rehabilitation and

Replacement Costs VII. 13

SUMMARY VII. 19

LIMITATIONS VII . 19

VIII. ALLOCATION OF WMATA SUPPORT VIII. 1

OPERATING SUPPORT VIII. 1

ANNUAL ESTIMATES VI I I. 4

DEBT SERVICE VIII. 10

REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VIII. 10

FEDERAL SUPPORT VIII. 10

STATE SUPPORT VIII. 11

SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS VIII. 12

IX. MEASURING THE WMATA BURDEN: 1980-1985 IX. 1

X. CHANGE IN SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS REVENUES AND

EXPENDITURES: 1986 - 2000 X.l

REVENUES X.l

EXPENDITURES X.4 BASIS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL

PROJECTIONS X.6

XI. THE EFFECTS OF FUTURE WMATA FINANCING ON AREA GOVERNMENTS

XI. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE APPENDICES: -

A. PROPOSED METRO BUS CHANGES BY ROUTE A.l

NEAR-TERM CHANGES - VIENNA CORRIDOR A.l STARK-HARRIS SYSTEM CHANGES - BRANCH AVENUE

CORRIDOR A. 3 STARK-HARRIS SYSTEM CHANGES - GREENBELT

CORRIDOR A. 3

FULL SYSTEM CHANGES - BRANCH AVENUE CORRIDOR A. 4

FULL SYSTEM CHANGES - GREENBELT CORRIDOR A. 5

B. PATRONAGE FORECASTING MODEL B.l

C. PATRONAGE RESULTS BY JURISDICTION AND CORRIDOR C.l

D. DETAILED OPERATING COST MODEL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS D.l

COST MODEL STRUCTURE AND RESULTS D.l

INFLATION ANALYSIS D.22

HISTORICAL WMATA COST DATA D.2 3

Allocation of Bus Costs D.23

Analysis of Cost per VehiclQ-Mile D.28 Analysis of Historical Metrorail

Maintenance Staffing Levels D.28

ADJUSTMENTS TO FY86 MODEL CALIBRATION D.35 Termination of Old Programs and

Initiation of New Programs D.35 Changes in Labor Productivity and

Unit Cost D.36

E. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT INPUTS AND DETAILED

RESULTS E . 1

METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT E.l METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND

REPLACEMENT E.9 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND

REPLACEMENT E.21

TRACK REPLACEMENT E.43

RAIL CAR REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT E.49

F. RAIL ALLOCATION PARAMETERS F.l

G. JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATIONS G.l

H. IMPACT OF WMATA SUPPORT ON LOCAL JURISDICTIONS H.l

I. HISTORICAL WMATA ASSISTANCE AND ABILITY TO PAY

MEASURES I . 1

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT PAGE

11. 1 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY DECADE II. 2

11. 2 COMPARISON OF 1990 FORECASTS II. 3

111.1 WMATA BUS OPERATING STATISTICS III. 7

111. 2 METRORAIL OPERATING STATISTICS III. 10

IV. 1 AREA SYSTEM IV. 3

IV. 2 TRIP VERIFICATION IV. 11

IV. 3 TRIP TYPE SUMMARY IV. 12

IV. 4 WMATA TRIP TYPES IV. 13

IV. 5 MARKET AREAS IV. 15

IV. 6 WORK TRIPS BY MAJOR MARKET IV. 16

IV. 7 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS BY MARKET IV. 17

IV. 8 WORK MODE SPLIT IV. 19

IV. 9 RAIL LOADING INDICATORS IV. 20

IV. 10 METRORAIL REVENUES IV. 22

IV. 11 ALLOCATED METROBUS REVENUES IV. 24

V.l PROJECTED METROBUS AND METRORAIL OPERATING COST

MODEL INPUTS V.IO V.2 PROJECTED METROBUS AND METRORAIL OPERATING COST

MODEL RESULTS V.ll

V.3 WMATA SERVICE LEVELS V.12

V.4 WMATA EMPLOYEES V.14

V.5 WMATA OPERATING EXPENSES V.15

VI. 1 RAIL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS VI . 3

VI. 2 ALLOCATED RAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS VI . 4

VII. 1 METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT

ASSET CLASSES VII. 5

VII. 2 BUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT VII. 7

VII. 3 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES VII. 8

VII. 4 RAIL STRUCTURE REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII. 9

VII. 5 TRACK REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII. 12

VII. 6 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES VII. 14

VII. 7 RAIL EQUIPMENT REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII . 15 VII. 8 WMATA RAIL CAR REHABILITATION COSTS BY

COMPONENT VII. 16

VII. 9 RAIL CAR REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII. 18

VII. 10 REHAB AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 20

VII. 11 WMATA REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 21

LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)

EXHIBIT

PAGE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII. 8 VIII. 9 VIII. 10 VIII. 11 VIII. 12 VIII. 13 VIII. 14 VIII. 15

METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE METROBUS OPERATING ASSISTANCE TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE WMATA COST RECOVERY RATIOS COVERAGE OF WMATA COSTS REGIONAL TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION DISTRICT ALLOCATION MONTGOMERY ALLOCATION PRINCE GEORGES ALLOCATION FAIRFAX ALLOCATION ARLINGTON ALLOCATION ALEXANDRIA ALLOCATION

VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII. 8 VIII. 9 VIII. 13 VIII. 14 VIII. 15 VIII. 16 VIII. 17 VIII. 18 VIII. 19 VIII. 20

IX. 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE

PAYMENTS - ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS: 1980 - 1985 IX. 2

IX. 2 CHANGE IN TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENTS - ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS:

1980 - 1985 IX. 4

IX. 3 WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY: 1980 - 1985 IX. 5

IX. 4 WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY: 1980 - 1985 IX. 6

X.l CHANGES IN REVENUES IN CONSTANT 1986 DOLLARS - SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS:. 1986 - 2000

X.2 INCREASES IN EXPENDITURES IN CONSTANT 1986

DOLLARS - SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS: 1986 - 2000

X.2 X.5

XI. 1 TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING

EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES XI. 3

XI. 2 NET TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO

WMATA AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES XI . 4

XI. 3 NET OPERATING ASSISTANCE, DEBT SERVICE, AND REHAB & REPLACEMENT COSTS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES — . XI . 6

LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)

EXHIBIT PAGE APPENDICES ;

B.l IMPEDANCE WEIGHTING B.2

B.2 TRAVEL TIME/FARE TRADEOFFS B.3

B. 3 NON-WORK FACTORS B.5

C. l WORK PERSON TRIPS C.2 C.2 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS C.3 C.3 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK PERSON TRIPS C.4 C.4 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK TRANSIT TRIPS C.5 C.5 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK MODE SPLIT C.6 C.6 MODEL RESULTS BY JURISDICTION OF PRODUCTION C.7 C.7 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS C.8 C.8 CORRIDORS C.IO C.9 TRAVEL TIME CHANGES TO FARRAGUT SQUARE C.12 C.IO TRAVEL TIME CHANGES TO L' ENFANT PLAZA C.13 C.ll FARE CHANGES TO FARRAGUT SQUARE C.14 C.12 FARE CHANGES TO L' ENFANT PLAZA C.15 C.13 GROWTH IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP C.17

C. 14 NETWORK EFFECT ON CHANGE IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP C.18

D. l ANNUAL WMATA OPERATING COSTS D.2 D.2 DETAILED 1986 OPERATING COSTS D.6 D.3 DETAILED 2000 OPERATING COSTS D.14 D.4 BUS COST ALLOCATION (CURRENT YEAR $) D.24 D.5 BUS COST ALLOCATION (1986 $) D.2 5 D.6 RAIL COST ALLOCATION (CURRENT YEAR $) D.26 D.7 RAIL COST ALLOCATION (1986 $) D.27 D.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROVIDED D.29 D.9 BUS OPERATING COST/PLATFORM MILE (CURRENT YEAR $) D.3 0 D.IO BUS OPERATING COST/ PLATFORM MILE (1986$) D.31 D.ll RAIL OPERATING COST/CAR-MILE (CURRENT YEAR $) D.32 D.12 RAIL OPERATING COST/ CAR-MILE (1986 $) D.33

D. 13 ANALYSIS OF WMATA MAINTENANCE STAFFING RATIOS D.34

E. l METROBUS REHAB AND REPLACEMENT E.2 E.2 METRORAIL FACILITIES REHAB AND REPLACEMENT E.IO E.3 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHAB AND REPLACEMENT E.22 E.4 TRACKWORK CALCULATIONS E.44

E. 5 RAIL CAR REPLACEMENT - STRAIGHT-LINE E.50

F. l RAIL ALLOCATION STATISTICS F.2

LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)

EXHIBIT

G.l ANNUAL SUPPORT AND ALLOCATION INPUTS

G.2 WMATA COST ALLOCATION INPUTS

G.3 FACTORS FOR JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATIONS

G.4 TOTAL ALLOCATED WMATA SUPPORT

G.5 ALLOCATION PARAMETERS FOR VIRGINIA SUPPORT

G.6 ALLOCATION OF STATE SUPPORT

G. 7 ALLOCATION OF NET WMATA SUPPORT

H. l IMPACT OF WMATA SUPPORT ON LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

I. l METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME (RESIDENCE) : 1980 - 1983

1.2 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EARNINGS (PLACE OF WORK) : 1980 - 1983

1.3 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PROPERTY VALUES: 1980 - 1985

1.4 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 1980 - 1985

1.5 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME (RESIDENCE) : 1980 - 1983

1.6 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EARNINGS (PLACE OF WORK) : 1980 - 1983

1.7 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PROPERTY VALUES: 1980 - 1985

1.8 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER

STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 1980 - 1985

I . INTRODUCTION

The principal goal of the Federal City Council's study of transit finance in the Washington metropolitan area is to achieve a regional consensus regarding what the region's total transit costs and revenues are likely to be through the year 2000. In addition, the study looks at how well prepared the juris- dictions will be to assume their respective shares of the operating deficits and capital costs. The Federal City Council brings to this study impartiality and objectivity and broad familiarity with transit issues in the Washington area.

Currently, there is no single set of projections of future tran- sit costs upon which decision makers at all levels of government — local, state, and Federal — can agree. The need for a commonly agreed upon, objective set of numbers is compelling, especially in light of proposed cutbacks in Federal transit assistance.

The Council believes that its study is particularly timely inasmuch as portions of the Metrorail system have now been in operation for 10 years and there is a wealth of real data against which to judge projections of future costs and revenues.

The study is being conducted under the auspices of the Council's Metro Finance Task Force, which is chaired by Mac Asbill, Jr., a partner in the law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan. The Task Force is the policy setting body for the study and is made up of 25 members of the Federal City Council and four public sector officials: Gladys Mack, a member of the WMATA Board and its Chairaan during 1985; John Milliken, a member of the Arlington County Board and a former WMATA Board Chairman; David Wagner, Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation; and Ralph Stanley, Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) .

The Task Force, using funds provided by UMTA, retained three consultants to undertake the detailed technical analyses. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. was responsible for the transportation, revenue, and cost analyses; the Greater Washington Research Center undertook the financial projections; and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments provided data and logistical support .

The Task Force's efforts have been supported by the work of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) , which is composed of transportation analysts and finance officers from every local jurisdiction and the States of Maryland and Virginia. The TAC, which is chaired by Fairfax County Transportation Director Shiva K. Pant, advises the Task Force with respect to technical issues and makes recommendations to the Task Force.

Since the transit finance study began last May, the members of both the Task Force and the Technical Advisory Committee have held more than 20 meetings and have given literally thousands of hours of their time to this effort on a strictly voluntary basis.

-I.l-

II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE WASHINGTON AREA

Travel behavior and transit patronage are influenced by a number of factors including population and employment growth, the level of transit service available, and automobile ownership.

With respect to population growth, the 1990 population forecasts used in the 1974 Net Income Analysis (NIA) were significantly higher than the 1990 forecasts used in the current study. The current 199 0 forecasts, which are based upon the Round III Update, project a population of approximately 900,000 in the core jurisdictions (D.C., Arlington, and Alexandria) and slightly more than two million in the inner suburbs (Montgomery, Prince George's, Fairfax, Fairfax City, Falls Church). The current 1990 population estimate of slightly more than three million is nearly 20% less than the 1990 estimate that was used in the 1974 NIA.

Regarding employment growth, there is dramatic projected increases in the Washington region but most of the employment growth is occurring beyond the Beltway, in areas that are not well served by public transit. As shown in Exhibit 2.1, only modest employment increases are projected within rings 0-3, the so-called 10-mile square comprising the District, Arlington, and Alexandria. Growth continues strong in rings 4 and 5, which are just inside and outside the Beltway, respectively, although at a slightly slower rate than during the past decade. The most dramatic growths are predicted for rings 6-8, the outer-most portions of the region.

Furthermore, the distribution of employment growth differs significantly from that projected for the 1974 NIA, as shown in Exhibit 2.2. For example, officials of the District of Columbia now are projecting a 1990 employment base of 692,000 jobs, which is 22% fewer than the 887,000 jobs projected in the 1974 NIA. Rings 4 and 5, on the other hand, are projected to have 84,000 and 89,000 more jobs, respectively, than were projected in 1974. Thus, in comparison to the 1974 estimates, the current study anticipates that nearly 175,000 jobs that were expected to be created in the region's core, in all likelihood will be located in areas that are not well served by transit.

The location of both population and employment growth is of critical importance to transit because there is a significantly higher propensity to use transit in the region's core areas than in the outlying areas. For instance, in 1980 more than 40% of the work trips to downtown Washington were made via public transit, while fewer than 10% of work trips in the suburbs were made on public transit. Nearly 9 of every 10 transit work trips in the Washington area have destinations in either the District or Arlington, and 95% of transit work trips have destinations inside the Capital Beltway. Thus, the location of future employment growth is one of the key factors affecting transit patronage; transit captures a significant percentage of work trips destined for the core but has been somewhat limited in its

-II. 1-

EXHIBIT II. 1

EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY DECADE

ISO 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1972 - 1980

Rings 0,1

Rings 2,3

Rings 4,5

Rings 6—8

IZZl 72-80

80-90

V77X 90-00

-II. 2-

EXHIBIT II. 2

200

COMPARISON OF 1990 FORECASTS

(1985 FCC minus 1974 NIA)

150 -

100 -

50 -

M ■D C

o 0)

3

o

r. 1-

■50

-100 -

-150 -

-200

Rings 0 — 3 Rings 4-5 Rings 6—8

1/ /\ Households |\ \j Employment

-II. 3-

ability to capture a large percentage of work trips in the less densely populated areas beyond the Beltway.

Another factor influencing travel behavior and transit use is automobile ownership. In the last 10 years, there has been a significant decline in the number of households in the Washington area in which there is no automobile. The significant increase in overall auto ownership coupled with the decline in zero-car households are additional factors that explain why current estimates of future transit ridership are substantially lower than forecasts made during the 1970 's.

Apart from lower population and employment growth in areas that are well served by transit, the share of trips made by transit is also less than in previous estimates. Earlier projections that showed a higher mode split reflected a significantly greater amount of Metrobus service than is likely to be available in the future. The level of line-haul and feeder bus service assumed in previous studies was 50% higher than is presently forecast. The 1974 NIA projected more than 70 million vehicle miles of Metrobus service upon the rail system's completion, while the present study projects 46 million vehicle miles of service. Regarding Metrorail, earlier estimates of rail running times were understated when compared with actual experience, resulting in "crediting" transit with 10% faster travel times than are actually occurring. Thus, the lower level of bus service and the slightly longer running time for rail service are important factors in explaining the current projections of future transit ridership.

As the foregoing makes clear, previous estimates of future transit patronage were based upon a number of assumptions about the way in which the Washington area would evolve that have not proven to be correct. As one assesses travel behavior in the region, it is important to understand the degree to which this behavior is being shaped and will be shaped in the future by the underlying demographic and employment shifts that are occurring.

-II. 4-

III. OPERATING STATISTICS

INTRODUCTION

Transit operating statistics are the key to analyzing the finances of transit systems in the Washington area. The operating statistics directly measure the quantity of transit service provided and thus determine operating costs. The operating statistics also are used to determine fleet size and utilization which, in turn, determine the capital requirements for purchasing and rehabilitating the transit fleet.

Three sets of transit operating statistics were developed for this study: Metrorail, Metrobus, and local bus. For all three sets, the most important statistics for analyzing cost are vehicle miles and vehicle hours of service. Fleet size is required for capital cost estimation purposes. Operating statistics are developed on a daily basis from schedules of transit service and then expanded to an annual basis for financial analysis.

Operating statistics were computed for several key years that correspond to major milestones in the evolution of the Metrorail system. These points are:

o current (summer of 1985) conditions;

o near term (1987/1988) conditions;

o post Stark-Harris (199 3) conditions; and

o full system (2000) conditions.

The near term conditions include the full impact of opening the Vienna extension of the Orange Line and some other fairly minor adjustments to transit service levels. The post Stark-Harris conditions represent operations after completing 89.5 miles of the rail system while the full system conditions reflect the full 103-mile Metrorail system.

The operating statistics summarized in this report were prepared by Peat Marwick based upon inputs received from WMATA and the staffs of the local jurisdictions. The bus statistics adjustments were computed on a route-by-route basis and reflect the approximate effect of changes in route structure due to to Metrorail extensions and other factors. Data for the Vienna corridor were taken directly from a detailed analysis done by V7MATA staff. Impacts for the other system changes were calculated by Peat Marwick and were based on a somewhat less detailed route analysis.

1

-III.l-

METROBUS STATISTICS

Analysis Approach

The bus operating statistics were computed by first assembling weekday, Saturday, and Sunday operating statistics by route groupings from materials developed by WMATA. These statistics, which include miles and hours of services by jurisdiction of allocation and operating division (garage) , were summarized on a LOTUS 1-2-3 microcomputer spreadsheet for further analysis.

Changes in bus service concepts were obtained from the staffs of the local jurisdictions. These were converted into approximate changes in miles and hours of service by Peat Marwick, using current schedules and available maps. Preliminary near-term service changes for the Vienna corridor had already been computed by WMATA staff and were used directly in the analysis.

Near-term statistics were computed for daily and weekend services. Longer term changes in response to Metrorail extensions were computed only for weekday service. Annualization factors by operating division were computed from the current and near-term service patterns, were assumed to hold for the future, and were applied to the Stark-Harris and full system weekday estimates.

In making these calculations, the changes were made to the revenue service components of each route and applied to the daily statistics. Thus, the non-revenue portions were held constant which seems a reasonable assumption since most of the service areas were not changed significantly. For routes that were more extensively modified, the relationship between revenue and total statistics from the 1985 schedules were applied to the revised revenue service estimates.

Near-Term Changes

Major near-term changes include the shift of major portions of Huntington service from Metrobus to Fairfax County operation in September 1985 and service changes associated with the opening of the Orange Line to Vienna in 1986. Other changes noted by the staffs of the local jurisdictions were very minor.

Huntincfton

The Huntington changes were anticipated in the July 1985 Metrobus operating plans with route realignments and statistics computed so that entire route groups would switch from Metrobus to Fairfax County bus operation. Services to the Pentagon and beyond still are operated by Metrobus since most are shared routes between Fairfax County and Alexandria.

-III. 2-

Vienna

Proposed changes in Vienna service with the extension of the Orange line have been prepared by WMATA staff for use in preliminary discussions with the affected communities, prior to formal public hearings. The major changes are summarized below; a more detailed analysis is included in Appendix A:

o Outlying express routes to Ballston via Arlington Blvd. and 1-66 would be converted to feeders to the Vienna, Dunn Loring, and West Falls Church Metrorail stations. Additional feeder routes would be added particularly in the Oakton/Vienna area and to serve employment centers in the Arlington Blvd. /Beltway area.

o Reston services would be terminated at West Falls Church. Additional service changes and extensions would be made in the Reston/Franklin Farms area.

o Tysons express to downtown Washington and route 66X express service from West Falls parking lot to Rosslyn would be discontinued.

o New express service would be added from Centerville.

o Various route modifications would be made throughout the corridor to serve Metrorail stations and provide replacements for revised express services.

Other Near-Term Changes

Other service changes were identified by the staffs of the local jurisdictions. Some have been implemented recently while others represent likely near-term actions:

o L8: Connecticut Avenue service. Reduction in peak service.

o N9 : Montgomery Mall express. Reduction in peak service.

o A12: Landover area. Extension along Landover Road beyond the Beltway to serve new development.

o Cll: Clinton express. Extension southward to serve Clinton area plus additional runs from September schedule.

o T19: Bowie area. Deletion of service to Crofton.

