Author Topic: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....  (Read 12238 times)

Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface

  • Member
  • Posts: 5970
  • JULIAN'S AMERICA - It makes my taco pop!
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2010, 08:39:43 pm »
Do you actually know anything about how Metro is funded or regulated?
If hutch's tenure has taught us anything, it's that he doesn't know anything about anything.

hutch

  • Guest
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2010, 08:56:15 pm »
I don't mind Metro raising fares provided there is some sort of control over their own costs... Otherwise they'll continue to ask for more subsidies/raises in fares... There is all the incentive in the world for them to want more budget and little incentive for them to spend what they have judiciously.

Again, much like ticket service fees WITHOUT REGULATION the consumer gets screwed.

Do you actually know anything about how Metro is funded or regulated?

Not much really..I'm not a metro specialist. just a person who has been riding the metro since 1993.. I have always assumed the DC Council has something to do with it.. I know on safety its a Tri State Commission.. but they continually say they are underfunded, have accidents all the time, and have the most surly/rude staff imaginable (who happen to be overpaid from what I've seen and spend their time texting while "driving" etc...)..Oh yea and they raise fares pretty much every year even as they cut service.


Basically they suck. And the idea -your idea- that the way to solve this problem is to give them more money.. THATS THE EPIC FAIL bro. The way to solve the problem is to make sure they spend the money they have more efficently.






Herr Professor Doktor Doom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3745
    • my blog
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2010, 09:31:46 pm »
I don't mind Metro raising fares provided there is some sort of control over their own costs... Otherwise they'll continue to ask for more subsidies/raises in fares... There is all the incentive in the world for them to want more budget and little incentive for them to spend what they have judiciously.

Again, much like ticket service fees WITHOUT REGULATION the consumer gets screwed.

Do you actually know anything about how Metro is funded or regulated?

Not much really..I'm not a metro specialist. just a person who has been riding the metro since 1993.. I have always assumed the DC Council has something to do with it.. I know on safety its a Tri State Commission.. but they continually say they are underfunded, have accidents all the time, and have the most surly/rude staff imaginable (who happen to be overpaid from what I've seen and spend their time texting while "driving" etc...)..Oh yea and they raise fares pretty much every year even as they cut service.


Basically they suck. And the idea -your idea- that the way to solve this problem is to give them more money.. THATS THE EPIC FAIL bro. The way to solve the problem is to make sure they spend the money they have more efficently.







If you're not a specialist, then how do you know their staff are overpaid?   Because unless you're some kind of specialist, I'm guessing you don't actually know what Metro pays its workers, and how that compares to other salaries by other transit agencies, and yet you're expressing an opinion on something that requires a certain amount of knowledge to have an opinion on.

It sounds like you know exactly zero about Metro (you "assume" it's got something to do with the DC council?), and even I, who am also not a Metro Specialist, know more than you do. 

 Basically, what it comes down to is you don't like Metro, so you don't want them to have more money based on nothing more than that.  But you do want them to keep hauling your entitled ass around, and be nicer to you too, even though you think their people are overpaid and inefficient.

In general, when people express opinions, it's good to have some actual knowledge backing it up.  Doing so without that is truly an epic fail.
_\|/_

James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2010, 11:44:32 pm »

http://www.examiner.com/a-669683~Metro_drivers_make__100_000_in_pay.html

WASHINGTON (Map, News) -
More than 100 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority bus and train operators took home paychecks topping $100,000 in fiscal 2006 because of lush overtime earnings that have skewed Metro?s budget and sent pension costs spiraling out of control under a uniquely generous employee retirement plan.

Overall, Metro paid its employees $70 million in overtime in 2006 and is on track to spend the same amount in this budget year, according to a recent audit report, continuing a trend of high overtime costs that have plagued Metro?s budgets for years.

 

Roughly $30 million of the overtime payments went to Metro?s 2,400 bus operators and 500 train operators, 125 of whom earned more than $100,000 that year. Another 284 hourly Metro workers in other departments earned more than $100,000 because of overtime. Only 180 of Metro?s salaried management employees earned more than $100,000.

In some cases, the overtime wages accounted for nearly half of an operator's annual paycheck, meaning the employee is working significantly more than the usual 40 hours each week. Thirty operators took home more than $50,000 in overtime.

The two highest-paid train operators, who earned $153,759 and $152,891 respectively, earned $74,208 and $73,659 in overtime. The highest-paid bus operators collected $127,653 and $126,457, received $53,696 and $52,490, in overtime. In other cases, overtime accounted for almost 50 percent of an employee?s paychecks in 2006.

Overtime hours are paid at 1 1/2 times the employee's usual hourly rate, making regular use of overtime expensive. Metro General Manager John Catoe, who took over in January, hopes to reduce overtime as part of his strategy to cut costs and keep Metro?s budget balanced.


 

Overtime work costs Metro more than other regional transit agencies because the system's retirement policy includes overtime payments when calculating pension payments, a rarity in transit agencies elsewhere. The policy means Metro is paying vastly higher pensions to employees than they would receive if their retirement payments were based on regular hourly earnings.

The increasing cost of pensions was one of the chief reasons Metro officials cited when they proposed fare increases in December. Catoe has since shelved the fare-increase idea while he looks for new ways to slice spending.

Metro Board of Directors member Ray Bricuso said the rich overtime system ?needs to stop. An employee who makes $65,000 can work a lot of overtime their final years on the job and make $100,000 a year. That would increase their annual pension to about $80,000 for what is really a $65,000 job.?

