Page images
PDF
EPUB

8. Please explain the "de-programming" of $94 million from FY '75 in the Metro capital budget summary. (p. 1189)

9. Please submit a reconciliation of the Metro Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2 capital budget summary and statements 15 and 16 of the September Comptroller's report? (p. 1189)

10. Please explain why the Transition Quarter Funding of $26.7 million was included in FY '78 instead of FY '77. (Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 1190)

11. To date, only $286.6 million of the $476 million in "Highway Fund Transfer" have been transferred to the Authority. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the funds to be transferred and the funds already transferred. (Include Route, Base Amount, Dollar Escalation and Total) (pp. 1190, 1192)

12. When and under what conditions does the Authority expect to receive the second phase of Interstate Highway transfer funds which the District of Columbia is withholding? (p. 1193)

DOT POLICY

1. Please supply the average operating speed, the average headways, average expected trip lengths, average vehicle occupancy, fleet utilization, fares as seen for the rail system in 1972 and 1975. (p. 1271)

2. Please submit a summary of your inputs to the submission to the Washington Area phased implementation plan for improving efficiency of transit services under section (5) (d) (a) of the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974. (p. 1276)

ROHR

1. On May 29, the Transit Authority approved an advance to Rohr of $22.5 million to help assure timely delivery of the cars. Please detail the current status of the advance payment and provide the Committee with a reconciliation of the original delivery schedule with the currently anticipated schedule, and show the effect that the currently anticipated schedule will have on the liquidation of the advance. (p. 1283)

2. Will Rohr's current litigation with the BART system in anyway affect the delivery schedule? (p. 1294)

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

1. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on regional taxes. (p. 1194)

2. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on driving disincentives, e.g., parking spaces, gasoline taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. (p. 1267)

3. Submit a complete schedule of local payments, noting those that will require a bond issue or additional local legislation. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. (pp. 1200, 1229, 1294)

4. Land around a proposed Vienna subway stop was rezoned to increase its value as a means of cutting Fairfax County's financial obligation to Metro. What action has the Authority taken to assure this does not happen in the future? Please include a description of the process Metro uses in acquiring land. (p. 1268)

MARKETING AND THE MARKETING PLAN

1. Describe how the fare structure fits into the marketing plan. (p. 1294) 2. Describe how special and charter services and services to special events and district areas fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1294)

3. Describe how promotions and promotional fares and material fit into the marketing plan. (pp. 1295, 1303)

4. Describe how services to distant areas, special events and population centers fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1296)

5. Submit a comparison of marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures before and after submission to the Director of Budget, Comptroller/General Manager, and Board. (p. 1296)

6. Provide a comparison of some of the larger transit systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles) marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures and revenues and explain any material differences in marketing department structure. (pp. 1297, 1327)

7. Describe how media is selected for various promotions. (p. 1298)

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., November 24, 1975.

Re Partial List of Submissions for Hearing Record.

Memorandum From: Michael Nevens, Majority Staff Consultant; David Patch, Minority Staff Assistant

To: Warren Quenstedt.

The attached is a second partial list of questions submitted in writing by members and staff of the Fiscal Affairs Subcommittee and Housing, Commerce, and Transportation Subcommittee for a response in writing from WMATA for the hearing record. This list is not official and not complete.

As stated before, an official and complete list will be transmitted by appropriate cover letter in the near future. It is hoped that this partial list will facilitate the preparation of written submissions.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Submit percentage of buses idle during the base-day. (p. 912)

2. Submit percentage of labor force unused during the base-day (total manhours per day unused but paid for). (p. 912)

3. Submit percentage of labor force working split shifts. (p. 913)

4. Please submit your comments on the attached staff estimates of Metro's deficits from FY 75 to FY 80. (p. 914)

5. Please submit a description of work rules determining the movement of drivers and maintenance employees between bus and rail. (p. 918)

6. Please detail for the record the negotiating process with jurisdictions through which subsidy levels are set. (p. 920)

7. Please submit the minutes of WMATA Board Meetings at which METROPEPCO problems were discussed. (p. 921)

8. Please submit a range of estimates as to the amount of subsidies required from local governments, assuming the currently proposed fare structure is operational in 1982. (p. 1183)

9. Please submit the Senate study regarding use of Dulles access road for Metro. (p. 1184)

10. Please submit the percentage of the bus fleet immobile daily along with comparable data from other transit authorities. (p. 1184)

11. Please submit the average length of immobilization for buses and the average (mean) time between immobilization periods along with comparable data from other transit authorities. (p. 1184)

QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET

1. In their July report, the GAO found that the Authority underestimated their program for 1976 by $312 million. Please provide estimates of the FY '78 and FY '77 programs reconciling this amount on a contract-by-contract basis. (p. 1184)