Addition of service from new park and ride lot near US50 and MD197.

Stark-Harris System Changes

Changes in Metrobus services to reflect extensions of rail service to Wheaton, Anacostia, Van Dorn, and Greenbelt were

-III. 3-

discussed with the staffs of the local jurisdictions. The following changes v;ere identified, most of v;hich are consistent with the assumptions being used by MWCOG in its development of a 1990 transit network for regional modeling.

Wheaton

Wheaton service changes were discussed with staff of Montgom.ery County DOT and include the following:

o Y5,7,9: Georgia Avenue. Terminate at Wheaton station.

o Q4 : Viers Mill. Terminate at Wheaton station.

o Z: Columbia Pike services. Add express service in peak from Br iggs-Chaney Road to Silver Spring. This service is independent of the Wheaton opening and would probably be in place by 1088 or r*oO.

Van Porn

Discussions with Alexandria and P'airfax staff indicated that major bus service changes would not likely be required for Van Dorn. Therefore, the only service change is the additional service from the Hayf ield area to the station included in the MWCOG network.

Anacost ia

Anacostia service changes were disc-ussed with District of Columbia and Prince George's County staffs. Ihe changes are summarized below; more detail is provided in Appendix A:

o Most Anacostia services in the District v.-est of

Pennsylvania Avenue would bo terminated at the Anacostia station. Limited service would be provided between the Anacostia station and downtown to provide local service. Crosstown routes would be bi-oken at the Anacostia stat i on .

o Prince George's services in the Indian Head corridor and Clinton express service would be turned back at Anacostia station .

o Additional service would be added to serve the proposed development along the F'otomac River south of the Beltway .

Greenbelt

Greenbelt service changes were discussed with Prince George's staff in detail and discussed briefly with District of Columbia and Montgomery County staff. The changes are summarized below; more detail is provided in Appendix A:

-III . 4-

o Most seirvices in the Chillum and Hyattsville areas would be rerouted to the Prince George's Plaza or West Hyattsville stations rather than Red Lihe stations in Northeast D.C.

o Greenbelt and Laurel services would be rerouted to Greenbelt station.

o Additional service added from Laurel area to Greenbelt station.

Full System Changes

Metrobus service will change with the completion of the full Metrorail system (extension of the Red Line from Wheaton to Glenmont; extension of the Yellow Line from Van Dorn to Franconia; extension of the Green Line from Anacostia to Branch Avenue; and completion of the Green Line from U Street to Ft. Totten) . The following Metrobus service changes were assumed to be made in connection with these rail service changes:

Glenmont

Glenmont service changes were discussed with staff of Montgomery County DOT and include the following:

o Y5,7,9: Georgia Avenue. Terminate at Glenmont station.

o Z: Columbia Pike services. Additional express service during peak hours from Briggs-Chaney Road to Silver Spring. This service is independent of the Glenmont opening and would probably be in place by the mid 1990 's.

Franconia

No plans for service changes for the Franconia station have been developed by Fairfax County. It was felt that users of current Shirley express services would oppose terminating these routes at the Franconia station because this change would result in a longer and more expensive trip to the Pentagon and beyond. Therefore, the only service changes are two additional feeder routes:

o West Springfield service from Rolling Valley Mall to

Franconia station, tying in with various 18 routes along Old Keene Mill Road.

o Local service from Lorton via Alban Road and Loisdale Drive, tying in with Lorton and Saratoga services.

Branch Avenue

Branch Avenue service changes within the District of Columbia were outlined by D.C. and WMATA staff. Service changes in Prince George's County were discussed with County staff. Incremental

i -III.5-

li

changes beyond those included for the Anacostia opening are summarized below and are described in more detail in Appendix A:

o Most Anacostia routes in the District would be revised or extended to serve the Congress Heights, Southern Avenue, or Naylor Road stations.

o Indian Head/South Capitol Street regular services from Prince George ' s County would be rerouted to the Southern Avenue station. Oxon Hill express services would remain at the Anacostia station.

o Marlow Heights and Hillcrest Heights services would be rerouted to the Suitland station rather than Potomac Avenue .

o Clinton express would be rerouted to theBranch Avenue station. Camp Springs and Suitland Road services would be extended to the Branch Avenue station.

o New express service assumed from Andrews AFB to the Branch Avenue station.

Columbia Heights (Green Line North)

Bus revisions with the opening of the Green Line to the Columbia Heights and Georgia Avenue stations were outlined by District of Columbia and WMATA staff. These are summarized as below and described in more detail in Appendix A:

o 14th Street services would be revised to serve the

Columbia Heights station. Through service to the Navy Yard would be discontinued.

o Petworth services would be cut back at the Georgia Avenue station and Petworth express would be eliminated.

o Georgia Avenue, 11th Street, and New Hampshire Avenue services would be revised to serve the Georgia Avenue station. Service south of the station would be reduced.

o Various crosstown routes and special services would be revised to serve the Columbia Heights station.

A summary of the bus statistics for 1985, near-term operations, Stark-Harris system, and full system are shown in Exhibit III.l.

-III. 6-

EXHIBIT III.l WMATA BUS OPERATING STATISTICS

(annual values in thousands)

	1985 Nominal	Near	-Term	Stark-	-Harris	Full	System
Jurisdiction		Mi 1	Hours	Miles	Hours	Miles	Hours	Miles
District	2123	20723	2127	20751	2083	20370	2024	19595
Montgomery	449	6749	446	6699	443	6669	448	6740
Pr Georges	432	6428	438	6540	426	6472	420	6454
Arlington	205	2695	211	2764	211	2764	211	2764
Alexandria	155	2196	151	2131	151	2131	151	2131
Fairfax Co	479	9349	417	7887	418	7900	434	8103
Falls Church	13	168	12	151	12	151	12	151
Fairfax City	7	119	5	80	5	80	5	80
NVTC	1	25	1	25	0	0	0	0
Total	3864	48452	3808	47028	3749	46537	3705	46018

-III. 7-

LOCAL BUS SERVICE

Montgomery County and the City of Alexandria operate local bus systems and Fairfax County recently began operating a system in the Huntington area. Each of these jurisdictions v;as contacted about anticipated changes in their local bus system's operation. In addition, the staffs of Arlington County, Prince George's County, and the Di <='trict of Columbia were asked about local bus servi'"':" for thei.. jurisdictions. None of these jurisdictions indjf '^.ecific plans for local bus services, but all

owledged that the issue is a significant one, given the i ) ■ /. ch of local bus services in the other jurisdictions and its impact on the allocation of remaining Metrobus costs.

Montgomery County has extensively expanded Ride-On service over the last few years but foresees only minor changes in the overall level of service in the next few years. Some service adjustments will be made, but within the current overall level of fleet availability and operating statistics. Some minor expansion is ' ' ted following the opening of the Wheaton and Glenmont ions, primarily to provide new service to the northeast. Increasing the fleet growth of about 10 vehicles with the associated increases in miles and hours is expected to provide tor the expanded service in this area and elsewhere in the County .

Alexandria is also fairly well set with its system. Most of the other bus routes in the City are jointly allocated with either Fairfax or Arlington counties and do not lend themselves to ;;ubstitu*- irn by City service. A new route will be developed in the Cameron Valley area by 1990, however, and will be extended to servo the Van Dorn station when the Yellow Line extension is opened. No firm plans exist for other major service modifications, although some service adjustments within existing resources will likely continue to be made to tailor service to demand patterns.

Fairfax County service in the Huntington area began late in September. No additional major changes to this service are anticipated, although minor route refinement will continue as ridership patterns in the corridor evolve. The County is considering expanding its local bus service to the Vienna and Springfield areas, but no commitment to these chaiiges has been made. In addition, the County is studying the potential for converting some Metrobus service to contract carrier service in areas such ar Reston. Areas being considered for this type of service i, ve a somewhat different service, equipment, and cost pattern tt-.an more localized rail feeder services in the Huntington and Vienna areas.

-Ill . 8-

METRORAIL SERVICE

WMATA provided a set of rail operating assumptions and then computed rail operating statistics for each planned extension of Metrorail service. Among the key assumptions used to generate these statistics are the following:

o The construction schedule as included in ICCA-IV.

o Hours of operation:

o Weekday: 18 o Saturday: 16 o Sunday: 14

o Frequency of service from terminals;

o Peak: 6 minutes, all lines

o Off-peak: 8 minutes. Red Line, single service

12 minutes, all other lines

o Train consists:

o Weekday: 4-, 6-, and 8-cars until December,

1993; 6- and 8-cars thereafter, o Weekend: 4-cars.

These statistics were based on previous WMATA assumptions concerning future ridership which turned out to be somewhat higher than that produced by the present study. Therefore, Peat Marwick revised the assumed train consists to provide more balanced supply and demand at the peak load points. These adjustments eliminated the need for 8-car trains and retained a mix of 4 -car and 6-car trains throughout the projection period, with most service provided by 6-car trains by the completion of the full system. The final operating statistics for Metrorail service are summarized in Exhibit III. 2.

-III. 9-

¥.■/.}{ ILZZ I I : . 2

y.i.-i i".i-Ai I. ''.l Et-.AT IN J CTAT I I :s

IV. RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE

Patronage and revenue forecasts for the study of transit finances in the Washington area were developed using data developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and a microcomputer based analysis system developed by Peat Marwick. The patronage forecasts were developed using data from the 1980 census. Then techniques were used to project 1985 ridership which was compared with WMATA's 1985 survey results. The techniques were then used to project transit ridership for 1993 and 2 000, years that represent major milestones in the development of the Metrorail system.

AREA SYSTEM

Analysis of travel patterns requires establishment of an area system to summarize travel data and project transit shares. The geographic coverage of the analysis corresponds to MWCOG 's modeling area, which consists of the District of Columbia, Arlington County, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Falls Church, Fairfax City, Prince William County, Loudoun County, and most of Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The extreme northern part of Montgomery County and the extreme southern part of Prince George's County are excluded, based on analysis decisions made for the 1968 home interview survey, the last comprehensive travel survey performed in the metropolitan area.

MWCOG has broken up the metropolitan area into a series of small traffic zones (about 1400 in number) and has aggregated the zones into 182 districts (including outer Montgomery and Prince George's counties). The zonal level provides a superior level of detail but requires far too large a data base and very significant computer resources. Therefore, the study was designed to work with district level data.

Several shortcomings in the district area system were noted for transit forecasting. The district boundaries did not adequately separate travel by rail corridor, particularly in the eastern portion of the District and northern Prince George's County. Also, the district area system did not honor the political boundaries of Falls Church and Fairfax City and did not reflect the emerging suburban employment centers. Also, the district system included detail in Loudoun and Prince William counties that was not needed for transit demand forecasting.

As a result, a revised area system was developed at about the same "grain" as the MWCOG district system but with some boundary adjustments to better reflect transit service areas. A total of 174 districts were identified, the adjustments honoring MWCOG zonal boundaries. District-level travel data were collected from MWCOG, as noted below, and zonal-level socio-economic data were used to adjust the district boundaries to the area system used in the analysis.

were prepared to assist in verifying the 1985 model results. MWCOG has also geo-coded the home-end of the rail survey trip records and an additional data summary was made with information aggregated for the 174 districts.

Data on on trips made entirely on Metrobus and on trips made on the local and private bus systems are not available in as convenient a form as the information obtained from the rail survey. Data from the 1980 census refers to all transit travel and does not indicate transit mode, nor does it provide information on non-work travel. Thus, the modeling and verification activities were hampered by this lack of consistent information .

NETWORK DEVELOPMENT

The representation of transit service in the region required the development of transit networks for the years 1980, 1985, 1993, and 2000 that reflect the status of the Metrorail system as well as major Metrobus, local bus, private bus, and commuter rail services. The transit network modeling was undertaken using a microcomputer network analysis package developed by Peat Marwick that performs the same essential functions as the UMTA-supported UTPS package on a mainframe computer.

For the modeling activity, the transit networks were coded to the 174 districts used in the analysis. The Metrorail system was represented with rail station locations and station-to-station travel times and headways obtained from WMATA. The bus system was abstracted somewhat since a full level of detail was not required for an analysis at the 174 district level. Most Metrobus routes were represented, although some minor subroutes were combined and some purely local service routes were not included. Similarly, many local and private services were reflected, but in some cases a single representative route from among several serving a particular district was included. This level of abstraction was particularly used in southern Montgomery County where the Ride-On route density is higher than the geographic "grain" of the area system.

Current Metrobus and local services were coded from existing schedules to obtain route headways and travel times between major time checks. All services were coded for the A.M. peak condition, since work trip modeling in "production-attraction" format was used, as described in Section 4. Headways were generally rounded to an even number of buses per hour and generally reflected an average over the 7-9 A.M. period.

Future Metrobus and local bus service orientation and headways were taken from the inputs received from the local agencies as noted above. Travel times were generally not changed from the current, except for routing changes to serve rail stations and a time savings for a few express services with the extension of the Shirley HOV lanes. A limited amount of additional information for 1980 conditions was obtained from old schedules at WMATA.

-IV. 4-

These data were particularly useful for identifying service patterns in the Shady Grove and Huntington corridors, the areas most affected by Metrorail openings since 1980.

Traditional network analysis includes two alternative transit paths, one for those users who board transit directly from their homes and the other for those who use an automobile to reach a Metrooail station, commuter rail station, or satellite parking lot. In this approach, travel times are computed for both transit paths, transit mode split is determined by a composite impedance, and route assignments are made to both paths and aggregated.

Using this approach, the model's initial results overestimated Metrorail ridership. Observation of traveler behavior indicated that the overestimation was due, in part, to the fact that the transit path selection, using ^conventional transit modeling techniques, was based on minimum time. In the Washington network, however, transit fare policies lead to significantly different fares for some interchanges between bus and rail. Since excellent bus service is still provided in many parts of the region, even areas with Metrorail service, it is likely that many users prefer to make their trips entirely on Metrobus, which may be slower but costs less than a combined bus-rail trip.

The overestimation of rail ridership was dealt with by developing a third transit path for all-bus travel. This path was determined simply by deleting the rail service and finding the minimum time path from the remaining bus services.

The transit networks were also used in developing the fare inputs to the mode split estimation process. Transit fares in the Washington area are dependent upon mode, time of day, trip origin and destination, and sometimes service class and other special features. The network analysis process was adapted to produce a "trail" indicating the transit modes and routes used on all three paths so that the appropriate fare could be computed. Among the outputs produced are the rail boarding and alighting station for computing Metrorail fares, fare "flags" for usage of surcharged services such as the Reston system, and "flags" for usage of private bus services and commuter rail. Treatment of Ride-On, DASH, CUE, and Fairfax Connector services was accomplished largely outside the network process since the services are more geographically isolated.

The current transit fare structure was assumed to remain unchanged over the next 15 years. A 1980 fare table was developed from the tariff in effect at that time for use in the "pivot" to create 1985 mode split estimates. The most significant change in fare policy since 1980 was the introduction of a "taper and cap" on rail fares in 1984.

Additional specialized usage of the network analysis package was employed in the allocation of bus revenues to jurisdiction. This

-IV. 5-

application involved "flagging" certain routes with special allocation codes, in order to to identify which interchanges were associated with the particular routes so that revenues could be allocated appropriately.

WORK TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING

The approach to work travel demand modeling used in the study was based on the application of a "pivot point" technique developed for MWCOG. The pivot technique is used to estimate the change in mode split from a base line value due to changes in transit service measures. The technique is based upon a mode split formulation called a "logit model". A simplified logit formulation was specified for MWCOG for use in pivot applications and was adapted for this study.

This model calculates the projected share of travel on an interchange that would be made by transit, termed transit "modal split", as a function of the base mode split and changes in transit travel times and fares, termed "impedances". The "pivot" technique and the associated coefficients used in the study are shown in Appendix B.

In applying the model, the base mode splits were taken directly from the 1980 census work trip data, simply by dividing the transit trip estimates by the person trip estimates for the 174 by 58 interchanges used in the analysis. Changes in impedances were determined from the results of the network analysis. Fare changes were converted to 1968 dollars using a simple CPI deflator of .3228.

The application of the pivot technique is complicated by the fact that transit travel times and fares are considerably different for users who walk to local services as compared to those who arrive at major transit facilities by automobile, as noted above. However, the 1980 base mode split information from the census is only for total transit travel, completely undifferentiated by mode of access, bus vs rail, Metrobus vs local bus, WMATA vs private services, or any other categorization.

In order to deal with the mode of access issues, a weighting procedure was used to combine the impedances. This weighting was accomplished by computing the change in impedance on two paths, weighted by the assumed mode of access percentages estimated from rail survey data. The weighting function is further complicated by changes in the mode of access percentages likely to occur with introduction of new or superior transit services. The weighting procedure adopted is summarized in Appendix B.

The weighting procedure also treated the third transit paths for travelers who did not use the rail system. It was assumed that the trade-off between time and cost would occur primarily for those users who were able to access the transit system at their place of residence and thus was only applied to the "walk access" paths. An exception was made for those users with direct access

-IV. 6-

to Metrorail for a trip which required a bus transfer at the destination end to complete the trip. The time-cost trade-off for making such a trip entirely by bus was included in the analysis.

For the mode split estimates in the pivot technique, a "best" path was identified from the "walk access" and "all-bus" impedances. The "best" path was determined by computing the weighted impedance using the model coefficients and the network values for in-vehicle time, out-of -vehicle time, and fare.

The pivot technique was applied to estimate a revised mode split.

The revised mode split was then multiplied by the future work

person trip tables to obtain a total transit trip table.

Total transit trips were split between the "walk

access" and "auto access" paths using the same mode of access

percentages used in the calculation of the weighted impedance.

An additional allocation was required between the "walk access" and "all-bus" networks. For purposes of this analysis, allocations were made only for those trips where a time-cost trade-off existed; that is, trips where the "walk access" path was quicker but more costly than the "all-bus" path. For interchanges where the "all-bus" path was quicker, it would have been the minimum time path and no rail would have appeared on the interchange. For interchanges where the "all-bus" path was both slower and more expensive, all trips were assumed to be made on the "walk access" path. For any situations where the impedances were equal, the trips were split 50%-50% to both paths.

A simple function was developed for the trade-off interchanges using the impedances and the coefficients. The function is shown in Appendix B together with some typical time-cost trade-off values.

Initial model results somewhat overestimated work trips and underestimated non-work trips. One likely explanation is the significant decrease in automobile operating costs between 1980 and 1985. Since a pivot model was being used in the analysis rather than a complete mode split model, no direct mechanism existed for adjusting highway costs. Therefore, a simplifying approach was taken where highway distance was multiplied by an inflation-adjusted cost per mile for out-of-pocket auto operating costs and the resulting cost difference applied using the cost coefficient in the pivot model. A similar adjustment, in the opposite direction, was applied for the forecasts based on the differential fuel inflation rates assumed in the transit operating cost model.

One additional shortcoming in the modeling approach was caused by the limitations of the MWCOG modeling area which excludes upper Montgomery County and lower Prince George's County as well as the outer counties where some exurban commuters reside. Data from the Metrorail survey included trip making by these commuters. This information was used as a surcharge to the modeling results.

-IV. 7-

The results of the analysis using this technique were extremely poor, particularly for non-home based rail trips. The technique applies a ratio of approximately 2 0% to the work mode split. Even in the core area with a high mode split, this would result in only a 10 - 15% mode split for non-home based transit trips. More importantly, in the core area very few non-home based trips are made by private automobile, thus the derived trip market is very small. In reality, of course, many non-home based rail trips in the core are made for business purposes where the modal trade-off is between Metrorail and taxi or Metrorail and long walks rather than between transit and private automobile; the factoring "model" is unable to address this condition.

Therefore, an alternative approach was taken, based upon the rail survey. Non-home based trips using rail stations in the core area and other major activity centers such as Bethesda, Silver Spring, and the Medical Center where most activity is within easy walking distance of Metrorail were extracted from the survey. Trips on the remaining interchanges were calculated using the factoring model. Projections of the growth in the activity center trips were made based upon employment trends at both ends.

With the opening of the Green line, other areas such as the Waterfront and Navy Yard will probably begin to exhibit a similar non-home based rail travel pattern. Therefore, additional rail trips were added for these areas. The number and distribution of trips from these areas were based on patterns for similar areas with existing rail service.

