Washington metro area leaders favor the idea of ​​a regional revenue source for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro), which faced financial challenges maintaining service earlier this year .

However, where the funding will come from and how much each jurisdiction will contribute to the fund is a concern regional leaders expressed Monday during a joint meeting in the District of Columbia. Some of the potential financing mechanisms include the collection of regional sales, fuel, vehicle and property taxes.

Jeff McKay, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, said he and others support a uniform system of revenue collection, but flexibility should be considered.

“If we imagine a regional system … in terms of uniform, that doesn’t necessarily mean, in my opinion, that the rate has to be exactly the same everywhere,” McKay said.

Monday’s discussion on developing a regional funding source for Metro was part of a months-long collaborative effort through an initiative known as DMVMoves, led by Metro and the Council of Governments.

The group also reviewed proposed scenarios that would maintain existing service levels and keep Metro efficient, reliable and consistent in terms of repairs and maintenance in parts of Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Leaders also discussed the idea of ​​going beyond current services by modernizing assets and expanding them to support other initiatives, including investing in a bus rapid transit network.

Metro receives support from ridership and fare revenue. The transit agency also receives contributions from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Northern Virginia, members of the WMATA Compact.

District of Columbia leaders and others, like McKay, said a uniform approach across the region would make it easier for Metro to forecast expected revenue streams instead of relying on certain localities in Northern Virginia and of the three jurisdictions to pay their contributions separately.

However, under the proposed plan, some jurisdictions that use the service would be excluded from contributing to the regional funding source because they are not members of the WMATA Compact. Prince William County, Virginia, and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park would be left out.

McKay did not mention any jurisdiction by name, but said data shows localities outside the compact have a “huge” advantage in subway ridership. He said regional leaders should start considering talking with these jurisdictions about getting involved in financial planning.

“It’s time that we start talking with the other jurisdictions that benefit (from) Metro and try to understand how they can be part of this evolution, because the idea that some suburban sprawl that has been created outside “The compact area of ​​Metro that feeds into the system – and at the end of that system is a county that has a station that pays for those people to exclusively use the system – doesn’t really seem fair in the long run either.” , he declared.

Montgomery County (Maryland) Executive Marc Elrich said the challenge in moving forward with a regional sales tax is determining the appropriate amount for each jurisdiction.

“I’m pretty opposed to anything that would harm residents,” Elrich said. “I think these taxes need to be focused on commercial property.”

He praised Virginia and its jurisdictions participating in the compact for their “incredibly good job” of leveraging “myriad taxes” to contribute to Metro, which he said is supported by a strong tax base, primarily around of commercial property.

Nick Donohue, principal of Capitol Transportation Consulting and one of two experts supporting the task force, provided details on potential financing scenarios to region leaders on Monday.

In Scenario 1, Metro would receive an increase of $480 million per year from the region to maintain existing services.

An additional $120 million would help improve service and increase ridership under Scenario 2. Costs would likely increase.

Actions beyond initial scenarios to modernize the metro – such as adding new cars, maximizing services and expanding to move more people with rapid bus lines, ferry services and bike sharing – would require additional funding.

Donahue said the numbers are subject to change and are based on assumptions regarding future inflation, project costs, regional ridership growth and sustained commitments from funding jurisdictions.

In September, advisory groups associated with the task force reported that more than 80 percent of respondents in the National Capital Region said they “support more and better transit service, even if this requires greater investments from the region.”

Amid the discussion focused on developing a regional funding source, Michael Sargent, deputy secretary of Transportation, said he was unclear and frustrated because the task force jumped straight to funding and ignored discussion of its regional vision and funding inefficiencies.

“If we don’t have an ultimate goal, I can’t assess how each of these steps will get us there, or whether it will be a good use of funding down the road, or whether it won’t even get us closer to the objective. we’re trying to go for it,” Sargent said.

He said the group needs an explanation of why other metropolitan areas, like Chicago, get more ridership and services for less funding, as well as the reasoning behind the difference in estimates of Metro’s capital needs. Sargent said Metro estimated it needed $2.1 billion a year to keep the system on track under its 10-year investment plan.

Sargent said that if task force members go to Virginia lawmakers without taking a closer look at costs or providing evidence of needs alongside estimates, and ask to “raise taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars per year”, the success of the plan will be gained. It’s not likely.

“I mean, it’s not just going to be a ‘no,’ it’s going to be a ‘no,'” Sargent said.

Donohue said he appreciated that Sargent raised issues facing the task force and added that the group discussed the vision “a lot.” He expects more discussion and answers to be provided at upcoming meetings continuing into January while costs are still being reviewed. The task force is expected to adopt recommendations in March and the final plan in June.