2. In the Authority's August program control report, an increase in the total system cost of $139.9 million was reported. Please comment on the source of this increase. Was any part of the increase from contracts not yet obligated? (p. 1187) 3. What changes were made in the contracts programmed for FY '77 and FY '78 since the Airlie meeting of November 1974 and what were the reasons for these changes? (p. 1187)

4. Explain how the revenue bonds were issued, how the interest is paid, and who is liable for the debt service. (p. 1187)

5. Are add-ons and facilities for the handicapped included in the $4.651 billion estimate? Please provide a breakout of these amounts. (p. 1188)

6. The August and September comptroller's report (statement 16) shows $30 and $151 million, respectively, as available for obligation and commitment. Between the two reports you received $286.6 million in an UMTA grant (highway transfer) and $11.2 million in internally generated funds. (Total=$297.8 million) You show a net increase in obligations and commitments for the same period of $272 million. (p. 1189)

It would seem that the increase in available funds of $121 million and the increase of obligations and commitments of $272 million totals $393 million or $117 million more than the new funds received. Please reconcile these statements.

7. Please explain why the amount for FY '79 and beyond in the Metro capital budget, (Office of Budget, 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 2) has been reduced from the Airlie program. (p. 1189)

8. Please explain the "de-programming" of $94 million from FY '75 in the Metro capital budget summary. (p. 1189)

9. Please submit a reconciliation of the Metro Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2 capital budget summary and statements 15 and 16 of the September Comptroller's report? (p. 1189)

10. Please explain why the Transition Quarter Funding of $26.7 million was included in FY '78 instead of FY '77. (Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 1190)

11. To date, only $286.6 million of the $476 million in “Highway Fund Transfer" have been transferred to the Authority. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the funds to be transferred and the funds already transferred. (Include Route, Base Amount, Dollar Escalation and Total) (pp. 1190, 1192)

12. When and under what conditions does the Authority expect to receive the second phase of Interstate Highway transfer funds which the District of Columbia is withholding? (p. 1193)

DOT POLICY

1. Please supply the average operating speed, the average headways, average expected trip lengths, average vehicle occupancy, fleet utilization, fares as seen for the rail system in 1972 and 1975. (p. 1271)

2. Please submit a summary of your inputs to the submission to the Washington Area phased implementation plan for improving efficiency of transit services under section (5) (d)(a) of the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974. (p. 1276)

ROHR

1. On May 29, the Transit Authority approved an advance to Rohr of $22.5 million to help assure timely delivery of the cars. Please detail the current status of the advance payment and provide the Committee with a reconciliation of the original delivery schedule with the currently anticipated schedule, and show the effect that the currently anticipated schedule will have on the liquidation of the advance. (p. 1283)

2. Will Rohr's current litigation with the BART system in anyway affect the delivery schedule? (p. 1294)

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

1. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on regional taxes. (p. 1194)

2. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on driving disincentives, e.g., parking spaces, gasoline taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. (p. 1267)

3. Submit a complete schedule of local payments, noting those that will require a bond issue or additional local legislation. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. (pp. 1200, 1229, 1294)

4. Land around a proposed Vienna subway stop was rezoned to increase its value as a means of cutting Fairfax County's financial obligation to Metro. What action has the Authority taken to assure this does not happen in the future? Please include a description of the process Metro uses in acquiring land. (p. 1268)

MARKETING AND THE MARKETING PLAN

1. Describe how the fare structure fits into the marketing plan. (p. 1294) 2. Describe how special and charter services and services to special events and district areas fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1294)

3. Describe how promotions and promotional fares and material fit into the marketing plan. (pp. 1295, 1303)

4. Describe how services to distant areas, special events and population centers fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1296)

5. Submit a comparison of marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures before and after submission to the Director of Budget, Comptroller/General Manager, and Board. (p. 1296)

6. Provide a comparison of some of the larger transit systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles) marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures and revenues and explain any material differences in marketing department structure. (pp. 1297, 1327)

7. Describe how media is selected for various promotions. (p. 1298)

8. Describe how specific marketing inputs such as survey data, ridership studies, idea generation, and implementing and reviewing plans fit into the overall management structure. (p. 1298)

9. Describe how market and market potential are identified and how specific segments have been identified and penetrated in the past. (p. 1298)

10. Please submit documentation of the correlation between ridership changes and marketing efforts. (p. 1301)

11. How does the impact of national energy and transit policy figure as an input into future marketing plans? (p. 1302)

RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION

1. Please submit the results of the ridership count conducted during the week of November 15th and the actual percentage of increase over the same period last year. (p. 1343)

NOTE. For the following, please exclude charter and special ridership and provide all figures for the period since public takeover, except where otherwise indicated.