The results of this procedure were still low for both home-based and non-home based rail trips when compared with the survey. An examination of the results showed that that home-based trips were being estimated reasonably well in the District but were significantly underestimated in the suburbs, with the greatest underestimation for Montgomery and Fairfax counties. In all likelihood, this result can be traced back to the structure of the model, which contains relationships based on 1968 bus ridership. With the advent of Metrorail, home-based non-work travel for shopping and other activities, particularly for travel to the core area, becomes viable. However, since auto ownership levels are high in the suburbs, the implied mode split is only 17 - 18% of the work mode split. Coupled with the relatively small size of this market, the result is very few transit trips.

No fully satisfactory adjustment process similar to the discrete non-home based adjustments appeared viable. Therefore, a simple adjustment factor was applied to the modeled non-work trips. The factor varied by jurisdiction with 1.5 being applied in Arlington, Alexandria, and Prince Georges County, 2.5 in Fairfax County, and 3.0 in Montgomery County. The factors were assumed to remain constant in future years and were applied to a larger travel market as rail seirvice was extended into more suburban areas .

-IV. 9-

Ti _ tjased rail trips outside the r.ajor activity centers

were also underost iinated by the factoring process. The o- ' ' lation for this effect is probably in part sir.ilar to that f jine--bascd non~v/ork trips. In addition, the rail syster. also

aliov/5 for additiona] "r. ide trips", possibly on the v.-'vy to or from v;ork, that are virtually ir.j30ssible by bus. 'Jnlike the home-based non-work trips, the non-ho~e based trips appeared to bo low throughout the region, including the District, lending further support to the stop-over explanation. Since the net shortfall was ap{-)r'_)>: i na te 1 y "^O'k , the model estimates were simply doubled and added to the major activity center estim^ates described above. This doubling factor was also assum.ed to be maintained into the future and to be applied to the additional rail markets as the systei.i expands.

V CATION OF MODELING A

The model rer.ults 'wore examined in detail tor 1'"'"^ against available d.ita. The err r, i r i sor.s w.-re s;rev.-l:at lifficult since much lor;:-, i n f o r"ma t i r,i-i v.m:; a-.Milalle I r Lus ti'avol than for rail tr.ivel. Tlius, th-' v. ■ r- i ! r ■ i : n wis r- ru i r. i to 1- o rather late i: the an.) l.ys i r. pr: u , a t t • • r tri;.-. hi i I >■'■:-. .-.lie -ate J Ic-tween hus and r.iil sub-;:,i. !• . i'- • -am-.r' t!iis, th" vt- r . 1 i .m t i i n had to inclU'.le ttio nr'tw.u"k .ma lysis \r. i assignm-nt prccr-r^n as well as the basic mode s.f.d i t or.t i r.a tt-s nor"m.illy u-.-.eJ in m.idel validation vor i f i (.-at i on ct i ort s .

Checks on the m')iolin<) .i[;p;u"uach tor tr'ipi'S .^ro sumriarized in

Kxhibit I V . 1' . A.---^ sdK'Wn, the ra i 1 - r"f"^ 1 a t ed trip totals agree quit* closely w i 1 1) thr' fail r.urv.'y. ?Uis-or-;ly t r i [. s are som.ewhat hiqhe; than e:;timatj-i 1 rom t hu' limited li.ita av.iilaile. The proportion of bus-rail trips is also somewfiat hivjher than rail orily trips. 13oth eftects can br. dut^, i ;i [lar't, to be sub-a 1 1 o.Mt i c n of bus trir>s betv;een V.'y.A! A and U^cil • j-v i (-o-, , f i rt r -u 1 a r 1 y in Montgomery e'r-uiity .\n \ Ai-xirviria, wh.^ro t 'Xt --T.;- i '.'o cverlariing exir.ts LiotwrM:'ri r'v i ( •( •;; . Also, t!.'' i^ietw. r'k n t cor.tain

cert.iin priv.iti- s< ■ rv i 'S ,ini p 1 > ^y- r-su: : lici s. • r".' i v". -s . This latt'-r etlt'./t night I <■> r st r. igni t i-vint w 1 1 h. r-;;ri to Feieral go vo run. Ml t shu 1 1 1 • ■ S( • t'.- .is . n ! y .i r- a ;h . i ; ; r x ; r' 1 1 i n of

this el loot could ).• ;i.-;ui.-i : r. ,i:-.i:ys;s.

Additional chi'.To-. 'W.'ro t io t.ivo r^.-'.'- : . a • s ..ir.i sta.tisti^-s for

use in the a 1 1 o. m t i - >!-.s .ml are d.-s.or i la_:' i lelow. As r.o^eJ i :-. thes* latter- seotioiv.-, .id i U'->t n.uit s- wero made to the i"esoalts tor .illocatiion nuipor.':; t v:« rotioot h.iS'.' yoar con.liti ;.s while preserving the i n r. uit s an i cIiisk'S in rilership iro eoted Ly the miTdol s,ysto:", .

PROJECTED RIDERSHIP

A summary of j>r"oiectod r i.J'U\'diip t ro:n tlie model results : r. shrwn. in Exhibits 1 \' . .md T'.'.-;. As ^;h.own, r.i : 1 riiersh.ip ir.oro'.ses subs.tant i a 1 1 y while ov^'TmII Metrol '-us ri i'^rsh, ip decreases ir. ridersliip exc 1 u s- i \'e 1 y . ui n.or, -V.'."-'. AT. s.er\':oos remains a ver-y small but gT'owmg part ot over, ill regional trar.s^lt travel. The

- I\' . 10-

EXHIBIT IV. 2 TRIP VERIFICATION

WMATA DATA

o 382,000 Daily Metrorail Trips from 1985 Rail Survey

o 120,000 (approx) Metrobus-Metrorail

o 436,000 Daily Metrobus Total

o 316,000 Net Metrobus-Only Trips

o 698,000 Total WMATA Trips

MODEL RESULTS - 1985

o 694,000 Total WMATA from MWCOG Modeling Area

o 11,000 Total WMATA from Beyond MWCOG Modeling Area

O 705,000 Total WMATA Trips

o 390,000 Total Metrorail-Related

o 315,000 Total Metrobus-Only (Including Metrobus/Non-WMATA)

-IV. 11-

EXHIBIT IV . 3 TRIP TYPE ST yj-'. A R Y

!•■' >!-'/■. J J, 'j'. i J

EXHIBIT IV. 4

WMATA TRIP TYPES

1993

2000

Rail Only

Bus— Rail

O Bus Only

-IV. 13-

ridorship increases are made up of network effects, prir.arily increases in the rail system, and demographic trends in the region .

The forecast results are also significantly affected by the size of the various major travel markets and the ability of transit to servo these markets. A series of exhibits have been prepared to illustrate the impact of changes in major work trip m.arkets. Exhibit IV. 5 illustrates three market areas defined as follows:

o core: District of Colur.bia and Arlington downtown areas

o urban: lO-miile square plus .Silver Spring, Bethesda, Alexandria, I'alls Church, Bailey's Crossroads

o suburban: ror:t of region

Work person trips for major markets are shown in Appendix B. The major travel markets have been summ<^rir:ed as follows:

o all work trips from the core

o urban to core

o urijan to urij.jn pluf", uri'in to sui-urban

o suljurb.m to cijr*"-

o suburb I in t" u r 1. iri

o r.ubu ti . 1 n t (J : i;l ri 1 n

The results are r.hown < i fa{ h. i i/a 1 1 y in kxhibit I'.'.'.. As can be :3een, the growth in i_-()ro tripr. is molest. The cjrowth in urban- to-core trips IS much hi(}hor t'ut .i 1 so quite tlat. I'rban-to-other .ind and r,uburli.)n-to-core trips show very r.odest growth while suburban-to-urban show:-, some increase, particularly from 1985 to 19'iJ. The trav.'l patterns ai'e dor.inated, however, ty the suburban-to-suburban mar-ket, t'Oth in absolute m.agnitude and in g rowt h .

The patttM'n lor ti'a:;:-.it tra\'t_>l, l. o •.•.■>■•.■ o >■ , i r> rraite different. I'ransit trips. 1_ y maii't" mirkot are sh ^wn in 1-xhibit I'.'.". Here, the ma lor m.irkt^t is. urlan-t o-c.^-re v.-hiv/;-; is- slicwri with relatively little growth s.inc" tk.o pers.o:! trits. ar-^ •-■ory tl.-it ,'.s sh.rwn pffn'ious.ly and r-'^s.t i-t t!ir^ trar.sit :■•>'■ r\' i "'^ ; ~; r"-".'*" r>" nt s in these .ire. IS h.^vo alr<-M iy 1 > <';-i •.-. i i<>. In ,i::-c,-r c, ntra;--t to tii'"^ person trii^ results, noted .^bo\-e, s-i;l vi rd .i ri- 1 o-s.ul: u r b.^. n travel is the smallest transit m.irkot lecaus.e ct the dilficulty of serving dispersed suburban cmploym.c-nt locations. The m.ost significant growth is shown in sul>urban-to-core r.arket, which relates to the increases in population in that m.arket and the i m.prover.ent s in transit service as Metrorail extensions are opened to the outer parts of the region.

- I \' . 14-

6

WOP^^ TRIPS Br ^O^ MAT— E

r

EXHIBIT IV. 7

WORK TRANSIT TRIPS BY MARKET

Is

t- o

180 170 1 60 150 1 4-0 130 120 110 100 90 SO 70 60 50 40 30

1 985

1993

2000

C-A

U-C

U-0

S-C

S-U

S-S

-IV. 17-

These market effects can be summarized in terms of overall m.odal splits as shown in Exhibit IV. 8. The contrast is very m.arked between markets such as urban-to-core whore transit captures nearly half of all work trips and the suburban-to-suburban r.arket where transit attracts less than 3 percent of the market. Additional analysis of the model results include jurisdictional and corridor summaries of travel and are shown in Appendix B.

The results of the analysis arc determined by both the demographic factors that lead to the person trip tables shov.-n above and in Appendix B and the impact of changes in assumied transit service lo-zois. These latter effects are also sur,m,arized in Appendix B th - the examination of changes in transit

travel times and tares from each origin area to selected core destinations .

A final check was made on rail assignm.ents against the existing and proposed rail service. Work trips in production/ attraction format were assigned to the network ani scaleJ by 20%. The peak loads obtained by this m.ethod have generally Leen found to approximate those obtained through a much more extensive process of developing detailed peaking factors by purposes and converting trips from production/attraction format to origin/' destination format. As shown in Kxhibit IW'i, the 10. m:: io] results are generally very similar to the survey assignm.ents.

The initial rail operating statistics obtained from V.""ATA were based upon a higher assumed level of ridership. As noted above, adjustments were made to train consists for r<"0 and 2000 to maintain roughly the same loadings by line as cl:servei in 1985. Loadings on the Green Line were adjustr'! to a level sim.ilar to other lines which v/ore operating in 1^*?-. 'Iho r-es.ults are also shown in Exhibit IV. 9 and were used to comj-ute rail operating costs for input to the tincU jurisdictional allocations described bel ow .

FARE REVENUE ESTIMATION

Initial average weekday fare revenue estimates were obtained by multiplying the transit trip tables by sub-m,ode and zone pair by the equivalent faro matrix obtained from, the tariffs anl used in the mode split estimation. For revenue estim.ation, off-peak fares matrices were developed as well as the peak values and a weighted average revenue for trips by purpose ar.i time of day was computed .

For rail trips, thi:; .inalysis is relati\'oly precise since faro collection is a hiijhly controllovl ai;ti\'ity. 1:1 genera"., the only reductions from tho tariff would be exfocte.i to be from, the high-value fare car"d discount and sj-ecial fares an J pass-es. Bus fare revenues are expected to be of greater \-ariance Lecause of the use of flash pas.scs, other discount prci? I'am.s , avoidance of fare zone boundaries, and various types of evasion. Ad'ustm.ents to the results are expected to be required I or tl^.e allocations.

- 1 \' . 1 8 -

EXHIBIT IV. 8

FROM\TO

1985

WORK MODE SPLIT

CORE

URBAN

SUB- URBAN

TOTAL

CORE

URBAN

SUBURB

69.7% 47.8% 24.7%

38.6% 24.6% 7.4%

24.1% 12.8% 2.6%

58.3% 34.6% 9.6%

TOTAL

36.8%

14. 7^

3.9-

18.2%

1993

CORE

URBAN

SUB- URBAN

TOTAL

CORE

URBAN

SUBURB

69 48 25

38 24 7

24 13 2

57.6% 34.2% 9.2%

TOTAL

37.15

14. 0 =

3.8 =

17.

2000

CORE

URBAN

SUB- URBAN

TOTAL

CORE

URBAN

SUBURB

69.5% 48.7% 27.1%

38.6% 24.0% 7.7%

25.5% 13.8% 2.7%

57.5% 34.2% 9.2%

TOTAL

38. 0^

14. 0^

3.8^

16.6%

-IV. 19-

EXHIBIT IV. 9

RAIL LOADING INDICATORS RAIL TRIPS AT MAXIMUM LOAD POINT

fCorr:putGd as 2 0% of V.'ork Trir.

TRIPS

LirJE	PEAK	LOAD POirJTS	SURVEY		1 '^ P ODEL	i J ^ >,' -- ' T	»/	0 r r r\ U O 'J ODEL
ORANGE	WEST	BOUrJD		5 , 10 0		, 3 0 0			r> ^. , c 0 I ;
	EAST	BOUfJD		4 , 6 0 0		? i"i			C\ r, o
BIJJE	WEST	BOUND		'3 , 7 0 0	J	, 9 0 0			, 9 : 0
	EAST	BOUf.'D		3 , 2 r J 0	J	, 9 0 ; J			, 5 0 C'
REDl	A-ROUTE B-ROUTE		4 , C n 0 3 , R • ' )	1	,	*f ,
RED2	A-ROUTE		•"^ " 1 " 1					/ *' -
	B-POUTE		y . / ' ■ ' ■					, 2 ' 0
RED TOTAL	A-ROUTE B-ROUTE			1 ,		■" , 4
YELLOW	tJOI-'TH SOUTH	iiou;; D [',oi:.';[)			•T
CR EEN	NORTH SOUTH	p.' ju:;; ) F'.( ji ';;d					• , ■'•
SHUTTLE	SOUTH	px >v]:i') CAP.'-,
LINE	198 5	1 '<9 3	2 0 0 0	S.UPVLY		':el		V	: 0 0 D F "
(GRANGE	4 8	I- < ' '■♦	f, f 1	1 C' '
BLUE	4 0	4 >>	5(1	'1 1 ,
Ri:ni	4 0	4 ' '	' . I 1
REn2	48	4 (.	't * ■
RED TOTAL	8 8		'"i ( .
YELLOW	4 0	4 0	*-t ' ■	1 1? • ■
GREEN	NA	5 0	( . i ")	r t ^ N' A					*
SHUTTLE	NA	4 0	r:A	r,'A ?;a		. ■ .n .< t\

Rail revenue estimates are summarized in Exhibit IV. 10. Passenger revenue was obtained as noted above and converted to an annual value using a nominal annualization factor of 280. The result, as expected, slightly exceeds the budgeted values and future year values were adjusted simply as the ratio between the 1985 model and survey totals. School subsidy re-imbursement , primarily by the District, was not assumed to change from current levels because of the stability of population.

The fare reimbursement reflects the District's policy of providing a 10 cent discount for peak rail boardings at stations east of the Anacostia River. The policy was assumed to continue and to be extended to Anacostia and Congress Heights (Alabama Avenue) stations as the Green Line is extended. The amount of the allocation was taken from the model estimates of boardings at the affected stations. The results were not expected to be overly precise because of the relatively large districts used in the analysis and access splits between adjacent stations which are not subject to the discount. The model underestimation was simply scaled by the ratio of the 1985 results.

The max fare reimbursement is a WMATA policy to partially offset the impact of the "taper and cap" on rail fares. The reimbursement is estimated from a comparsion of revenues from the tariff and those that would be collected from the same number of passengers under a straight distance-based fare. Currently, one-half of the difference is then allocated in proportion to the jurisdiction of the benefiting passengers while the other half is absorbed in the system values. As shown, the model estimate is slightly low for the reimbursement and the values were adjusted on a jurisdictional basis.

Parking revenues were estimated using a simple index of potential revenue obtained by multiplying the number of spaces by the all- day parking cost. Large, newly-opened parking lots were discounted since volumes build somewhat slowly. This approach was used to compute a scaling factor which was compared to the budgeted revenues for 1985; a value of approximately 86% was obtained by this method. The scaling factor was increased slightly, to 90%, for the 1993 and 2000 analysis, reflecting V7MATA plans to extend the hours during which parking fees are collected. The revised scaling factor was multiplied by the potential revenue index to obtain the values shown in the Exhibit.

Estimates for non-fare revenues were provided by WMATA. Investment income and advertising revenues are projected to grow as the system expands. Leverage leasing income terminates in 1987 with the expiration of the tax law. Joint development income shows a substantial increase between 1985 and 1993 as current projects mature. This estimate does not include income from additional rents or future development agreements, which results in a lack of change between 1993 and 2000.

-IV. 21-

EXHIBIT IV. 10

METRORAIL REVENUES

($198^. rn: 1 1 icns)

1 0 8 S

MODELED OPERATIIJG PEVF.NI'ES

Pacnenger Rovonue 1 1 i

::chool Subr. idy Fo r o Po i mbu rsomon t f4.-i>: I-.ir c' Po i nljur;-,'-"'' rit i M rk i nq

I'rjTAP 11-,

(1)

19 9 3 MODEL

2000 MODEL

1 .	(J ■/ 1	] 3 3 . 8 2 C)	162	3 3 1
( ) .	sr.;	ij . =r r 4	0	564
( ) .		(1 . r 2	0
1 .	/ < ■ ■	1 . ■ ■ 2		1 1 ^. 34 2
		1 ■» ' . . 4 ' '	174 .	9 0

ADJUf.TED OI'EPAT n.'i3 I-'i: P.>r,sonqr'r PovrTiUr.

f'chool r.upjsiriy

i-'aro i mlH]r;-,r.rir.nt Max V.\ro PT' i niLi: rr.» F'a rk i iKj 'I'OTAI,

?Y 8.

L" L ; ; ;

(1 . 2 . ' :

1 ■ ■ i

1 r;

A : . I

1 6 0

0 0

FY 0 0 ADJ

r 8 5*^.4

1 7

ii* ifi-opi:ivA'i' I N(3 hv w'i i;iT I nvc'!->t niont I n(_-or;r> Lr'Vorarjo !,< •ar, i j A( i Vf^ rt i ;; i rv ! , < >t fi. ■ f .loint riovo 1 opniont

'](.)'rAL

3

2 . 9 C 0 0 . 0 0 0

1 d 1

1 '

'ruTAL PEVEND}-:

Bus revenue is much more complicated since it is computed in an allocated manner based upon the dedication codes of the buses involved and whether or not a rail transfer is used. An initial calculation of bus revenues using the technique of multiplying projected trips by tariff fares produced a high estimate of 1985 revenue. The result occurs in part because the total Metrobus ridership estimate is somewhat high as well as the lower degree control over fare collection and other factors noted above.

Bus revenues derived from the tariff are expected to be high because this procedure assumes that full fare is both paid and collected on all bus trips. The revenue yield is lower due to passes and discounts, fare evasion, passenger confusion, and other factors leading to a less than 100% revenue collection. The effects of these factors were quantified from the Spring 1984 Bus Passenger Survey and other data provided by WMATA. Separate factors were developed on a jurisdictional basis to reflect Flash Pass usage and uncollected revenues.

Checks on the modeling approach show that estimates of bus-only and bus-rail trips are higher than the limited data available. Factors were developed for each of the markets and used to reproduce the base year results. These factors were then applied to the future year estimates. Even though some of the factors were somewhat larger than desirable, the results were considered to be acceptable since only minor changes in bus ridership and revenue were projected. The resulting projections are summarized in Exhibit IV. 11.

Finally, rail patronage by jurisdiction of residence is required as an input to the Metrorail operating support formula and was computed from the model results. The model results reproduced the 1985 rail survey and 1986 budget distributions quite closely and the minor adjustments required were assumed to continue into the future. The resulting factors are noted in the allocation section of this report below.

-IV. 23-

ALLOCATED

BUS REVENUES

($1986 r. i 1 1 i o r. G j

JURISDICTION

District o£ Columbia

Montgomory Co. V • " -

F^r i nee Goorq'-'n Co . . ■• '

Ar 1 i ngton -'t • ' • ' A 1 oxancl r i i

Fa i r f a x Co . ' • . ; .

