Conservative Rx for Metro: Feds should let it privatize operations and buy overseas
|
Version 0 of 1. The federal government should cut Metro’s costs by making it easier for the transit agency to privatize operations and to buy buses and other equipment from foreign suppliers, according to a new study by a conservative-leaning think tank. [Read the American Action Forum report here] The American Action Forum also calls for a Government Accountability Office investigation of Metro’s workforce practices, including those affecting pay, promotions and discipline. Referring to last year’s revelation that Metro employees falsified track inspection reports, the forum said: “If politics or the work culture within [Metro] are rewarding unethical practices, which may be contributing to the system’s high cost, poor performance and lack of safety, the GAO is the best outfit to determine that.” [One-third of Metro’s track inspection department has been fired for falsifying records, Wiedefeld confirms] The six-page report is not as detailed as other studies offered in recent months to address Metro’s struggles with safety, reliability and finances. But it differs from most by focusing on free-market solutions and potential actions by the federal government — rather than by the District, Maryland and Virginia. The forum, which describes itself as “center-right,” hopes to guide decisions on Metro by the Republican-controlled administration and Congress. “Any federal policy which is really left-leaning probably is not going to survive this administration right now,” said Philip Rossetti, a data analyst at the forum and principal author of the report. “We definitely are interested in providing an alternative perspective that might be more amenable to legislators and the current administration,” he said. [How best to pay for Metro’s needs? A regionwide sales tax, say local officials in major report.] The forum’s report does not address one of the top questions facing Metro: whether the Washington region should adopt a regional sales tax or other dedicated funding to pay its mounting bills. But the group looked at that topic in a report issued in March, and its conclusions surprised many observers. Though the forum favors small government, it concluded that Metro would be best served if the three jurisdictions set up a regional commission to “recommend dedicated funding sources.” [Metro chief proposes “new business model’’ and extra $500 million a year in funding. ] The March study also found that Metro’s labor costs, while high, were roughly in line with those of other U.S. transit systems of comparable size. In the new report, the forum’s proposals on labor matters seem most likely to have impact in the wide-ranging debate over how to fix Metro. By contrast, its call to weaken “Buy America” laws to encourage foreign competition is seen as a nonstarter because of political opposition in the White House and Congress. The report urges changing a law that requires any transit authority that receives federal funds to guarantee jobs to current workers if the agency is acquired by another organization. “This greatly discourages privatization, since a private organization that may see opportunities for making a transit system profitable, say through automation, cannot do so by eliminating positions,” the report says. Such a change could free Metro management to outsource operations, but it would face strong opposition from unions and their political supporters. Metro’s unions are fighting a proposal by General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld to use private contractors for future operation, such as new bus garages or the second phase of the Silver Line, scheduled to open in 2020. [Region’s Democrats in Congress call for a GAO study on Metro.] “Where Metro would consider outsourcing is where the law allows, and where it would be consistent with our collective bargaining agreement — as a practical matter, new work,” Metro spokesman Dan Stessel said. Stessel said Metro has “not taken a position” on whether it would like to shrink its payroll by outsourcing current operations, as the forum recommended. The forum said the GAO, as an independent watchdog, has the necessary credibility with Congress to provide needed clarity about Metro’s workforce. “With the majority of the workforce covered by a collective bargaining agreement and represented by a union, we know little about employment and pay patterns,” the report says.“Do the policies for … disciplinary action result in protecting bad employees while limiting opportunities for good ones?” Some of those questions could be addressed in a study of Metro the GAO has initiated in response to a request in February from Democrats in the region’s congressional delegation. GAO has not assigned staff to the study, however, and the request sought a much broader look at Metro’s overall “governance and funding structures.” [Trump’s First 100 Days: Trump to sign ‘Hire American,’ ‘Buy American’ order] The federal government’s “Buy America” requirements result in less competition and higher costs for U.S. transit systems, according to the report and Metro officials. For instance, Metro buys all its buses from U.S. factories owned by Canadian-based New Flyer Industries. It could save money if it could buy from foreign-based factories. Metro’s new 7000-series rail cars are built in Nebraska by a Japanese-based firm. The “Buy America” policy “comes at the expense of American taxpayers and transit consumers,” the forum’s report says. But former Metro board chairman Mortimer Downey said there’s “little or no possibility of getting rid of ‘Buy America.’ ” If anything, said Downey, who served as deputy transportation secretary in the Clinton administration, the nationalist-minded Trump administration wants to make it harder to buy foreign equipment for federally funded projects. |