Stopping this practice may not be easy.

Metro?s employee union enjoys immense clout when it negotiates contracts with Metro?s board, which is not profit-focused like the board of directors of a private company. They are political appointees and often are also elected officials, who are concerned with pleasing voters ? such as Metro?s 10,000 employees.

?The make up of the board is heavily political, let?s leave it at that,? Metro Board Chairman Charles Deegan said.

Even with the lavish pension system, Metro has difficulty attracting top job candidates because of its unusual hiring practices.

Until recently, Metro required that bus operators spend up to a year as part-time employees, positions that come without the health insurance and other benefits of full-time employment. Metro also has a long-standing policy that it will hire only bus operators to fill open train-operator positions.

Some board members say they think these policies make it hard to expand the work force, which would allow Metro to cut back on overtime. These practices also saddle Metro with a large pool of inexperienced bus operators because many job candidates do not want to start off earning a part-time salary with no benefits.

Critics of the system believe that lack of experience is one reason Metrobus operators have been involved in so many accidents in the past year. None of the highly paid, experienced drivers were involved in any of the crashes.

Even as its fiscal situation grows more dire, Metro is expanding its service, creating a higher demand for bus and train operators. Metro Chief Bus Operating Officer Jack Requa said the agency has expanded its training program for bus drivers to get more new hires behind the wheel sooner.

Metro?s high overtime outlays would suggest that the system is short of personnel. Metro reports having just 70 vacancies out of 2,400 bus operator positions.

?It may be that we should hire more operators,? Catoe said. ?We need to consider hiring more operators if it means cutting down on overtime.?

Herr Professor Doktor Doom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3745
    • my blog
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2010, 02:40:41 pm »
Thank you James Ford, now Hutch can form his/her opinion on something more substantive than "I don't like them and therefore they must be lazy/overpaid."

But if that article suggests that metro operators are overpaid, and they are overpaid because of too much overtime, and there is too much overtime because they don't have enough staff, and yet hiring more people means greater problems with inexperience -- how would you solve that without more money?

_\|/_

godsshoeshine

  • Member
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2010, 05:17:15 pm »
i like how hutch didnt even bother googling after doomer called him out. thats a failure at foruming 101
o/\o

James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2010, 08:23:08 pm »
I actually read that story when it was published.

Sorry, Doom, I don't have all the answers.

Christine Moritz

  • Member
  • Posts: 806
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2010, 08:23:16 pm »
oh well it's a good thing the club is staring shows earlier....
Are shows ending correspondingly earlier?

My recollection was that the shift from doors opening at 7:30 p.m. to doors opening at 7 p.m. meant that there was more time between when doors opened and the opening act, not that all set times were being pushed back half an hour.

I could be wrong, though.

walkonby

  • Guest
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2010, 10:13:48 pm »
maybe my opinions are wrong, but if you want to bitch about dc metro, go ride new york's subway system for a week, especially at night . . . and realize just how fucking nice you have it here. 

Herr Professor Doktor Doom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3745
    • my blog
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2010, 08:19:03 am »
there are aspects of NY's subway I wish we had... most notably express trains...

_\|/_

James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2010, 08:43:38 am »
maybe my opinions are wrong, but if you want to bitch about dc metro, go ride new york's subway system for a week, especially at night . . . and realize just how fucking nice you have it here. 

A big amen to that.

Vas Deferens

  • Member
  • Posts: 9003
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2010, 09:01:09 am »
...and service after 12 midnight...and not having to wait 17 minutes for the next train...


there are aspects of NY's subway I wish we had... most notably express trains...


(_|_)

James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2010, 09:11:13 am »
Comparing the DC metro system the the NYC subway system is like comparing the DC and NYC music scenes.

Really, they are too very differently sized cities with two differing populations. So expecting one transit system to function like the other is silly.

xneverwherex

  • Member
  • Posts: 2109
    • Pics and more pics
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2010, 01:46:27 pm »
The MTA in NYC has a lot of problems. Between lack of funding, us having to pay some 11% salary hike to employees and the list goes on. We'll be losing a few lines at this rate - Z and W and prob some bus routes will either cease to exist or only exist during certain hours.

Yes in general MTA up here is prob much better (in some ways) than DC transit, but NYC is also a hell of a lot bigger. And nothing is still figured out. We might soon be having 17 minutes wait for trains at night - and to whoever said that doesnt exist - try taking the L around 1-2am in Manhattan -- Ive seen insane waits. Yes - we do have long waits for a lot of trains - we just dont have it posted (one thing I do miss about DC transit --- post wait times!).
HeyLa

hutch

  • Guest
Re: Metro considers closing U Street East entrance ....
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2010, 05:03:27 pm »
i like how hutch didnt even bother googling after doomer called him out. thats a failure at foruming 101

I don't have to google I live in DC and I know they are overpaid.

I don't have to look in a bucket of shit to know there is shit there.

Fact is DC metro has been going down the drain since about 2002.. They keep raising fares yet keep having bigger deficits then they cut down service which leads to less use which leads to bigger deficits whcih leads to accidents and on an on... I mean they have employees in accidents with a record of previous accidents! I don't have to google to know their escalators are an abomination.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a "metro regulatory specialist" to know that metro is not well run or regulated (look at their salaries for pete's sake or just try talking to a metro worker and getting an answer) although knowing something about transport probably helps.

The position being argued by some on this thread seems to be that Metro is not the problem and they need more money from the taxpayer. I repeat: they have to do a better job with the money they have.