Fa 1 1 s Churcii

Fairfax City -'.1 1 •-

NVTC ' . 14

TOl'AL - 1

(1) Ar.r.umon tul 1 yf ir^ (if rp<-r-it ; :i ■ * .'"tarK syr>tr'rn; r.t .\t \ r.t i''s ur.*' i t ) r' !V'< ■ a:o :-

V. OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter documents the transit operating cost models developed and applied by Peat Marwick to project Metrobus, Metrorail, and local bus costs. The cost models consist of LOTUS 1-2-3 microcomputer spreadsheets that, together with projected estimates of transit service to be provided in future years, are used to project future transit operating expenses. The cost models are based on recent operating budget data supplemented by operating experience and discussions with key WMATA and local government transportation management staff.

The three major operating cost models are:

o Metrobus cost model, which projects the costs to operate and maintain diesel buses including local, express, and feeder routes to Metrorail;

o Metrorail cost model, which projects the costs to operate and maintain vehicles, stations, track and structures, and ancillary facilities and systems for Metrorail. These costs are distinct and separate from the rehabilitation and replacement costs documented in Chapter VII.

o Local bus cost models, which project the costs to operate the four suburban bus operations:

o Montgomery County "Ride-On"

o Fairfax County "Fairfax Connector"

o City of Alexandria "DASH"

o Fairfax City "CUE"

The cost models are structured in such a way that once annual operating statistics have been determined, the annual costs can be computed quickly. The primary inputs to the Metrobus, Metrorail, and local bus models include those factors traditionally developed in the urban transportation planning process: peak vehicles, annual vehicle hours, and annual vehicle miles. In addition, the Metrorail model requires descriptors of the physical characteristics of the system including stations, route miles, and yards.

The cost models are intended to be used in evaluating alternative regional bus and rail service levels and construction schedules. The models project costs in both base year (1986) and inflated dollars. It must be emphasized that these models are approximations and although they are derived from the most recent operating budgets, they simplify the detailed procedures used to develop annual transit system budgets. To the extent possible, the models reflect the latest available financial, operational, and maintenance data.

The remainder of this

discusses the following:

o cost model . re

o driving variables

o inflation n n ^ i rV, >- , , r -n ^

o analysis operating cost experience

o calibration of Metrobus and Metrorail cost models

o application of Metrob'-^- .^!nd Ketrorail cost models

o local bus operating c rejections

BASIC

MODEL STRUCTURE

The operating cost models are paramet: ' 'oductivity^

composed of a series of equations tha ^ costs as a

function of the quantity of transportation service provided, equations are organized to approxim<^te costs incurred by organizational i;.nit5-, of the transit agency. For each organizational unit, soecific costs were identified that are affected by specific operating characteristics. Each of the; specific costs was modelled as a 5-.oparate equation. These

Th

equations were, therefore, mutually < capture all costs resulting from tf;e Five general types of (;.,j;;t ec}ua t i f;iis four model variable costs:

■ >: ' : 1 u s i v e a n 1 cpr-r.'ition ol

attempted to the

deve 1 c j .ed ,

;tom . •h i ch

o union lahjor (.-(jsts;

o front-line supervisory non-union labor costs;

o <jdm i nistt-at 1 vo non-unic^n lalor costs; an i

o parts, suftt^ 1 i , '^nd servicer; (:o:;ts.

The fifth models fixed co: discussed below.

.ts. Fac'h of the variable cost

1 s

Union

.-.3

The union labor cost f or"mul at ions are of the form

Un i on Labor Cost

rn i t

of ■-erv i ce

balor Product IV i t' Fa.'t or

Cost per I'nit of babor

where the factors ai"e del iried as follows

o Unit of Service: Generally, the number of vehicle-miles vehicle-hours, or number of vehicles based on the t^stimate used in specifying the service plan. The cost model is intended to model costs per unit of ser\'ice prov i ded rather than cost per unit of service used (e.g. per passenger or per passenger-mile) , since most costs are incurred by supplying the service rather than by how many passengers use it.

o Labor Productivity Factor: The number of non-supervisory personnel, or personnel-hours, required to adequately staff each unit of service provided. This factor considers the impact of worker efficiency, need for training, and scheduled and unscheduled absenteeism.

o Cost per Unit: The wage per hour (or per year) for the non-supervisory employees providing the basic service. This is usually the wage for vehicle operators and mechanics and includes average wages (straight wages plus overtime, vacation, and sick pay) . It does not include expenses for fringe benefits (such as pension funds, FICA, and insurance) .

These data were obtained through a detailed review of operating budgets, supported by discussion and interpretation by knowledgeable staff. All costs are in FY86 dollars.

Front-Line Supervisory Non-Union Labor Costs

Front-line supervisory non-union labor cost equations are of the form:

Front-line Number of Union Employees Avg. Supervisor

Supervisory = Union x Front-line x Salary

Labor Cost Employees Supervisor Man-Year

where the factors are defined as follows:

o Number of Union Employees: The number of a particular category of union employee to be supervised (e.g., the number of bus mechanics, cleaners, or janitors) .

o Union Employees/Front-line Supervisor: The number of union employees a foreman or supervisor can manage.

o Average Supervisor Salary /Man-Year: Annual salary for front-line supervisor, not including fringes.

Administrative Non-Union Labor Costs

These costs are based on either current (fixed) number of employees in various administrative staff areas or on an exogenously determined number of employees that may change over time. Average salary per employee was determined from operating budgets. Projected number of employees was obtained from knowledgeable staff.

Parts, Supplies, and Service Costs

The variable parts, supplies, and service cost equations project costs for maintenance parts, fuel, office supplies, and similar non-personnel costs. The equations are generally of the form:

-V.3-

liu ri i ' r i V )

Kail Tt i V i k ; '.'.i r i i!

o Revenue Train Hours; Annual scheduled hours of service (including revenue, layover, and deadheading; not including start-up, training, utility, extra service, special events, and fringe benefits (sick, holiday, vacation, funeral) ) ;

o Subway Stations; Stations located in cut-and-cover, earth tunnel , or rock tunnel ;

o Other Stations; Stations located at-grade, in cut, in retained cut, or on aerial structure;

o Mezzanines; Station entrances with a station agent and fare collection equipment;

o Service and Inspection (S&I) Yards; Major maintenance facilities where all maintenance activities can take place and where large numbers of vehicles can be stored;

o Route Miles; Length of two-way track in revenue service (between terminals of lines, not including yard, pocket, and other non-revenue track) ;

o Manned Interlockings ; Switching points located at

terminals, points of route divergence, and yards where an operator is assigned;

o Terminals; Number of ends of lines;

o Rail Passengers; Annual rail passenger boardings.

INFLATION CONSIDERATIONS

All of the unit costs in the operating cost models are expressed in 1986 constant dollars. These costs were derived from 1986 budget data and other sources, converted to 1986 dollars using historical rates of Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation.

Inflation rates were assumed for the following components;

o "Base Line" Inflation; The rate of increase in the

Washington, D.C. CPI applied to all labor costs (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and non-personnel costs other than diesel fuel, parts, and electricity.

o Diesel Fuel Inflation; Inflation based on the historical and projected incremental difference between the base line inflation rate and diesel fuel price increases.

o Electricity Inflation; Based on anticipated incremental difference between the base line inflation rate and PEPCO and Virginia Power rates for WMATA.

-V.5-

o Parts Inflation: Based on historical and anticipated incremental difference between the base line inflation rate and prices for vehicle and systems maintenance parts .

Projected inflation rates were based on short-term budget assump- tions by WMATA and longer-term assumptions approved by the TAC:

Year Base Line Diesel Fuel Eletricity Parts

FY86
FY87	-J ♦ ^ o	2 . 0%	4 .9%	4 .9%
FY88	5 . 0	5 . 0	5 . 0	5 . 0
FYS 9	5 . 0	5 . 0	5 . 0	5 . 0
FY90
thru	5 . 0	7 . 0	7 . 0	6 . 0
FYOO

The inflation rates used in the operating cost analysis use the Washington CPI projection as the "base line" rate of inflation. The incremental differences between the base line rate and the rate for specific cost components is then applied to compute compounded inflation factors for specific cost components.

The inflation factors computed in this manner were used to estimate costs in inflated dollars. The "uninflated" or "base year" costs reflect the incremental inflation only, but do not directly include the base line CPI values. A detailed descrip- tion of the inflation calculations is included in Appendix D.

ANALYSIS OF PRIOR WMATA OPERATING COST EXPERIENCE

In preparing to calibrate the Metrobus and Metrorail cost models, it was recognized that WMATA ' s prior operating cost experience would have to be examined in order to determine the extent to which costs have stabilized. This was important because the basis of the calibration was the FY86 proposed operating budget. This analysis of prior years' cost was also undertaken to address concern regarding the degree to which "fixed" costs have truly been stable over time.

The analysis was performed based on data obtained from WMATA • s Office of Budget and Management Analysis in the form of computer printouts of actual costs incurred in fiscal years FY81 through FY85. FY86 budgeted costs were included as well as a basis for comparison. The WMATA data recorded actual expenses and encumbrances by office, by mode (bus and rail), and by line item.

The analysis was structured according to the WI«1ATA organizational structure assumed for the FY86 budget. There have been significant changes in the WMATA organizational structure over the past six years and costs for prior years were entered in the analysis according to the new structure. As a result, the totals by department (and occasionally by office) are not always the same as data from other sources.

-V. 6-

Another important consideration, particularly in reviewing the magnitude of fixed costs, is that it was not always possible to accurately separate fixed from variable costs for a number of reasons:

o Aggregation of Fringe Benefits: All fringe benefits, except in FY81, are shown in a single category "Non- Departmental Expenses". As a result, all fringes are shown in a category separate from "fixed" and "variable" expenses.

o Aggregation of Salaries: All salaries are aggregated in each office. It was not possible to separate salaries for front-line supervisors. These expenses are legitimately "variable" in nature as they vary with the level of service provided. As a result, there is a trend in the analysis for Metrorail's fixed expenses to increase over time as the level of service increases and the salaries for front-line supervisors increase.

The results of the analysis of the operating cost data are shown graphically and discussed in detail in Appendix D. The major conclusions may be summarized as follows:

o Bus fixed costs, in base year dollars, have remained relatively constant over the past three years.

o Total bus operating costs, in base year dollars, have also remained relatively constant and, indeed, have actually declined somewhat, which reflects a slight decrease in the level of service provided.

o Rail costs have significantly increased with the growth of the Metrorail system.

o Metrobus costs per vehicle mile increased in real terms through FY84 and have stabilized since, due in part to aggressive cost containment actions.

o Metrorail costs per car-mile also increased through FY84 and have declined since, again reflecting aggressive cost containment actions by WMATA.

o Metrorail staffing requirements have shown general improvement in productivity since FY84.

CALIBRATION OF METROBUS AND METRORAIL COST MODELS

The Metrobus and Metrorail operating cost models were calibrated based on the WMATA FY86 Approved Budget. The calibration process involved structuring a series of equations, such as those outlined earlier in this chapter, to replicate the budget. The actual equations are summarized in Appendix D.

\ : , I I"':'.' : ''■w : ;

. r-

fj .-J I' at 1 ■ f 1

Adjustments to FYS 6 Calibration

The following areas were identified in which modifications to the FY86 cost relationships had to be made to reflect FY87 costs. Greater detail in each area is included in Appendix D.

Termination of Old Programs and Initiation of New Programs

WMATA i sspending roughly $10 million on programs that are phasing out and will not recur in FY87. Some of these programs, such as the Flxible bus rehabilitation program, were previously addressed in the model. There are approximately $4.3 million in various new programs and enhancements to existing programs that were not reflected in the FYS 6 budget. These are summarized in Appendix D.

Changes in Labor Productivity and Unit Costs

Various program areas will be affected by changing experience and external factors. These areas include:

o workers compensation

o third party liability claims

o insurance

o facilities maintenance o rail car maintenance o rail systems maintenance o electricity

In many of these areas, such as workers compensation, facilities maintenance, and electricity, WMATA anticipates continued improvement in productivity. In other areas, such as third party liability claims and insurance, WMATA experience will likely mirror that of other transit systems with significant increases in costs. Rail systems maintenance will generally improve with more efficient use of manpower but extended hours of operation on Sundays will offset these improvements. Although rail car maintenance productivity has improved over the past several years, it seemed prudent to maintain current levels of productivity through FY90 and then gradually show a reduction in productivity as the rail fleet ages.

Detailed results in each cost area are summarized in Appendix D.

APPLICATION OF WMATA METROBUS AND METRORAIL COST MODELS

Exhibit V.l summarizes the driving variables, inflation rates, and labor productivity factor inputs to the Metrobus and Metrorail operating cost models for fiscal years 1986, 1993, and 2000. Exhibit V.2 summarizes the model outputs for these years, including an allocation of fixed and variable costs and a breakdown of salaried and union employees.

The cost models were applied to project costs for every year from FY8 6 through FYOO. A detailed set of projections for each

-V.9-

Mini- INFUTS

EXHIBIT V.2

PROJECTED METROBUS AND METRORAIL OPERATING COST MODEL RESULTS

This Year Stark-Harris

Completion

	FY86	FY93 (1)		FYOO
OPERATING EXPENSE IN IS 8 6 $	(Millions)
Metrobus	$233,766	$232.	976	$233.	444
Metrorail	$188,589	$238.	243	$291.	633
Total	$422,355	$471.	219	$525.	077
Metrobus Allocation
Fixed	$53,167	$54.	634	$54.	599
Mileage-Related	$76,159	$75.	896	$77.	644
Hour-Related	$104,440	$102.	445	$101.	201
Total	$233,766	$232.	976	$233.	444
Metrorail "Allocation"
Fixed	$37,236	$39.	413	$39.	413
Variable	$151,353	$198.	831	$252.	220
Total	$188,589	$238.	243	$291.	633

EMPLOYEES (Man-Years) Metrobus

Salaried	574.3	573.5	573.1
Union	3663.8	3619.5	3580.8
Subtotal	4238.2	4193.0	4153.9
Metrorail
Salaried	910.8	1034.6	1141.7
Union	2200.7	2801.5	3391.0
Subtotal	3111.5	3836. 1	4532.7
TOTAL	7349.6	8029. 1	8686.6

(1) FY93 Includes Partial Year of Operation of Final Stark-Harris System Components

EXHIBIT V.3

WMATA SERVICE LEVELS

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

□ Metrobus + Metrorall

-V. 12-

analysis year is included in Appendix D. Exhibit V.3 summarizes the projected vehicle miles of service for Metrobus and Metrorail in each year. Exhibit V.4 summarizes the resulting projected operating costs and Exhibit V.5 summarizes the number of WMATA employees by major category.

LOCAL BUS OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS

Annual operating costs were projected for the four local jurisdictions that operate bus systems. Cost models were calibrated in a manner similar to that used for the Metrobus and Metrorail cost models. Projections were made for the years 1986, 1993, and 2000.

The sources of information for these projections were discussions with knowledgeable staff supplemented by detailed budgets and consultant reports. The following summarizes the level of service assumptions and resulting cost projections:

o Montaomerv County; Currently, service is provided with 151 peak-hour buses. Ten buses are assumed to be added by 1993 and 10 more by 2000. Vehicle-miles and vehicle- hours are assumed to expand on the basis of fleet size. Operating costs increase from $6.7 million to $7.6 million from 1986 to 2000 (in 1986 dollars).

o Fairfax County; The current Huntington feeder service utilizes 27 peak-hour buses and is assumed to continue unchanged for the base line projections. Operating costs remain constant at $1.0 million (1986 dollars).

o City of Alexandria; The current service utilizes 15 peak-hour buses. Three buses are assumed to be added for Cameron Valley service by 1993. Vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours are assumed to expand on the basis of fleet size. Annual operating costs increase from $0.6 million to $0.7 million (1986 dollars).

o Fairfax City; Re-orientation of Fairfax City service to serve Metrorail is assumed to be accomplished within the current overall budget of $0.5 million.

-V.13-

EXHIBIT V.4

Vviviata employees

4 G

6- <r

$ B -(^t (f tr^

♦

EXHIBIT V.S

WMATA OPERATINQ EXPENSES

550 -1

(O 400 -

150 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ '—I 1 1 1

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

□ Metrobus + Metrorail o Total WMATA

-V.15-

VI. RAIL CONSTRUCTION

The rail construction necessary to complete the planned 103-mile Metrorail system is broken down into two major groups: those segments that are a part of the 89.5-mile system to be funded on the basis of the Stark-Harris Federal authorization and those segments that comprise the final 14 miles of the system. The Stark-Harris segments are the following:

Line	Terminal	Scheduled Opening
Orange	Vienna	June, 1986
Red	Wheaton	March, 1989
Green	U Street	July, 1990
Green	Anacostia	December, 1990
Yellow	Van Dorn	December, 1990
Green	Greenbelt-'-	December, 1992

^ Shuttle operation from Ft. Totten The following segments complete the 103-mile system:

Line Red

Yellow Green Green Green

Terminal

Glenmont Franconia Columbia Hts. Georgia Ave.^ Branch Avenue

Scheduled Opening

January, 1994 January, 1994 July, 1994 July, 1996 December, 1997

2 Connection between Columbia Heights and Ft. Totten

The capital costs for completing the Metrorail system are somewhat difficult to set forth because of the differences between the obligation of funds for segments, when construction is actually performed, when funds are received from Federal and local sources, and other accounting issues. For simplicity, costs were developed based upon the schedule of billings to the local jurisdictions. These billings reflect the construction schedule agreed upon by local officials (ICCA-IV) and assume an uninterrupted flow of Federal funds.

For the Stark-Harris (89.5-mile) system, the Federal government is assumed to pay for 80% of the construction costs, although some delays have occurred in recent Federal obligations. For system completion, two alternative funding scenarios were developed. Under the scenario most favorable to the local and state governments. Alternative A, the Federal government is assumed to pay 75% of the post Stark-Harris construction costs, which is in line with current UMTA capital grant matching ratios. Under the scenario less favorable to the local and state governments. Alternative B, no Federal funds are assumed available beyond the Stark-Harris authorization.

-VI. 1-

A ::chod!jle of biiim'^s to the local ] ur i s i i c 1 1 c ns under tcth alternatives v;aG developed. The totil r. : r.-Fe de ra 1 ccst under A Iter n a t i v e A w o u Id he s 1 i h 1 1 y less t h an S 5 : r. 1 1 1 1 c n ( i n constant 198C dollars), while under Alternative 3, it wculd be just over billion. Moreover, the allocation of these cost

to the local jurisdictions wculd change scr.ewhat because of complex, negotiated payrent schedules that take into account th t i m i n g o f 1 o c a 1 c o r, t r i h 'u 1 1 o n s r e 1 a *: : •.• e to t h e pace of rj n s t r u t i o n i n c ■ : h ] u r i r: i i r t : o n .

'I ho locii payr^onts are oft set slight t u n 'J s , v; h i < ; li a re i n t c- r e s t f-~\vv.\ n s I ro.c thf- local qo vf- r nr ("-n t r; :n a lwin- f,ayr.^r.t s . I hesf fur. is .ire i 1 : - it' i ■ irmuil bir-. .ini otJc.<:'t thf .r. i.".'. t- h<'- i r 1 r. 1 i V 1 dua i • "u.t: r i t ; • .

hy internally qenerated v.:: 1 A c n funis r e c e i \' e d ! a/f .^1 c:nst ruction t f. ' ;. !' 1 ! ; 1 1 ; t 1 c n s on a n

A ci.r r-y ot t h^ 1 i 1 1 i n J s C," i : 1 ! _ r ; ;i L/hi : t 1 t '.' I . 1 t ' r t " r. A > •:h'/..-:i i the 1 • • a 1 sn ir ! * n.-:;..-

t !,'• ; ■ 1 ; bi ! ! i n ;u t;. i * : .r- ! ^.

I ! I ' " M* 1 <n tjf thf r. n - F 1 ; n i r

u i >; r 1 i ' ■ f ) a r" 1 c i r ■ ^ ; :, . ■ ; : c. w :\ ; •

■ :. w t h.' 1 ' . ; 1 r w . . i

■ : i •• i-: .1 I : .u, 1 : n ; * ;. c i .

" n r- :n \'' " is shew

wti rt' ir^rivc'd hast'd ( c i " C . . n 7 r" a t 1 : s . A n t ^ a : t ; 1 1 1 n ^s for t . : h : s Fxh ih. It

. ; , : ; : . ; t ' '^^ .">. ~ U

-VI

EXHIBIT VI. 1 RAIL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS

(Millions, 1986 Dollars)

Fiscal	Total	Federal Share^	Internally^	Non-Federal Share
Year	Costs	Alt. A	Alt. B	Generated	Alt. A	Alt. B
1985	381.99	305 . 59	305.59	15.00	61.40	61 . 40*-^
1986	312.50	250.00	250.00	17.60	44.90	44.90
1987	332.20	265.76	265.76	18.36	48.08	48.08
1988	287 . 55	230.04	230.04	18 . 04	39.48	39.48
1989	292.56	229. 60	167.46	17.35	45.61	107.75
1990	312 . 98"	234.74	0 00	16 . 69	61 55	296.29
1991	298.08	223.56	0.00	15.90	58.62	282.18
1992	283.89	212.91	0.00	15. 14	55.83	268.75
1993	270.37	202 .78	0.00	14.42	53 . 17	255.95
1994	105.74	79.31	o.bo	13.73	12.70	92.01
1995	28.12	21.09	0.00	7.03	0.00	21.09
1996	17.76	13.32	0.00	4.44	0.00	13.32
1997	14.69	11.01	0.00	3.67	0.00	11.01
TOTAL	2938.43	2279.71	1218.85	177.45	481.34	1542.21
a	The Federal share	under both	Alternatives	A and B	for

Fiscal Years 1985 through 1989 reflects the full Stark-Harris authorization.

Internally generated funds are interest earnings by WMATA that are credited to a jurisdiction, such as when a juris- diction is ahead in its payments. These funds are used as part of a jurisdiction's local match.

Billings not yet submitted to jurisdictions due to delays in approval of Federal grants.

The total cost for 1990 through system completion reflects the schedule in ICCA-IV. Under Alternative A, 75% of these costs would be borne by the Federal government. Under Alter- native B, 100% of these costs would be borne by the local and state governments.

-VI. 3-

2

LLOCATED PAIL CONSTPUCION COSTS

VII. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COST PROJECTIONS

This chapter presents the methodology and results of an analysis of the capital requirements for the rehabilitation and replacement of Metrobus anmd Metrorail facilities and equipment. These projections represent costs that are over and above projections of operating and construction costs.

Rehabilitation and replacement (R & R) activities are a natural extension of routine maintenance activities currently being undertaken by WMATA. Rehabilitation and replacement of facilities and equipment occurs for the following reasons:

o Functional obsolescence: due to a part or component wearing out

o Technological obsolescence: due to a new device becoming available that meets or exceeds the requirements of the current device

o Changed requirements; due to changes in policy, such as level of service or safety

In these cases, the decision to rehabilitate or replace usually entails comparing the costs to repair (generally considered an operating cost) versus the cost to rehabilitate or replace. This analysis would directly address anticipated functional and technological obsolescence. Rehabilitation and replacement costs due to changed requirements would be addressed in so far as current policy has affected original design requirements,

METHODOLOGY

The following categories were used to structure the analysis:

o Metrobus facilities and equipment

o facilities and equipment, except buses and new

maintenance facilities o buses

o new maintenance facilities

o Metrorail facilities

o facilities, except track o track

o Metrorail equipment

o equipment, except rail cars o rail cars

The projection of future costs for facilities and equipment except for buses, new bus maintenance facilities, track, and rail cars was structured to take advantage of the following information available from WMATA:

-VII. 1-

o capital izod asr:ot values ir.-lu i ir.g /'otrcrail sog-ents already in revenue ser'.'ice; , riintriinci t y the vry.ATA Office of Accounting 'ACCT, ani tne :i'fire cf M^.nagor.ent Information f ; e r v i c e 5 'MI :". ■.' ,

o projected ac::et -.m] les 'mcl u jin': .Y'^-'^ r ? r ^. 1 1 se:r-ents not yet in re- ■/ e n : e r: r •.' 1 c e ^ , p r r ; r i t y " r. e V."?-'. ATA : f f 1 c e of

iToqran Cent ro 1 ( t ]■ ' "Z ,

o reha b 1 1 1 1 a : o n -i n i : to the I r-r ■'■n'^ !'.''■■ 1 en jth, [ :-'•: !: -■ i hy toll r,w 1 r,'| v.':-' A': A '.'■]

relatc.i ne cy.rle ! f 1 n the

o ; ;•

I) 1 r-.f -ur-.r-. i r,r\'; w ; *■ I'. and r.){ 1 i r ,! : , th.it ]>vn ](■'. - t ; : , ■ ; ■.v- .11 hi I .■ ,1 : .:. ♦

! a ' hj , ■. -t . ■ i

I'lar.' ; i' d ; ; ; : < ai t h' • I IS , a : I '> • 1 la ■ : , I ' ; . ; ;

I .an r-. : :-. j

ar. 1 ; < ■ 1 ■ ! .

I \i>- ::..a!-'-.' ■ : .iaa<d d it .i 1 !•

Ai -1 Ml I": t 1 : ; J .

t a . • 1 1 1 t 1 . • : ; , i n

>--d.'d int., r..-

a 1

M:-.U 1 t iMt

•a r-t . t

a:"<' :■>■ i :

I n t h.- i-a:w t . 1 1 ! .-It:-., I . 'h-i! ; ; ; t 1* . 1 : ^ ■ a ;■ ; * ; ■ : . s

an i a atr.

In t!i.- diaaa:- ::ad h.vhd.-a i- a i i :..a:'a; ; . -1 1 . U!-..-d t «•. :-: ni hu ^; ra ; a t I t .d 1 ,v^-,-,i 1 y .1 an.d o>]u 1 pr.s ::t

. f * ' n

: s It: 1 e s

Pot a 1 1 ed taaa: 1 t a- ! t he a. oar.daiatina the an ^lysii=;, ta^p I a^aa-t'^i^t caa ts '.■ iry v.- ~ d. 'a o to t h o v: o \- o n d. i s t r" 1 1 u t : a p.

y s : s ^ r e ? ^ r ^ •." t r

; : n A : ; c- r. i i x E . In ; *" -he ^. a : r f"' a ^ t e : y r . This is 1 n a r~ s t class

and the differing cycle lengths of the rehabilitation and replacement cycles. For example, the large costs shown for 1987 and 1997 represent the 10- and 20-year R & R cycles for Metrorail assets capitalized in 1977. These assets include a significant portion of the Metrorail system: from Rhode Island Avenue to Dupont Circle and from Stadium-Armory to National Airport.

Given that the projected sudden increases and decreases in the magnitude of the capital rehabilitation and replacement program would be difficult to plan for and administer, the realities of the budgeting process in all likelihood would lead to a smoothing out of the stream of expenses. In recognition of this eventuality, the projected costs were averaged using a 7-year "rolling average", which involves averaging three years on either side of the target year. Another advantage of using the rolling average is it addresses some costs that would be incurred just beyond the year 2 000.

INPUT ASSET VALUES

The input data for all asset categories except buses and rail cars was provided in tabular form by the WMATA Office of Management Information Services (MISV) which displayed the dollar value of all Authority assets. Separate tables were prepared for Metrobus, Metrorail facilities, and Metrorail equipment. The tables aggregated costs into approximately 50 asset classes, tabulated by year of expenditure. In the case of Metrorail facilities and equipment, assets were capitalized in the year the segment (or "phase") opened (or will open) for revenue service.

These tables were reviewed for accuracy and completeness by comparing other routinely generated fixed asset accounting reports. There were several instances of assets not coded by year of capitalization. These were examined on a case-by-case basis and were manually assigned to the appropriate year.

These data were then converted from year-of-expenditure to base year (1986) dollars using historical inflation rates documented by PROG.

METROBUS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS

Three separate analyses were undertaken to compute Metrobus facilities and equipment R & R costs:

o facilities and equipment, except buses and new

maintenance facilities o buses

o new maintenance facilities

-VII. 3-

Metrobus Facilities and Equiprr.ent , exrep": Euses ar.i New Eus .Maintenance Facilities

/:■ ■■:< for ;■ ■ * .. • : : ' ■ : " ' ; . L u r> R fj hi a b i i i t a t i o n a :. 1 I- . i : r :. \ •

EXHIBIT VII. 1

METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT ASSET CLASSES

A Office Furn & Equipment C Buses

E Service Vehicles

F Automobiles

G Trucks - Pick Up

H Trucks - Heavy Duty

I Land

AA Passenger Station Other AB Parking Facilities AC Building & Structure

AI Equipment Parking

AJ Equipment Shops

AR Equip Bus Cntrl , AIDS

AX Fareboxes

AX AFC Other

AY Equipment Data Processing

AZ Equipment Communication

BA Equipment Other

BB Repairables

BC Intangible Assets

Note: Buses and some of the building and structure replacement costs are computed in a separate analysis

-VII. 5-

Results

Exhibit VII. 2 summarizes the results of the analysis of Netrobus facilities and equipment rehabilitation and replacement costs for 1986 through 2000.

METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS

Two separate analyses were undertaken to compute Metrorail facilities R & R costs:

o Metrorail facilities, except track o track

Metrorail Facilities, except Track

The detailed claases for Metrorail facilities are shown in Exhibit VII. 3. Current and projected asset values, along with the replacement cycle assumptions, are shown in Appendix E. The sources of the cycle assumptions were PROG and FMNT. It should be noted that the replacement percentages do not include any costs for essentially non-replaceable components of the assets. For example, it is assumed that none of the cost for design, excavation, and ba:->ic concrete structures would be incurred a q a i n .

Tho assets Vs/oro c.itoqor i ^.c^l into the followinq major classes:

o lino (between stations), by type or construction o stations, by type of construction

o other, including maintenance facilities, parking lots, and other structures

The results of this analysis on an annual basis are shown in Exhibit VI I. 4.

" '^^placement Costs

I'he trequoncy and form of track replacement is a function of throe factors:

o type of construction

o severity of tr-cUtic loads

o shai'pnoss of curves

The type of cons^ ' ' ^' --^ ^^'^ects wear primarily in that ballasted track provides . le foundation that can respond to

train loads than do rigid direct fixation sections. Traffic loads are twice ^s hn-\'" in the center of the system where two lines share tr sharpness of curves affects wear on the

inner surface ol the outer rail in response to the centrifugal force of the wheel flange on the side of the rail as the car travels around a curve.

-VII . 6-

EXHIBIT VII. 2

BUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT

(7— Yr Avg, except Maint Facil)

□ Bus Other + Buses o New Maint Fac

-VII. 7-

EXHIBIT VII. 3 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES

J	Structure	Line
K	Structure	Line
L	Structure	Line
M	Structure	Line
N	Structure	Line
0	Structure	Line
Q	Structure	Line
R	Structure	Line

Cut/Cover

Rock/Earth Tunnel

At-Grade

Aerial

Sunken Tube

Bridge

Xover & Turnout Other

S Passenger Station Cut/Cover

T Passenger Station Rock

U Passenger Station At-Grade

V Passenger Station Aerial

AB Parking Facilities AC Bldg & Structure

AD Track Yard AE Third Rail

Note: Track replacement costs are computed in a separate analysis

-VII . 8-

EXHIBIT VII. 4

RAIL STRUCTURE REHAB 8c REPLACEMENT

(7— Year Rolling Averages)

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

D Line + Stations o Other

-VII. 9-

This latter wear on curved track generally controls its useful life, being more severe than the wear on the top surface of the railo For economic reasons, V7MATA employs a technique, common in the railroad industry, of transposing the inner and outer rails in curve sections. Thus, a given piece of track can have its useful life roughly doubled over that which would be dictated by wear on the inner surface of the outer rail.

At the first replacement cycle, the rails are simply transposed and no track is replaced. At the second cycle, the now-worn outer rail is replaced. At the third and succeeding cycles, the outer rail is moved to the inside, a new outer rail is installed, and the inner rail is discarded.

For purposes of this analysis, WMATA classified the existing trackage into three categories based on type of construction and traffic loads:

o Subsurface, heavy traffic (SSH) o Subsurface, routine traffic (SSR) o Surface (including aerial) (SUR)

In addition, all track was categorized by degree of curvature into four groups:

o Curve 1: under 900 foot radius

o Curve 2: 900 - 1200 foot radius

o Curve 3: 1200 - 2000 foot radius

o Tangent (including curves over 2000 foot radius)

WMATA supplied a summary of the percentages of track by type for each phase of the existing system and each planned extension. These data are summarized in Appendix E.

WMATA staff estimated the useful lives for each classification, including the transposition interval for curve sections. They also estimated a difficulty factor for various replacement activities which was applied to the labor and equipment costs used in the replacement activities but not for the materials. Finally, WMATA staff estimated the reclaimed value of materials, the value of materials retained in place, and the ratio of materials cost to labor and equipment costs for the construction contracts. For new construction, an additional factor was applied to back-out the cost for third-rail which is included in the trackwork contract but has an extremely long life.

The life expectancies and difficuly factors for the various sections are as follows:

-VII. 10-

Useful Life Difficulty Factor

Type Curvature Transpose Replace Transpose Replace

SSH Tangent

Curve 1 3

Curve 2 5

Curve 3 8

SSR Tangent

Curve 1 5

Curve 2 8

Curve 3 11

18 - 3.0

6 2.0 2.5

10 2.0 2.5

16 2.0 2.5

25 - 3.0

5 2.0 2.5

15 2.0 2.5

21 2.0 2.5

SUR Tangent - 35 - 2.0

Curve 1 10 20 2.0 2.0

Curve 2 20 35 2.0 2.0

Curve 3 20 35 2.0 2.0

In addition, the following factors were assumed to be applied as appropriate:

o Materials assumed as 4 5% of total construction cost; labor and equipment comprise the balance

o Third rail assumed as 29% of construction estimate for new segments

o Reclaim value of materials assumed as 20%

o For SUR sections, 35% of the value would be retained in place and reduce both materials cost and labor and equipment cost; this reflects retention of some ties, fasteners, ballast, etc. which are also routinely replaced as part of maintenance activities

o For transposition, labor and equipment cost assumed as 15%

Applying these various factors resulted in the following replacement cost percentages:

First Second Other Type Curvature Cycle Cycle Cycles

SSH & SSR Tangent - - 2 01.0%

All Curves 30.0% 86.8% 220.8%

SUR Tangent - - 94.9%

All Curves 30.0% 47.5% 62.5%

The results of the analysis for all segments and estimated costs through 2 015 are shown in Appendix E. All values were calculated on an annual basis and converted to a seven-year rolling average for display purposes. The resulting average values for 1986 - 2000 are shown in Exhibit VII. 5. No tangent track replacement is

-VII. 11-

EXHIBIT VII. 5

TRACK REHAB AND REPLACEMENT

(7— Year Rolling Averages) 1 1 _,

-VII. 12-

shown until 1992 but thereafter costs rise quickly to $8 - $10 million per year through the late 1990 's. Replacement costs for curved track reflect an ongoing program that increases from $4 - $5 million per year in the mid 1980 's to approximately $10 million by 2000. The total costs for the key years of 1993 and 2000 are $15.0 million and $14.5 million, respectively.

It should be noted that the track replacement costs reflect only mainline track in revenue service. Yard track is currently replaced less frequently, except at major wear points, and track removed from elsewhere in the system is generally re-used in the yards, often after turning it around using the loop tracks. The labor costs and minor material costs for these activities are currently included in the maintenance budget.

METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS

Two separate analyses were undertaken to compute Metrorail equipment R & R costs:

o Metrorail equipment, except rail cars o rail cars

Metrorail Equipment, except Rail Cars

The assets were categorized into the following major classes:

o escalators and elevators

o communications

o Automatic Train Control (ATC)

o Automatic Fare Collection (AFC)

o wayside and power

o other, including office furniture and equipment, service vehicles, shop equipment, and data processing equipment

The detailed classes are shown in Exhibit VII. 6. Current and projected asset values, along with the replacement cycle assumptions, are shown in Appendix E. The sources of the cycle assumptions were ENGA and RAIL. The results of the analysis are shown on an annual basis in Exhibit VII. 7.

Rail Car Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs

WMATA currently does not have very much information regarding the rehabilitation and replacement of the rail car fleet. Experience from other properties is of limited value because of the unique features of the ViMATA vehicles. Based on limited information, WMATA estimates a useful life for the rail cars of approximately 35 years, recognizing that the actual life for individual vehicles will vary somewhat from that average. With a current replacement cost of approximately $1.1 million in 1986 dollars, this represents a very significant cost. However, this cost would not be reflected in the analysis unless it is annualized, since the useful lives of the initial fleet would not be reached until approximately 2012.

-VII. 13-

EXHIBIT VII. 6

METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES

A Office Furn & Equipment

E Service Vehicles

F Automobiles

G Trucks - Pick Up

H Trucks - Heavy Duty

W Passenger Station Overheads

X Passenger Station Kiosk

Y Passenger Station Signing

Z Passenger Station Elev Structure

AA Passenger Station Other

AB Parking Facilities

AF Equipment Transit Way

AG Escalators

AH Elevators

AI Equipment Parking

AJ Equipment Shops

AK Equipment Power

AL Equipment ATC Stations

AM Equipment ATC Xover & Turnout

AN Equipment ATC Yard

AO Equipment ATC Passenger Car

AP Equipment ATC Computer System

AQ Equipment ATC Line

AR Equipment Bus Control, AIDS

AS AFC Vendor AT AFC Addfare AU AFC DADS AV AFC Transfer AW AFC Gates AX AFC Other

AY Equipment Data Processing AZ Equipment Communication BA Equipment Other

Note: Rail car rehabilitation and replacement costs are computed in a separate analysis

-VII. 14-

EXHIBIT VII. 7

RAIL EQUIP REHAB AND REPLACEMENT

(7— Year Rolling Averages)

-VII. 15-

EXHIBIT VII. 8 WMATA RAIL CAR REHABILITATION COSTS BY COMPONENT

Component

of Total % of Cost Freq. Cost Replaced Years

Total %

Car Body

Dest. Signs/Lighting

7.84 2.45

40 lb/20 100 12 & 24

3.136 4.900

Propulsion System

Friction Brakes & Pneumatics

Auxiliary Systems

Truck/Suspension & Primary Power System

Coupler/Draft Gear

Doors & Controls

HVAC

Communications ATC System

4.28

13 . 01

4.33

34.02 1.70 3.82 4.22 0.97

23.36

15

15 33.3

10

40 100-

40 100

25

20

20 20

20 15/20 15/20 15/20 15/20 15/20

4.280

1.952 1.443

3.402 0, 680 3.820 1.688 0.970 5.840

TOTAL

100.00

32.111

-VII. 16-

In addition to the ultimate replacement of the vehicles, a major rehabilitation is anticipated at approximately half-way through the life of the car or at about 18 years. WMATA estimates that the value of the car components that would be replaced would amount to 32.11% of the total car value when car-borne ATC equipment is included, or about $353,000 per car. Exhibit VII. 8 summarizes the derivation of this replacement factor, on a component-by-component basis.

Some of these components have already been replaced on the initial WMATA fleet of Rohr cars through various upgrade programs. For purposes of the analysis, this has been assumed to delay the mid-point for rehabilitation to 23 years for these vehicles .

Because of the magnitude of rail car costs and the fact that the replacement costs and most of the rehabilitation costs would not be incurred until after 2 000, it was deemed prudent to treat rail car costs somewhat differently from those for the rehabilitation and replacement of other rail and bus system components. Therefore, simple straight-line, average annual costs were computed for the rehabilitation and replacement of each component of the current and future Metrorail fleet. These calculations were made by estimating the rehabilitation and replacement dates for each fleet component, then spreading these costs uniformly over the respective useful lives. For the current fleet, the costs were computed over a shorter time frame reflecting the age of the fleet and were assumed to start in 1988 since no provision for these costs is currently included in the 1986 or 1987 WMATA budgets .

Thus, the rehabilitation year for the initial 24 0 Rohr cars that were capitalized in 1977 would be 2000 with replacment in 2012. The remaining 60 Rohr cars follow one year later. The first Breda cars, capitalized in 1983, would require rehabilitation in 2001 (18 years) but replacement would not occur until 2018. The remaining Breda cars in the current fleet would be rehabilitated and replaced on an annual basis over succeeding years. The final cars purchased are scheduled to begin revenue service in 1997, resulting in rehabilitation in 2015 and replacement in 2032.

For each fleet, the rehabilitation and replacement costs were spread over the appropriate years and summed for annual values. The resulting values are shown in Exhibit VII. 9. The rehabilitation costs increase from approximately $16 million to approximately $19 million by the end of the century. The replacement costs increase from approximately $25 million to approximately $30 million over the period. The totals for 1993 and 2000 are $42.2 million and $48.9 million, respectively. A more complete analysis of each fleet component on an annual basis through 2 015 is shown in Appendix E.

-VII. 17-

EXHIBIT VII. 9

32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 1 6 1 4 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

RAIL CAR REHAB AND REPLACEMENT

(Annualized Costs)

H 1 1 K

tJ B B B B-

-( h

-B B II

1 1 1 1 1 r—

86 88 90 92

— I 1 1 r

94 96 98

Rehab

Replacement

-VII. 18-

SUMMARY

A summary of all rehabilitation and replacement costs is shown in Exhibit VII. 10 for buses, other bus costs, rail structures, track, rail equipment, and the annualized rail car values. Costs increase from approximately $100 million in the late 1980 's to almost $160 million by the end of the century. The values for the key years of 1993 and 2 000 are summarized in Exhibit VII. 11.

LIMITATIONS

This analysis is the first comprehensive analysis of WMATA's capital rehabilitation and replacement costs. Indeed, transit systems rarely have attempted this type of projection. While V7MATA has prepared a Five-Year Metrobus and Metrorail Reliability Program, this program was not intended to address costs beyond the 5-year planning horizon. For this reason, the Five-Year Program was of limited assistance in this analysis.

Although it appears possible to model future WMATA capital rehabilitation and replacement costs on experience of other transit systems, the fundamental differences between WMATA and other properties preclude this comparison. These differences include:

o Technology; Metrorail is extremely sophisticated in many areas. Some of the systems used are unique to WMATA. Most systems are more advanced than those of the older, Northeastern rail systems. With the exception of BART, no new rail transit system has more experience than WMATA.

o Historv of Deferred Maintenance: WMATA has one of the best maintenance programs in the transit industry. Many transit systems are currently investing large sums of money to compensate for years of deferred maintenance.

For these reasons, the study relied on the professional judgment of knowledgeable WMATA staff for estimates of the length of rehabilitation and replacement cycles and the relative costs of replacement.

Clearly, the level of detail in the projection of Metrorail systems equipment (AFC, ATC, traction power, and communications) far exceeds the detail in the facilities cost projections. Ideally, WMATA should begin to conduct such component-by- component assessments in other maintenance areas in order to further refine these projections.

It is also recognized that the magnitude of these rehabilitation and replacement costs suggests a significant increase in the size of the WMATA staff to plan and manage the work. Such an increase in administrative costs is not addressed in the operating cost projections.

-VII. 19-

EXHIBIT VII. 10

-VII. 20-

EXHIBIT VII. 11

WMATA REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS (Millions of 1986 Dollars)

Category 1993 2000 Bus :

Buses 19.9 19.9

Other 5.0 4.8

Subtotal: Bus 24.9 24.7

Rail Facilities:

Stations 1.1 25.7

Line 0.6 4.1

Track (except yards) 15.0 14.5

Other Facilities 2.9 14.6

Subtotal: Rail Facilities 19.6 58.9

Rail Equipment:

Rail Cars (Annualized) 42.2 48.9

Other Equipment 26.3 25.0

Subtotal: Rail Equipment 68.5 73.9

Subtotal: Rail 88.1 132.8

TOTAL 113.0 157.5

-VII. 21-

VIII. ALLOCATION OF WMATA SUPPORT

OPERATING SUPPORT

The allocation of Metrorail operating support is based on a formula that gives equal weight to rail system supply, ridership by jurisdiction of residence, and population density. Rail system supply is defined as the number of stations in a given jurisdiction. Population density allocations have been based upon the 1980 census and this study uses the 1980 census allocations as well.

The third component — ridership by jurisdiction of residence of passengers — is briefly discussed in Chapter IV. Passengers from outside the WMATA compact are ignored in computing the allocation percentages, although their numbers are substantial, particularly for non-home based trips. The model results, by jurisdiction of residence, were adjusted slightly to match observed data. All of the allocation factors are summarized in Appendix F.

Metrorail operating assistance is computed simply as the difference between total Metrorail operating costs and total Metrorail revenues. Exhibits VIII. 1 and VIII. 2 show Metrorail operating assistance allocated by jurisdiction according to the criteria described above. This allocation is presented in constant 1986 dollars. The total WMATA rail assistance is projected to nearly double between 1986 and 2000. The jurisdictional allocation of the Metrorail support varies, with Prince George ' s County and Fairfax County experiencing a greater percentage increase since rail service within these jurisdictions increases dramatically. The other jurisdictions experience lesser percentage increases as their shares computed by the formula decrease.

In addition to the operating assistance noted above, the jurisdictions provide Metrorail fare support through two additional programs. The District of Columbia's discount for trips using stations east of the Anacostia River is assumed to expand with the Green Line extension to the Anacostia and Congress Heights stations. Also, the maximum fare reimbursement to WMATA for trips benefiting from the rail "taper and cap" is distributed on the basis of the jurisdiction of benefiting passengers. Both factors are shown in Exhibit VIII. 1.

Metrobus operating assistance is computed by allocating costs and revenues separately by jurisdiction. The allocation of Metrobus revenues were derived from the patronage analysis described in Chapter IV. Metrobus costs are allocated on the basis of bus- miles and bus-hours of service within a given jurisdiction. These are then applied to allocate the fixed, miles-related and hours- related Metrobus operating costs.

-VIII. 1-

EXHIBIT VIII. 1

METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE

($ 1986 Millions)

	1 O ^		o r> n n
	"D T T P\ XT' m BUDGE!	TIT) r\ T	T5T3<~\ T FKUJ
Total Operating Cost	188 . 513	238.243	291.633
Total Metrorail Revenue	122.585	156 .449	loD . 4oo
Total Operating Assistance	65.928	81 . 794	106.14 5
Allocated Operating Assistance:
District of Columbia	27.861	34 . 109	43.808
Montgomery County	ai.933	13.561	16.812
Prince Georges County	9.415	12.067	18.134
Arlington	7.259	8.355	9.949
Alexandria	3.270	3.868	4.706
Fairfax County	5.861	9.421	12 . 209
Falls Church	0 . 165	0 . 189	0.240
Fairfax City	0 . 165	0.225	0.286
TOTAL	65.928	81.794	106. 145
Rail Fare Support Programs:
Maximum Fare Reimbursement:
District of Columbia	0.091	0. 133	0. 162
Montgomery County	0.733	1. 021	1.277
Prince Georges County	0.222	0.299	0.418
Arlington	0.017	0. 033	0. 039
Alexandria	0.059	0. 085	0.092
Fairfax County	0. 174	0.439	0.575
Falls Church	0.003	0.036	0.051
Fairfax City	0. 001	0. 003	0.003
TOTAL	1. 300	2.049	2.617
DC Fare Reimbursement:	0.225	0. 625	0.598

EXHIBIT VIII. 2

METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE

110 -1

1986 1993 2000

IZZ DC 1X3 MC PG ^ AX KZI AR f^X

-VIII. 3-

Exhibit VIII. 3 shows allocated Metrobus costs and revenues. The operating assistance by jurisdiction is simply the difference between costs and revenues. The level of assistance is not expected to change dramatically in future years. Although bus service will be turned-back or eliminated as the rail system expands, many of the routes deleted in the central city are generally more productive than the system-wide average. In addition, some modest increases are projected in new Metrobus services in the outer counties.

The total WMATA operating support by jurisdiction is shown in Exhibits VIII. 4 and VIII. 5. These jurisdictional costs represent the sum of Metrorail operating support, Metrorail fare reimbursement, and Metrobus operating support. As the previous exhibits illustrate, most of the increase reflects expansion of Metrorail service.

Metrorail, Metrobus, and total WMATA operating support are summarized in Exhibits VIII. 6 and VIII. 7. These Exhibits includes an estimate of the revenues and costs for other Metrobus programs which, following previous WMATA assumptions, are assumed to be self-supporting. These programs include contract and charter service, net investment income, leverage leasing (soon to expire) , and bus advertising and miscellaneous income.

The cost recovery ratios decline slightly for both Metrorail and Metrobus. However, since Metrorail, with its higher recovery ratio, becomes a much larger part of overall WMATA services, the overall recovery ratio for the system actually increases slightly.

ANNUAL ESTIMATES

Annual operating cost estimates were prepared by running the operating cost model described in Chapter V with a set of annual operating statistics as input. The rail statistics were computed based on the schedule of openings of the Metrorail system and reflect partial years of operation as appropriate.

Metrobus operating statistics were also estimated on an annual basis tied to rail openings. The changes described in Chapter 3 were applied for each corridor and were assumed to take place with the implementation of the rail service changes. For simplicity, no other modifications to Metrobus services at other times were reflected in the analysis.

Bus and rail passenger revenue and rail support program estimates were computed on an annual basis by interpolation between the 1985, 1993, and 2000 values. The interpolation factors included a demographic trend based on increases in core area employment, the single most significant determinant of transit ridership. The interpolations also included the relative ridership changes in various corridors to reflect the different Metrorail extensions during the 1986 - 1993 and 1993 - 2000 periods.

-VIII. 4-

EXHIBIT VIII. 3

METROBUS	OPERATING ASSISTANCE
	($	1986 Millions)
		1985	1993	2000
		BUDGET	PROJ	PROJ
Allocated Revenues:
District of Columbia		46.471	43 . 369	41.593
Montgomery County		7.552	7.349	7.305
Prince Georges County		8.862	8.145	7.777
Alexandria		4.122	4	4 . 262
Arlington		4.906	5.219	5.505
Fairfax City		0. 118	0.074	0 . 079
Fairfax County		9.342	9.356	9.785
Falls Church		0 . 196	0 . 18	0 . 198
NVTC		0 . 014	0	0
TOTAL		81 . 585	77 . 692	76.504
Allocated Costs:
• • • District of Columbia		114 .428	113 . 807	111.777
Montgomery County		27. 129	26.979	27.508
Prince Georges County		26.238	26.428	26.418
Alexandria		9.873	10.013	10.048
Arlington		12.996	13.528	13.567
Fairfax City		0.503	0.359	0.360
Fairfax County		33.621	31.996	33.199
Falls Church		0.866	0.766	0.768
N V i		U . U / 1	r\ r\r\c\ U . UUU	0.000
TOTAL		225.725	223.876	223.646
Allocated Assistance:
District of Columbia		67 . 957	70.438	70.184
Montgomery County		19.577	19.630	20.203
Prince Georges County		17.376	18.283	18.641
Alexandria		5 . 751	6 . 013	5.786
Arlington		8.090	8.309	8. 062
Fairfax City		0.385	0.285	0.281
Fairfax County		24.279	22.640	23.414
Falls Church		0.670	0.586	0.570
NVTC		0.057	0. 000	0.000
TOTAL		144.140	146.184	147.142

-VIII. 5-

EXHIBIT VIII. 4 TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE

($ 1986 Millions)

	1986	1993	2000
	BUDGET	PROJ	PROJ
District of Columbia	96. 134	105.306	114.752
Montgomery County	32.243	34.212	38.292
Prince Georges County	27. 013	30. 649	37. 193
Alexandria	9.080	9.965	10.584
Arlington	15. 366	16.697	18.049
Fairfax City	0.551	0.513	0.571
Fairfax County	30.314	32.500	36. 198
Falls Church	0.838	0.811	0.861
NVTC	0.057	0.000	0.000
TOTAL	211.595	230.652	256.501

-VIII. 6-

EXHIBIT VIII. 5

TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE

260 -T I

1986 1993 2000

[ZZl DC [X3 MC VZZ^ PG AX KZl AR FX

-VIII. 7-

EXHIBIT VIII. 6

WMATA COST RECOVERY RATIOS

($ 1986 Millions)

1986 BUDGET

1993 PROJ

2000 PROJ

METRORAIL

Total Operating Cost

Fare Revenue Non-Operating Revenue Total Revenue

Recovery Ratio

METROBUS

Total Allocated Operating Cost Non-Allocated Operating Cost Total Operating Cost

Total Operating Revenue Other Revenue Total Revenue

Recovery Ratio

TOTAL WMATA

Total Operating Cost Total Revenue

188.513

114.109 8.476 122.585

65.0%

225.725 7.980 233.705

81.585 7.980 89.565

38.3%

422.218 212.150

238.243

145.849 10. 600 156.449

65.7%

223.876 9. 100

232.976

77.692 9. 100 86.792

37.3%

471.219 243.241

291.633

173.388 12 . 100 185.488

63.6 =

223.646 9.800 233.446

76.504 9.800 86.304

37.02

525.079 271.792

Recovery Ratio

50.2%

51.

51.8!

-VIII. 8-

EXHIBIT VIII. 7

COVERAGE OF WMATA COSTS

300 -T

BUS RAIL BUS RAIL BUS RAIL

1 986 1 993 2000

\/ /\ Revenue Assistance

-VIII. 9-

Annual parking revenue was' computed based on the scheduled opening of parking facilities with some lag to account for maturing of ridership patterns. Other revenues such as joint development, interest earnings, advertising, and bus charter and contract services were projected based on assumptions provided by WMATA.

The annual cost and revenue estimates were then used to compute operating support requirements which were, in turn, allocated to the jurisdictions using the formulas described above. The resulting allocations are summarized in Appendix G.

DEBT SERVICE

Another requirement of WMATA support is the debt payments on the original WMATA revenue bonds. These payments are normally treated as an operating expense by the local jurisdictions. The annual of payments required of the six major jurisdictions are as follows:

o $10,085 million - o 4.434 million - o 4,439 million - o 3.093 million - o 2.675 million - o 1.384 million -

District

Montgomery County Prince Georges County Fairfax County Arlington County Alexandria

o $26,110 million - Six Major Jurisdictions

Since these payments are fixed, they will decline in constant dollars to $18,825 million by 1993 and $13,378 million by 2000.

REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS

Other WMATA capital costs have traditionally been allocated using formulas similar to those described above for operating costs. These formulas have been assumed to apply to the rehabilitation and replacement (R & R) costs described in Chapter VII.

The allocation of rail R & R costs is based on an average of the allocation of rail operating support over the past five years. Historical data obtained from WMATA were used together with the annual estimates of operating support derived as noted above.

Bus capital costs are allocated simply on the basis of the mileage-related term used in the assignment of operating costs to jurisdiction. This approach was used for all bus R & R costs and is consistent with past WMATA practices.

FEDERAL SUPPORT

Federal support to WMATA traditionally has been provided in several areas: rail construction support, most recently under the terms of the Stark-Harris authorizations; various other capital grants for bus and rail equipment and facilities; and operating

-VIII. 10-

support. With respect to continued Federal support of rail construction, two scenarios are set forth in Chapter VI.

The concept of two alternative Federal funding scenarios is also appropriate for other forms of Federal aid. Federal operating assistance currently is allocated for the six major jurisdictions as follows:

o	$7.	805	million	- District
o	2.	958	million	- Montgomery County
o	2.	958	million	- Prince Georges County
o	2.	407	million	- Fairfax County
o	1.	527	million	- Arlington County
o	0.	727	million	- Alexandria
o	$18.	382	million	- Six Major Jurisdictions

Under the favorable funding scenario (Alternative A) , Federal operating assistance is assumed to remain level in year-of- expenditure dollars, thus declining in constant dollars. The Federal operating support in constant dollars therefore drops to $13,253 million by 1993 and to $9,419 million by 2000. Under the unfavorable Federal funding scenario (Alternative B) , operating assistance is assumed to be discontinued entirely, in line with the current administration proposal.

Federal support for rehabilitation and replacement costs under the favorable funding scenario is assumed to be at a level of 75% of total requirements. This assumption implies a modification of Federal policies regarding major rail rehabilitation and replacement. Currently, discretionary Federal funds for these purposes are limited (at a 75% match) to systems that were not constructed with major Federal participation.

Under the unfavorable Federal funding scenario, the only Federal funds available are assumed to be those contained in the proposed block grant program. The Washington area's allocation under this program would remain constant in year-of-expenditure dollars and would equal approximately $21.6 million in 1993 and $15.4 million in 2 000. For analysis purposes, these funds were assumed to be allocated proportionally to bus and rail R & R requirements in any given year.

STATE SUPPORT

Support provided by the states of Maryland and Virginia has become significant to the local governments in the Washington area. The two programs have very different institutional histories and allocation approaches. Of course, no equivalent source of state aid exists for .the District of Columbia.

The Maryland aid is provided through the Maryland transportation trust fund and is assumed to be available in the future at currently applied matching ratios. Under the Maryland aid program, the State pays 100% of Metrorail construction costs

-VIII. 11-

allocated to Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The State pays 75% of incidental capital costs, which are assumed to include all of the projected rehabilitation and capital costs, and 75% of the revenue bond debt service. For operating support, the State pays 75% of the local allocation after accounting for Federal aid and subject to an overall farebox recovery ratio of 50% or higher.

Virginia state aid consists of direct appropriations and revenue from a state authorized gasoline tax. This revenue stream is assumed to increase in line with the overall rate of inflation, thus remaining constant in 1986 dollars at a level of $31,602 million. Moreover, Virginia state aid is assumed to be used as it has been in recent years.

The Virginia aid is first assumed to be applied to completely fund the debt service on the original Metrorail revenue bonds. The remaining funds are assumed to be allocated between operating support and capital in the same proportions as in recent years, or about 85% for operations and 15% for capital.

The allocation to jurisdictions within Virginia is based 75% on total WMATA operating support and 25% on total transit operating costs. For Alexandria and Fairfax County, the latter includes the costs of operating the DASH and Fairfax Connector bus systems. The resulting percentage allocations for the three key years are as follows:

1986 1993 2000

Fairfax 52.45% 52.46% 53.27%

Arlington 28.28% 28.48% 28.13%

Alexandria 16.80% 16.98% 16.56%

Other 2.48% 2.07% 2.04%

The capital allocations are assumed to be applied to Metrorail construction until that program winds down in the late 1990 's and are applied to rehabilitation and replacement costs thereafter.

SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS

A summary of allocated WMATA support by category for the region is shown in Exhibit VIII. 8 for the two Federal funding scenarios. Under the favorable Federal funding, the total assistance remains at approximately $300 million per year throughout the projection period. Under the unfavorable scenario, total support increases to just over $600 million during the early 1990 's, dropping back to about $400 million after completion of Metrorail construction.

An overall allocation of WMATA support by jurisdiction is shown in Exhibit VIII. 9. Individual summaries for the six major jurisdictions are shown in Exhibits VIII. 10 - VIII. 15. In the latter exhibits, state aid is shown as well, except for the District of Columbia. All data used in preparing these exhibits and other relevant information are summarized in Appendix G.

-VIII. 12-

EXHIBIT VIII. 8

PROJECTED NON-PEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

REGIONAL TOTAL: ALTERNATIVE A

700

600 -

500 -

400 -

300 -

200 -

100 -

-
		Total Cotti Alt. A
	Rail Construction	^Rahabilitatlon I "tpiacaatnt
	Opirating	Attiitanet
Dtet strvict ■

80

as

90

92 aA- Flacat Y«ar

96

98

OO

700

REGIONAL TOTAL: ALTERNATIVE B

(Unfavorable Fmdmral Transit Policl«s)

SCO -

500 -

400 -

300 -

200 -

Total Cotti Alt. B

Rohabilltation t> Rtplaciaant

100 -

Operating Atnittanca

Dtbt Strvict

r

86

r

88

— I — 90

— I — 92

— 1 — 94-

—T — 96

— 1 — 98

OO

Flacol Y«ar

-VIII. 13-

EXHIBIT VIII. 9

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION: ALT. A

(rovorobl* F«d«ral Tran«it PollcI««)

o

1

00

o o

TOO

600 -

500 -

400 -

300 -

200 -

100 -

86

Total Cost! Alt. A

Alixandrla

Fairfax

Prlnci Siorgii

nontgoairy

District of Coluabia

88

90

— I — 92

— I — 94-

— I — 96

— I — 98

OO

Fiscal Y«ar

M

1

00

700

JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable F«d«ral Transit Policies)

600 -

500

400 -

O 300 -

3 200 -

100 -

Princ* Siorq

Alixandria

Arllngt

Fairfax

nontgoatry

trlct of Coluabla

Coatt Alt. B

T 1 1 1 1 r-

86 88 90 92

—I f 1 1— 1 —

9A 96 98

OO

Fiscol Ysar

-VIII. 14-

EXHIBIT VIII. 10

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

DISTRICT ALLOCATION: ALT. A

260 Z4-0 220 200 1S0 160 1 4.0 120 100 80 60 4-0 20 O

(Favorable Fedarol Transit Policies)

Total Cotti Alt. A

Rthibilitation li Rtplictatnt

Opirating Aitittmct

Dabt_ S»rvie»

86

T — " — I r

88

90

92

Racal Yeor

T 1 1 1 1 1 —

9'4- - 96 98

00

DISTRICT ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable Federal Tronslt Policies) 260 -,

86 88 90 92 96 98 OO

Fiscal Year

-VIII. 15-

EXHIBIT VIII. 11

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

MONTGOMERY ALLOCATION: ALT. A

(Favorable Tederal Transit Policies)

90

SO - 70 - 60 - SO - 4-0 -

30 - 20 - 10

O

Total Costi Alt. A

Stati Rail Construction

rr... R«h«bilitatiQn '^'Pl'ctaent

Total Local Cotti Alt. A

Stati Opirating Atsittano d Debt Servlci

Local Rshabilitation i Replacemnt

2:^

86

— I —

as

— I — 90

Local Operating Assistance I Debt Service

— I — 92

— 1 — 94

■— J — 96

T

— I — 98

00

Fiscal Year

90

MONTGOMERY ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies)

TO

86

Total Costi Alt. B

State Rehabilitation l Replacement

State Operating Assistance li Debt Service

Total Local Costi Alt. B

Local Rehabilitation It Replaceeent

— I — S8

— I — go

Local Operating Assistance & Debt Service

—r

— I — 92

— I — 94

— T — 96

— T — 98

00

Rscal Year

-VIII. 16-

EXHIBIT VIII. 12

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

S

1 CO

120 1 10 100 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 O

PRINCE GEORGES ALLOCATION; ALT. A

(rovoroble Federal Transit Policies)

Tottl Cotti Alt. A

Sttti Rail Conitruction

Stati Rihabilitition ti Rtplaciatnt

Stati Opiratlng Attlttanca k Dtbt Sirvlct

Local Rihabllitation l RtpUctaint

Total Local Coiti Alt. A

Local Oparating Aiiiitanct I Debt Strvici

86

— 1 — 88

90

I

9A

92

Fiscal Yoor

96

—I — 98

OO

o I OO

PRINCE

GEORGES ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies)

Total Coiti Alt. B

Stata Rail Conttruction

State Rehabilitation

V Replaceaent

State Operating Ataittance i Debt Service

Total Local Coati Alt. B

local Kthab i Iitation t R^ejaceaent

Local Operating Aisistance k Debt Service

86

—| — 88

— I — 90

T

— I — 94-

92

Fiscal Year

— I — 96

— I — 98

OO

-VIII. 17-

EXHIBIT VIII. 13

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

FAIRFAX ALLOCATION: ALT. A

(Favorable Federal Transit Policies)

SO

70 - 60 - 50 40

ID -

Total Co«ti Alt. A

Tot«l Statt Aid

Total Local Coati Alt. A

Bthabilitationj:irr"«Pl""»"t

Local 0p»ratin9 AsiUtanct

S6

— I — 88

~T— 90

T 1 r

-T — 94-

92

Flsca! Year

T — T —

96

— 1 T

98

OO

FAIRFAX ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies)

-| 1 — — I 1 > ! T — 1 1 r-~ — I T 1 1 — — i

86 88 90 92 94- 96 98 OO

Fiseol Yeor

-VIII. 18-

EXHIBIT VIII. 14

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

ARLINGTON ALLOCATION: ALT. A

eo

50 -

40 -

30 -

20

(Favorable Tedoral Transit Policies)

Total Coitt Alt. A

Total Local Cottt Alt. A

Total Statt Aid

£ocal_R.il CapitaTir:::^^^^ R.h.faTTrutn;r'"TIi^i^^

B6

— f — 88

— I — 90

Local Optrating Astlitanct

-r

— I 1 — — I —

Fiscal Yeor

—J — 96

98

OO

eo

ARLINGTON ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies)

50 -

-40 -

30 -

20

Total Cost! Alt. B

Total Local Costt Alt. B

Local Rahabi 1 i tati on l Raplactatnt

Local Oparatinq Ataittanca

— I — 96

— I — 98

86

— I — 88

— I — 90

— r-

92

T

— I — 9A

OO

Fiscal Yeor

-VIII. 19-

EXHIBIT VIII o 15

PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

ALEXANDRIA ALLOCATION: ALT. A

(Favorable Tederol Transit Policies)

n o

00

o

30
28	-
26	-
24-	-
22	-
20	-
1 8
16
1 A
12
ID
8
6
A-
2
O

86

Total Costi Alt. A

Total Stat* Aid

Total Local Co«t« Alt. A

ocal flthabn'»»^'»i '^'Pl'oatnt Loeal Operating Atsittanct

90

—f — 92

— I — Q4-

— I — 96

I

98

OO

Fiscal Yeor

M

jg OO

ALEXANDRIA ALLOCATION: ALT. B

(Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies)

Total Cost! Alt. B

Total Loeal Costt Alt. B

Local Rfbabilitation ti Replaceatnt

Local Operating Attittanci

86

T 1 r

88

90

T 1 -T 1 —

92 9<4.

— 1 1 1 T

96 98

OO

Fiscal Year

-VIII. 20-

IX. MEASURING THE WMATA BURDEN: 1980 - 1985

Between 1980 and 1985, Washington area governments experienced an 88 percent increase in their transit assistance allocations for WMATA transit services from $118.1 million in 1980 to $221.6 million in 1985 (both figures in year-of-expenditure dollars) . This increase resulted from a 53 percent increase in bus assistance (from $89.1 million to $136.5 million), a 103 percent increase in rail assistance (from $29.0 million to $58.9 million) , and the allocation of debt service on bonds issued to finance rail construction (see Exhibit IX. 1). It should be noted that the costs did not increase uniformly over this period. The largest annual increase (23 percent) occurred in 1981 when debt service payments were first included. The smallest annual increases (4.4 percent and 5.1 percent) occurred in 1984 and 1985, and reflected the effect of lower inflation rates and cost cutting measures.

It has been suggested that this rapid growth in transit assistance has placed undue strains on the ability of area governments to pay these costs while meeting their other responsiblities . While undue strain does not lend itself to exact definition, it is possible to compare the operating assistance allocations of the jurisdictions to some simple measures of ability to pay. These measures indicate how large the burden is, as well as whether it is an increasing relative burden.

The relative burden may be viewed against four different measures. These measures compare transit assistance allocations to:

o Personal Income, which is a good measure of the

underlying wealth that is generated in the area, and that is thus available to pay taxes. Personal income is measured at place of residence and includes not only earnings but also unearned income such as interest and rents. (Personal income information is not yet available for 1984 and 1985.)

o Earnings . which are measured by place of employment. This measure reflects the extent of jobs and business activity that exists within the jurisdictions in the area. While earnings are not directly taxed by any jurisdiction, they do represent a stream of economic activity within a jurisdiction, and thus enhance the economic base. (Earnings information is not yet available for 1984 and 1985.)

o Property Value, which is a tax base common to all area jurisdictions and the one that is used to generate substantial revenues. This measure shows the transit assistance allocation as a tax rate that would need to be applied to property values.

-IX. 1-

EXHIBIT IX. 1

CHANGE IN TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS 1980 - 1985

(Thousands of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars)

Bus % Rail % Debt % % Year Operation Chng Operation Chng Service Chng Total Chnq

23 . 0% 18.4 17.3 4.4 5.1

Five-Year

Increase 53.2% 103.1% 87.6%

1980	$89,	103			$29,	004						$118,	107
1981	93,	242	4 .	6%	35,	369	21.	9%	$16,	669		145,	280
1982	110,	947	19.	0	44,	409	25.	6	16,	669		172,	025
1983	125,	137	12 .	8	50,	769	14.	3	25,	933	55.	6% 201,	839
1984	130,	107	4.	0	53,	134	4.	7	27,	484	6.	0 210,	725
1985	136,	471	4.	9	58,	914	10.	9	26,	189	-4 .	7 221,	574

Sources: Operating Assistance Report. Fiscal Year 1985, WMATA, Appendix C, and special tabulation from WMATA, dated August 13, 1985.

o Total Operating Expenditures for each government. This measure relates the transit assistance allocations directly to government budgets, and thus shows how much of a government's actual resources need to be used for this purpose. This measure does not lend itself to comparisons between jurisdictions because there is a wide variance among governments in the services they provide, and, therefore, in the size of their total expenditures. For example, the District's expenditures are relatively large because they include expenditures that are made by state governments in suburban jurisdictions.

These measures can be applied against either the gross transit assistance allocations, or the net transit assistance allocations, i.e., after deducting Federal and state operating assistance. The gross allocations are important because they show how the formulas allocate the burden by jurisdiction, and because they represent the maximum potential burden that each jurisdiction might have to incur.

The net basis, after reducing the allocations by available Federal aid and state transit assistance payments, results in an actual measure of the financial burden incurred. When only the net assistance allocations are considered, the local area government payments increased only 67 percent from $82.7 million in 1980 to $138.5 million in 1985 (see Exhibit IX. 2). While Federal aid declined over the period, state 'aid increased more than sixfold. In 1985, as in previous years, total state aid was somewhat higher in Maryland than in Virginia, with, of course, no state aid in the District.

What do the measures show about the ablity of area governments to bear the costs of WMATA in recent years? A summary of the measures are shown in Exhibit IX. 3 for gross assistance and in Exhibit IX. 4 for net assistance after state and Federal aid is taken into account. More detailed data showing the actual cost elements of the measures are included in Appendix I. The sources of data in all these Exhibits were:

o WMATA operating assistance: Operating Assistance Report, Fiscal Year 1985, WMATA, Appendix C, and special tabulation from WMATA, dated August 13, 1985.

o Personal Income: Local Area Personal Income, Vol. 3 Mideast Region, 1978-83, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, June 1985.

o Property Values and Total Expenditures: Annual financial reports and official statements of jurisdictions.

As shown in these Exhibits, the results are mixed, but generally they show the increased burden has not been as heavy as the dollar or percentage increases in transit assistance allocations would suggest.

-IX. 3-

EXHIBIT IX. 2

CHANGE IN TRJ^SIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENTS

ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS 1980 - 1985

(Thousands of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars)

Total

	Assistance	%	Federal	%	State	%	Local	%
Year	Payments	Chna	Subsidy	Chna	Aid	Chna	Payments	Chna
1980	$118, 107		$25, 646		$9,750		$82,711
1981	145,280	23.0%	26, 010	1.4%	23,487	140.9%	95,783	15.8%
1982	172,025	18.4	23, 133	-11. 1	42,350	80.3	106, 542	11.2
1983	201,839	17.3	18,486	-20.1	58,497	38.1	124,856	17.2
1984	210,725	4.4	18, 506	0.1	56, 014	-4.2	136,205	9.1
1985	221, 574	5.1	18,506		64, 539	15.2	138,529	1.7
Five-	-Year
Increase	87.6%		-27.8%		561.9%		67.5%

Sources: Federal subsidy: Operatina Assistance Report, Fiscal Year 1985, WMATA, Appendix C: State aid, Virginia: Northern Virginia Transportation Commission. State aid, Maryland: Maryland Department of Transportation

STATE PAYMENTS FOR TRT^SIT ASSISTANCE 1980 " 1985

(Thousands of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars)

Year	Maryland		Virainia	*			Total
1980	$9,750						$9,	750
1981	23,487	140,	9%				23,	487	140.	9%
1982	29, 112	2 3 o	9	$13,238			42,	350	80.	3
1983	34,215	17 .	5	24,282	83 .	4%	58,	497	38.	1
1984	33,511	-2.	1	22,503	-7.	3	56,	014	-4 .	2
1985	36,790	9.	8	27,749	23.	3	64,	539	15.	2

* Includes money from a state authorized local gasoline tax as well as direct state appropriations. Reflects the actual amounts disbursed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission on behalf of each local government for rail and bus operation and for debt service

-IX. 4-

EXHIBIT IX. 3

WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY 1980 - 1985

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Total Six Jurisdictions

Personal Income .327% .358% .391% .423%

Earnings (Place of Work) .384 .429 .472 .506

Taxable Property Values .176 .187 .188 .199

Total Operating Expend. 3.468 4.019 4.410 4.403

District of Columbia

Personal Income .741 .755 .842 .958

Earnings (Place of Work) .432 .450 .507 .576

Taxable Property Values .497 .465 .427 .466

Total Operating Expend. 3.136 3.528 3.957 4.270

Montgomery County

Personal Income .155 .196 .208

Earnings (Place of Work) .262 .337 .356

Taxable Property Values .073 .089 .090

Total Operating Expend. 3.033 3.879 4.056

Prince George ' s County

Personal Income .234 .291 .315

Earnings (Place of Work) .441 .552 .621

Taxable Property Values .142 .186 .198

Total Operating Expend. 4.700 6.038 6.271

Fairfax County

Personal Income .182 .202 .225

Earnings (Place of Work) .379 .417 .459

Taxable Property Values .100 .107 .109

Total Operating Expend. 3.081 3.277 3.655

Arlington County

Personal Income .366 .422 .457

Earnings (Place of Work) .287 .333 .351

Taxable Property Values .151 .165 .175

Total Operating Expend. 5.800 6.962 7.662

Alexandria

Personal Income .355 .377 .414

Earnings (Place of Work) .494 .526 .559

Taxable Property Values .155 .162 .166

Total Operating Expend. 5.780 5.787 6.251

* Change in accounting

Sources: see text

.196% .187% 4.308 4.214

.459 3.988

.420 3.831

.209 .349

.089 .091 .098 3.529* 3.603 3.952

.312 .627

.189 .180 .172 4.560* 4.783 4.616

.246 .477

.113 .119 .114 4.022 4.088 4.062

.511 .377

.207 .192 .174 8.689 8.405 7.852

.468 . 626

.194 .193 .177

6.992 6.435 5.716

-IX. 5-

I

EXHIBIT IX. 4

WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY 1980 - 1985

	1980	1981	1982	1983		1984		1985
Total Six Jurisdictions Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend.	.228% .268 . 123 2.423	.236% .282 . 123 2 . 644	.244% .294 . 118 2.751	. 265% .317 . 125 2.760	2	. 127% .789	2	. lie: , 623
District of Columbia Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend.	. 590 .343 .39S 2.496	^ n '~i . 617 .368 .380 2.882	.735 .442 . 373 3 .455	.879 . 529 ,427 3,918	3	.421 .661	3	, 387 ,527
Montaomery County Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend,	. 056 .096 . 026 1. 106	. 051 .088 . 023 1. 012	. 047 .081 . 021 0.925	, 044 , 074 ,019 0,751*	1	. 028 .094	1	,031 .270
Prince Georae ' s County Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend,	. 104 . 195 . 063 2.083	, 063 . 119 . 040 1. 305	, 079 . 156 .050 1,577	, 075 . 151 . 045 1. 098*	1	.047 .249	1	.039 . 059
Fairfax Countv Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend.	. 146 , 302 , 080 2.461	. 170 .350 .090 2 .750	, 138 .282 .067 2.247	. 108 .210 .050 1.768	2	. 067 .305	2	. 056 .006
Arlington County Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend.	.293 .229 ,121 4,632	. 360 .284 . 140 5.935	.274 .210 . 105 4 . 588	,290 ,214 . 118 4 . 626	4	. 109 .760	3	.075 . 397
Alexandria Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend.	.284 . 395 . 124 2.410	.320 ,446 , 137 2.825	,248 , 335 .099 2.912	.276 .369 .115 2.887	2	. 095 .916	3	.095 . 065

* Change in accounting

Sources: see text

-IX. 6-

In the gross allocations, there has generally been a year-to-year increase in the burden for all four measures. However, when measured against property values the burden decreased after 1983 for the District, Arlington, Alexandria, and Prince George's County. As a percent of overall operating expenditures, the burden also declined from 1983 to 1985 for the District, Arlington, and Alexandria.

There is a wide variance between some jurisdictions for some indicators. For example, the District allocation in 1983 would require almost 1 percent of the total income compared with only 0.2 percent in Montgomery County, but the difference may merely reflect the much greater District of Columbia service received.

An important measure from a political viewpoint is the relatively low and stable property tax levy required for the gross operating assistance allocations. In the District, this measure actually declines from .497 in 1980 to .420 in 1985. The largest growth in this measure from 1980 to 1985 was only .030 from .142 to .172 in Prince George's County.

While the gross allocations grew as a percent of total expenditures in all jurisdictions, and reached a high of 8.4 percent in Arlington County in 1984, it is probably more important to look at this measure on a net basis after applying Federal and state aid. When this is done two governments, Montgomery County and Prince George's County, have only slightly more than 1 percent of their total expenditures allocated for WMATA operations. Arlington's high 8.4 percent on a gross basis in 1984 drops to 3.4 percent in 1985 on a net basis. The District of Columbia, because it receives no state assistance, reflected the largest increase in net assistance payments as a percentage of expenditures, from 2.5 percent in 198 0 to 3.5 percent in 1985, although this percentage was declining in both 1984 and 1985.

The allocations on a net basis, in addition to being lower by all measures than the gross allocations, show slower growth over the period especially after 1981. For example, in 1983 all four measures were lower in Montgomery County, Fairfax County, and Arlington County than they were in 1981, as a result of the rapid growth in state assistance payments in these years.

In summary, the measures of burden using either gross or net operating assistance allocations show varying degrees of burden between jurisdictions. There has been some growth in relative burden, although not consistently when Federal and state assistance is taken into account. These results are only historical and are not predictive of future years, but they do show that area governments have absorbed large increases in WMATA transit assistance payments in recent years with small, if any, changes in relative burden.

-IX. 7-

X. CHANGE IN SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

1986 - 2000

Projecting the six major area governments' revenues and expenditures for fifteen years on both a current and constant dollar basis results in an immense quantity of numbers that defy easy understanding. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce results to a relatively few numbers that best illustrate what is likely to occur to these governments' finances over the 1986 - 2000 period.

To do this, the change in total revenues and expenditures in constant dollars only (i.e., after discounting inflation) is used for each government separately and for all governments combined. Tax rates are assumed to remain constant and expenditures are projected at current service levels. To provide an understanding of what is causing the changes, the amount of revenue expected from local sources is shown separately from intergovernmental aid. Similarly, key elements of government spending, such as general payrolls (including retirement and fringe benefits) , school expenditures, and debt service, are discussed individually.

The relationship between each individual government's revenues and expenditures is not shown on either a current or constant dollar basis. As a practical matter, all governments will operate with generally balanced budgets over the period, and it would not be realistic to present a picture that would show otherwise. While there are differences that the governments will need to address, their decisions on how to do so will be political and it would not be appropriate to make such estimates in these projections.

The constant dollar changes in revenues will be reviewed first, followed by a discussion of expenditures.

REVENUES

Preliminary projections estimate that the total revenue of the six major governments will increase 19.8 percent ($1.1 billion in constant 1986 dollars), from 1986 to 2000 (see Exhibit X.l). The principal factors used in the projections to translate economic growth rates into increases in sales, income, and personal property tax revenues are the changes in employment, which COG projects to increase 3 0.4 percent, and changes in population, which COG expects to increase 11.0 percent. Based on historical trends, property taxes are expected to have real growth from new construction averaging about 2.5 percent per year, except for D.C. residential, which is experiencing little growth from new construction. The result is total area real growth in property taxes of 4 6.4 percent, with a range from 18.0 percent in the District to 69.0 percent in Fairfax County.

The expected favorable performance of the local economy results in real growth of 3 3.0 percent or $1.4 billion in locally raised

-X.l-

EXHIBIT X.l

CHANGES IN REVENUES IN CONSTANT 1986 DOLLARS SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS 1986 - 2000

(Thousands)

Intergov-

Local ernmental Total Revenues Revenues Revenues Jurisdiction Chancre % Change* % Chancre i

Dist. of Columbia $370

Montgomery County 3 36

Prince George's Co. 132

Fairfax County 448

Arlington County 46

Alexandria 39

Total $1,374

* Does not include WMATA

,037	20.	6%	$-174,	014
,903	42.	6	-30,	726
,906	27.	2	-28,	490
,453	59.	4	3,	274
, 133	25.	4	-5,	780
,601	27.	0	-5,	090
,033	33.	0%	$241,	276

Federal or state aid

18.2% $196,023 7.1%

29.7 306,177 34.3

14.7 103,966 15.1

1.5 451,727 46.6

10.5 40,354 17.1

11.9 34,511 18.2

15.3% $1,132,758 19.8%

-X.2-

revenues, but the overall growth in revenue is greatly reduced because intergovernmental revenue from the state and Federal governments is expected to decline by $241 million or 15.3 percent in 1986 dollars. Several factors account for this decline. They include the elimination of the Federal revenue sharing program after 1986 and the expectation that, because of Federal budget restraints, other Federal aid will only increase at three-quarters of the inflation rate. State aid is also expected to grow slowly because it is dominated by aid for schools. School enrollments are expected to be stable or declining in future years, except in Montgomery and Fairfax counties. This results in a slow real growth in school aid.

The projected revenue growth varies among governments in proportion to each jurisdiction's expected real growth in employment and population, and to each government's sensitivity to changes in intergovernmental aid. Because the District is projected to have the slowest rate of real growth in its employment and population, it has the lowest rate of real growth in its local revenues and it is also hardest hit by the projected decline in Federal aid, which in 1986 constituted over a third of its revenue. As a result, the District's total revenue growth of $196 million or 7.1 percent in constant dollars from 198 6 to 2 000 is less than half the 15.1 percent growth in the second lowest growth jurisdiction. Prince George's County.

In sharp contrast, Fairfax County revenue is expected to increase $452 million or 46.6% in 1986 dollars. This results from a rapid growth in employment, population, and new construction. Fairfax County is also the only government expected to have a real growth in intergovernmental aid over the period. This results from the County being affected only slightly by the decline in Federal aid (which accounts for only 3.4 percent of total County revenues), and an increase in state school aid as a result of some growth in school enrollments.

Montgomery County also is expected to have a rapid growth in local revenue, but it also has the largest percentage reduction in intergovernmental aid because of a projected $17 million loss of state school aid in 1986 dollars between 1986 and 2000. This results from an anticipated state policy that will result in less school aid in real dollars on a per pupil basis. However, because intergovernmental aid is a relatively unimportant source of County revenues (11.6 percent in 1986), the County's total revenue growth is still expected to be second only to Fairfax County with a 34.3 percent real growth.

It is important to realize, of course, that the projected revenue growth shown in these tables depends on a variety of assumptions. The key ones are expected growth in population, employment, and new construction; estimated changes in Federal aid policies and state aid policies; and estimated changes in school enrollments.

-X.3-

growth, and, therefore, their school spending will grow more rapidly. The District expects only a very minor year-to-year growth in enrollments. Because of the high percentage of suburban government spending for schools, and because school spending is closely tied to changes in enrollments, the differences in assumptions about school enrollments have a major effect on these governments' year 2000 spending levels.

Debt service is not a substantial part of most governments total spending, and it is projected to grow by only 3.5 percent in constant dollars for all governments combined, despite an assumption of 8.5 percent interest costs on new debt for all governments, except the District, for which 9.0 percent is assumed. The District's higher rate assumption results from its lower bond rating and its use of level debt service repayments rather than equal principal payments.

There is a very wide variance between a 35.4 percent increase in Fairfax County's debt service, and Arlington County's 47.6 percent decrease. This difference occurs for several reasons. Arlington County, Alexandria, and Prince George's County are projecting relatively low levels of capital spending in future years. In the case of Arlington and Alexandria, this reflects the fully developed nature of the jurisdictions, and the belief that capital needs will be low. Montgomery County's decline in real debt service payments results from a projected leveling off of a recent large capital spending program. In contrast, Fairfax County's growth reflects an expected rapid expansion in capital spending, in part because of highway spending needs. The District's growth reflects the city's continued effort to catch up on its capital needs, and the effects of issuing debt on a level debt service basis.

The overall results of the financial projections seem reasonable based on the assumptions about the area's future growth, and based on recent trends. It should be emphasized, however, that the projections of each individual government's finances also depend on assumptions about where in the area future growth will occur, and on a continuation of current government policies regarding services and taxes.

BASIS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

Revenue and expenditure projections for the six major Washington area governments were prepared using a projection method developed by the Greater Washington Research Center. The approved 1986 Budgets for each jurisdiction provided the base information for projecting operating revenues and expenditures, property values, and bonded debt. The base information actually used was reviewed and approved by each jurisdiction. The projection logics for each major revenue and expenditure component were developed from historical trend information and from discussions with officials in each government. In most instances, the basis for the projections was similar to that used by the government for its own planning purposes.

-X. 6-

The projection logics first increased most revenues and expenditures by the assumed inflation rate. There were some exceptions, such as Federal general revenue sharing, which was assumed to be discontinued after 1986, and general Federal aid, which was increased at only three-fourths the inflation rate because of Federal deficit problems.

The projection logics next adjusted for real growth or decline in revenues and expenditures. For income, sales, and personal property taxes this was done by using the combined projected changes in population and employment. Real estate property taxes were increased by a factor representing the historical percentage growth from new construction combined with local views on the outlook for development. State school aid changes are related to changes in school enrollments. Other taxes were increased to reflect population growth.

For real changes in expenditures, pay related expenditures were changed in relation to population change for general employees, and to school enrollments for school employees, plus a factor for both called "creep". Creep adjusts for merit increases and other non-general pay raises. This creep factor was obtained from the actual experience reported by the governments. The population change factor was doubled for Fairfax and Arlington counties because of the reported effects on county employment being caused by rapid urbanization. Other general expenditures were changed in relation to projected population changes, and other school expenditures were related to projected school enrollments.

Debt service was determined by adding to existing debt service requirements the debt service needed for new issues planned by the governments in their approved capital improvement plans. For bond sales beyond the capital improvement plan, an annual growth in bond sales equal to inflation was assumed. For all suburban governments, 20-year bonds with equal principal payments and 8.5 percent interest rates were used. For the District of Columbia, 2 0-year bonds with level debt service payments and 9 percent interest rates were used. The revenue and expenditure projections do not include WMATA operating revenues from state and Federal aid or WMATA assistance programs.

The projected revenue and expenditures for each year were converted to 1986 constant dollars by reducing the current dollar projections using the assumed inflation rate as a deflator. The results in constant dollars for all six governments combined showed that total revenue growth and total expenditure growth were within 1 percent of each other over the projection period. This indicates that the revenue and expenditure projections have a reasonable budgetary relationship to each other. The project- ions of real growth in total government revenue and expenditures of just under 20 percent for the fifteen years also is reasonable in view of real economic growth of 1 percent to 2 percent per year in the region, and in the context of relatively conservative taxing and spending policies being followed by the governments.

\ I

l' -X.7-

t

At the individual government level, the variations in real growth in revenues and expenditures was much greater than at the regional level, both in terms of the divergence in growth between revenue and expenditures for governments and in the differences in growth rates between governments. However, such diversity seems reasonable in view of the differences in economic growth that are occurring across the region, and the related differences in the spending demands that are facing the governments. What could not be projected, because it will require political decisions, is the extent to which the individual governments will use either changes in tax rates or changes in expenditure growth rates to bring revenues and expenditures into alignment. Since the purpose of the projections is to show natural growth in revenues with no changes in tax rates, and expenditures required to maintain current service levels, it is not necessary to project actual future budget actions affecting tax rates or service levels.

The projections assume no year-to-year variations in growth rates as a result of variations in the national and local economies caused by recessions and expansions. To do so would have required assumptions about when such critical events will occur, and it was deemed impractical to make such assumptions. The immediate implications of not doing so is that projections probably understate the revenue growth that will be included in the area government's 1987 Budgets as a result of the current very strong Washington area economy. However, over the fifteen-year projection period, this current, better than projected growth is certain to be offset by some slow growth periods. In fact, the effects of Federal budget reductions may make even 1987 a less strong revenue growth year than was initially expected by the governments.

Past experience, both nationally and locally, in projecting local government revenues and expenditures has shown that things seldom work out exactly as projected. This is so because some economic assumptions do not materialize, some unexpected events occur, and some political actions intervene. The projections made in this study face all these hazards, but because they were prepared in close consultataion with area officials who are closely familiar with their governments' outlook, they present a reasonable view of the future.

-X.8-

XI. THE EFFECTS OF FUTURE WMATA FINANCING ON AREA GOVERNMENTS

The local governments in the Washington area contribute to the support of the WMATA bus and rail systems through payments for:

o bus and rail operating support

o rail fare support

o debt service on the original WMATA revenue bonds

o bus and rail rehabilitation and replacement costs

o rail construction

In the past, the local governments have received significant financial assistance from the Federal government. However, future Federal assistance is in doubt and the analysis has been structured to reflect two alternative Federal support scenarios:

o Favorable Federal aid scenario (Alternative A):

o continued operating support, although at a diminished level in constant dollars.

o Federal assistance for rehabilitation and replacement equal to 75% of costs.

o Federal rail construction assistance equal to 80% of the costs authorized by the Stark-Harris legislation and 75% of the costs to complete the final 14 miles of the 103-mile system.

o Unfavorable Federal aid scenario (Alternative B) :

o an end to Federal operating assistance.

o Federal assistance for rehabilitation and

replacement limited to the Washington region's entitlement under a proposed formula-based block grant.

o rail construction assistance equal to 80% of the costs authorized by the Stark-Harris legislation but no Federal support for remainder of 103 -mile system.

In addition, the states of Maryland and Virginia contribute significantly to WMATA support. Support in Maryland flows from a state trust fund which has been assumed to be adequate to cover all requirements in accordance with current policies and matching ratios. Support in Virginia is from state appropriations and a local gasoline tax and has been assumed to remain fixed in constant dollars.

The burden on local jurisdictions is unequal across the region since the District receives no state aid and the impact of the state formulas, particularly under unfavorable Federal funding conditions, varies significantly in Maryland and Virginia.

-XI. 1-

The impact of WMATA support on local governments can be examined either in absolute dollar terms or relative to the projected operating budgets and total tax bases of the local jurisdictions. These latter two measures were discussed in Chapters IX and X and were selected for their reasonableness and because the data were available based on projections done for the local jurisdictions.

Operating assistance payments to WMATA frequently are compared to overall local government financial resources since these payments are made annually and generally funded as line-items in the local governments' operating budgets. An allocation of total operating assistance payments for three key years is shown in Exhibit XI. 1.

On a regional basis, operating assistance is projected to increase slightly in relation to total operating expenditures (from 3.78% to 3.84%), but to decline slightly in relation to property values. The regional pattern is mirrored in the experience of Arlington and Alexandria. In the District, operating assistance payments increase in relation to both property values and operating expenditures. In Prince George's County, operating assistance remains level relative to property values but increases in relation to operating expenditures. In rapidly growing Montgomery and Fairfax counties, operating assistance declines in relation to both operating expenditures and property values.

The impact of the net operating support burden (after accounting for Federal and state aid) is shown in Exhibit XI. 2. This Exhibit also shows the effect of the two alternative Federal funding scenarios in future years.

On a regional basis, the percentage of operating expenditures devoted to operating assistance increases from 2.38% to 2.56% under the favorable Federal scenario and to 2.66% under the unfavorable alternative. The impact of Maryland's state assistance programs is clearly shown with the Maryland counties showing far lower values than the other jurisdictions. The impact of the Federal cutbacks under Alternative B is also less in Maryland since state aid is assumed to make up much of the shortfall while Virginia state aid is assumed to be a constant value under either Federal funding scenario.

Debt service on the original WMATA revenue bonds is also generally shown as an operating expense by the local governments. The payments are assumed to continue to be funded fully by state aid in Virginia and 75% from state aid in Maryland. Since these payments remain level in year-of-expenditure dollars, they will declinein constant dollars, dropping to nearly half their 1986 value by 2000. Also, since total financial resources of the local governments will be increasing over this period, the burden of debt service will be further reduced. Overall, the total local burden (without consideration of state aid) will decrease from about 0.47% of operating expenditures to about 0.20% and from 0.020% to 0.008% as compared to property values.

-XI. 2-

EXHIBIT XI. 1

TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES MUD PROPERTY VALUES

(Millions, 1986 Constant Dollars)

1986

1993

2000

District of Columbia Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Montgomery County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Prince Georges County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Fairfax County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Arlington County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Alexandria

Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

TOTAL SIX JURISDICTIONS

Total Op. Asst.

% of Op. Expend.

% of Prop. Values

$96.1 3 . 61% 0.38%

$32.2 3.64% 0.09%

$27.0 3 .97% 0.15%

$30.3 3 . 17! 0. 09!

$15.4 6.67% 0. 14%

$9.1 4.93% 0. 13%

$211.6 3 .78! 0. 16!

$105.3 3 .74^

0. 39:

$34.2 3.30% 0.08%

$30.6 4.35% 0. 14%

$32.5 2.88! 0.07!

$16.7 7.26% 0. 13%

$10.0 5. 15% 0. 13%

$230.7 3 .78 =

0. 15!

$114.8 3 .82! 0.40!

$38. 3 3.21! 0.07!

$37.2 5.01% 0. 15%

$36.2 2.79! 0.07!

$18.0 7.60! 0.12!

$10. 6 5. 15% 0. 12%

$256.5 3.84% 0. 14%

-XI. 3-

EXHIBIT XI. 2

NET TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO WMATA AS A PERCENT OP NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES

(Millions, 1986 Constant Dollars)

1986 1993

Alt. A Alt. B

2000 Alt. A Alt. B

District of Columbia Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Montgomery County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Prince Georges County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Fairfax County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Arlington County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Alexandria

Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

TOTAL SIX JURISDICTIONS

Net Op. Asst.

% of Op. Expend.

% of Prop. Values

$88.3 3.32% 0.35%

$8.5 0.96% 0. 02%

$6.3

0.93%

0.04%

$17.0 1.78% 0.05%

$8.0

3.46%

0.07%

$4.9

2.65%

0.07%

$133. 1 2. 38% 0. 10%

$99.7 3.54% 0.37%

$8.7

0.84%

0.02%

$7.0

1.00%

0.03%

$19.7 1.74% 0.04%

$9.6

4.16%

0.08%

$5.9

3.03%

0.08%

$150.5 2.46% 0. 10%

$105.3 3.74% 0.39%

$9.3

0.90%

0.02%

$7.6 1.07% 0. 04%

$21.4 1.90% 0.05%

$10.7 4.64% 0.08%

$6.4 3 .30% 0.08%

$160.6 2.63% 0.10%

$110.8 3.69% 0.38%

$10.3 0.86% 0.02%

$8.2 1. 11% 0.03%

$23.5 1.81% 0.04%

$11.2 4.73% 0.08%

$6.7

3.24%

0.08%

$170.7 2.56% 0. 09%

$114.8 3 .825 0.40S

$10.7 0.89% 0.02%

$8.6 1. 16% 0.03%

$24.8 1.91% 0.04%

$12.0 5.065 0.085

$7.0

3.42^

0.08^

$177.8 2.66% 0.09%

Alternative A (Favorable Federal Policy; continuation of Federal transit operating assistance)

Alternative B (Unfavorable Federal Policy; no Federal transit operating assistance)

-XI. 4-

The costs for rehabilitating and ultimately replacing components of the bus and rail systems will become significant in the future although the magnitude of these costs will be greatly influenced by Federal funding policies. The figures shown in Exhibit XI. 3 are payments to WMATA for operating support, debt service, and the local share of rehabilitation and replacement costs. State aid has been taken into account in the calculations, as has Federal aid under the two Federal funding scenarios.

On a regional basis under the favorable Federal funding scenario, total support increases slightly in relation to total regional expenditures from 1986 to 1993 then increases again very modestly by the end of the century. Under the unfavorable Federal funding scenario, however, total support increases dramatically due to increasing rehabilatation and replacement costs.

Federal aid is much less important to the Maryland jurisdictions since state aid is assumed to cover 75% of rehabilitation and replacement costs, irrespective of how large these costs may be. The impact of Federal aid is more severe in Virginia where, for example, the 1993 ratio for operating expenditures for Arlingtor is 60% higher under the unfavorable Federal scenario than under the favorable alternative. Arlington and Alexandria also show the greatest relative impact on long-term funding for the year 2000.

It should be noted that Exhibit XI. 3 does not include the local share of rail construction capital costs. These costs are excluded because it is difficult to assess how they will be paid; some jurisdictions may pay their respective shares out of current revenues while others may elect to sell bonds. Suffice it to say that Exhibit XI . 3 gives an incomplete picture of the total magnitude of WMATA costs owing to the exclusion of these rail construction costs.

The annual values used to compute these exhibits are summarized in Appendix H. Other data used in the analysis is discussed in Chapter VIII and included in Appendix G.

EXHIBIT XI. 3

NET OPERATING ASSISTANCE, DEBT SERVICE, AND REHAB & REPLACEMENT COSTS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES

(Millions, 1986 Constant Dollars)

1986 1993

Alt. A Alt. B

2000 Alt. A Alt,

B

District of Columbia Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Montgomery County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Prince Georges County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Fairfax County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Arlington County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

Alexandria

Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

TOTAL SIX

JURISDICTIONS Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values

$103.8

3,90- 0.41 =

$10. 0 1. 13% 0.03%

$7.9 1. 16% 0.04%

$18.8

1.96%

0. 06%

$9.0 3.92% 0. 08%

$5.4

2.93%

0.08%

$154.9 2.77% 0. 12%

$118.7 4.21% 0.44%

$10.7 1. 03% 0. 02%

$8.8

1.25%

0.04%

$23 . 3 2.07% 0. 05%

$12.4 5. 38% 0. 10%

$7.2

3.72%

0.09%

$181. 1 2.96% 0. 11%

$150.5 5.34% 0.56%

$13.8 1.33! 0. 03 =

$11. 5 1. 63% 0.05%

$33.2 2.94:

0. 07:

$19.9 8.64i 0. 16 =

$10.8 5.56!

0. 145

$239. 6 3.92% 0. 15%

$132.3 4.41% 0.46%

$12.4 1.04% 0.02%

$10.3 1. 39! 0. 04!

$26.5 2.05% 0.05%

$13.8 5.79% 0.09%

$7.8 3 .81 = 0.09!

$203.1 3.04% 0. 11%

$178.9 5.96 = 0. 622

$16.9 1.42% 0.03%

$14.7 1.98! 0. 06!

$40.8 3. 14! 0.07!

$23.9 10.09! 0.16!

$12.9 6.28% 0. 15%

$288.2 4.32!

0. 15!

Alternative A (Favorable Federal Policy; continuation of Federal transit operating assistance; 75% R & R support)

Alternative B (Unfavorable Federal Policy; no Federal transit operating assistance; formula R & R support)

-XI. 6-

APPENDIX A PROPOSED METROBUS CHANGES BY ROUTE

NEAR-TERM CHANGES - VIENNA CORRIDOR

o 1: Wilson Boulevard-Fairfax services. Routes lA, IH, IM, IW, and IX, outlying Fairfax express services to Ballston and the Pentagon, would be discontinued. Routes 10, IE, and IF would operate similar to current service via Wilson Blvd. with increase in frequencies. Routes IV and IZ would also operate via Wilson Blvd. but without stops between McKinley and Ballston. Route IB would serve the Dunn Loring station and the new Fairview Park development with service in the counterflow direction.

o 2: Washington Boulevard-Vienna services. Routes 2E, 2F, 2M, and 2V, outlying express services to Ballston and the Pentagon, would be discontinued. Route 2A would be modified to run between Dunn Loring station and Ballston with additional service. Route 2B would operate from Fair Oaks to Ballston via Vienna and East Falls Church stations. Route 2C would be modified slightly to serve Metrorail stations and with increased service. Routes 2W and 2X would be modified to operate between Vienna and the Vienna station. Route 2P would be added to operate between Vienna and Dunn Loring.

o 3: Lee Highway services. Routes 3C and 3E services to Roslyn would be discontinued. Route 3B and 3F would be modified to serve the East Falls Church and West Falls Church stations with increased peak service. Routes 3X and 3Z, express services to Ballston, would be changed to terminate at West Falls Church with some other routing changes in the Tysons Corner area. Route 3A would be added from Annandale to Rosslyn via Annandale Road and East Falls Church station.

o 4: Pershing Drive/ Arlington Boulevard services. Minor changes in routing to provide replacement service on Wilson Boulevard from Barton Street to Rosslyn.

o 5A-H: Reston services. All routes would operate to West Falls Church Metrorail station. Many relatively minor service changes within Reston. Route 3F would be extended to Franklin Farms. "Straggler" service would be added at the end of the morning and evening rush periods.

o 5K,L,M: Chain Bridge Road services. Relatively minor routing changes in Tysons Corner and McLean areas; direct services to Rosslyn and Farragut Square via George Washington Parkway maintained.

-A.l-

o 5S: Herndon service. Route changed to terminate at West Falls Church rather than Ballston; minor re-routing in Tysons Corner area.

o 5Y: Herndon express. Route changed to t