2. Please submit a total ridership curve, by year, with total number of buses in the fleet indicated for each year. (p. 1346)

3. Please submit a total ridership curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. (p. 1346)

4. Please submit a base-day ridership, curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. (pp. 1347, 1348)

5. Please submit a base-day ridership curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. (p. 1348)

6. Please submit a total fare box revenue curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. (p. 1348)

7. Please submit a base-day ridership as a percentage of total ridership curve, by year, excluding charter ridership. (p. 1349)

8. Please submit a farebox revenues from base-day ridership as a percentage of total fare box revenues curve, by year. (p. 1349)

9. Please submit a total ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. (pp. 1349, 1351-1354)

10. Please submit a base-day ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. (p. 1349)

11. Please submit a base-day ridership curve as a percentage of total ridership for the five years prior to takeover. (p. 1349)

12. Please submit a curve indicating percent increase in base-day ridership, by year, since 1968. (p. 1349)

13. Please submit a curve indicating percent increase in total ridership, by year, since 1968. (pp. 1349, 1351-1354)

14. Please show the effect of the revised fare system both on total revenues and on total ridership. Show by week for the three month period from the beginning of the program. (p. 1350)

15. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fare increased, by month and week since the program began. (p. 1355)

16. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fares decreased, by month and week since the program began. (p. 1355)

1974 NET INCOME ANALYSIS

1. Please submit the complete revised 1974 Net Income Analysis. (p. 1639) 2. Please submit a list of the total amount of the established parking spaces available for each year since 1969, broken down by station. (This was agreed to by Mr. Herman in a November 17th meeting with Subcommittee staff.) (pp. 1356, 1448)

3. Please quantify the effects which the deletion of I-95, North Central Freeway, and Three Sisters Bridge from the assumptions produced in the ridership estimates included in the 1974 Net Income Analysis. (p. 1357)

4. Please comment on the changes in the demand for bus and rail transit and the ridership effects of long-term land use patterns these deletions might cause. (p. 1358)

5. Please detail the change in assumptions from the 1971 Net Income Analy sis to the 1974 Net Income Analysis concerning land use and long-term growth patterns. (p. 1357)

6. The Congressional Budget Office (1976 Budget: Alternatives and Analyses, April 15, 1975) suggested that Metro's ridership estimate may be 15% too high. Please submit your comment on the CBO analysis in general and this point in particular. (p. 1359)

7. How much of the seven percent ridership increase would you attribute to the 600 new buses, and the increased size of the fleet. (p. 1360)

GAO HEARING

1. Submit for the record your analysis of the costs of dividing bus and rail management, along with other documents submitted to the board regarding this recommendation. (p. 1459)

2. Submit for the record the articles and memorandum submitted to the board regarding the organizational position of the internal auditor. (p. 1451)

3. Submit for the record the Ernst and Ernst audit report of April 30, 1969, regarding the organization and operation of the internal audit function. (p. 1454) 4. Submit for the record your reconciliation of the problem in reconciling individual contract costs with the total cost noted on page 7 of the GAO's May 8, 1975 report to Senator Byrd. (p. 1461)

5. Please reconcile for the record data for internally generated funds in your November 10, 1975 Revision Number 2 with the data presented in the GAO's statement on November 18, 1975. (p. 1530)

6. Please submit for the record the Bechtel test plan of October 27, 1975. Also submit a summary of the tests performed since March 22, 1975. (p. 1531)

7. Please submit for the record an analysis of possible increases in cost or further delays in the delivery of cars from Rohr industries. (p. 1567)

8. On November 5, 1975, Metro testified that specifications for the cars must be met before shipment (p. 36 lines 22-24 of unedited transcripts) and on November 18, 1975 the GAO testified that Metro allowed shipments with known defects. Please reconcile these statements for the record. (p. 1566)

9. Please submit for the record a detailed schedule of safety related tests of the subway system and its components (cars, ATC, etc.). (p. 1567)

10. On November 18, 1975, General Graham stated that: "There is not a single case in established transit property where these functions (bus and rail management) have been separated organizationally." (p. 187, lines 2-3) (p. 1460) However, the Cresap report, Appendix A notes that :

(1) Toronto has a General Manager of Subway Construction and a General Manager of Operations reporting to their Board. They operate 1.341 buses and 959 rail cars, and are constructing additional subway.

(2) Pittsburgh has a Director of Construction and Development, and a Director of Transit Operations reporting to the Executive Director. They operate 915 buses and 95 rail cars.

(3) Philadelphia (SEPTA) has an Assistant General Manager Transit Operations, Assistant General Manager Railroad Operations, and an Assistant General Manager Planning and Development. They operate 1,500 buses and 1,150 rail cars.

Please reconcile for the record the General Manager's statement with these facts. (p. 1460)

11. In the May 8th report to Senator Byrd the GAO identified possible increases and decreases on various route realignment possibilities. Please provide a description of the current status of these routes and your latest estimates of the possible cost consequences of the various locations possibilities now under consideration. (p. 1615)

12. The GAO has noted that the Authority's schedule for beginning of service on the various system phases does not allow for "any time for delays due to lawsuits, strikes, and adverse weather". Please describe how this has been changed in the Authority's current startup estimates. (p. 1622)

13. In the May 8th report to Senator Byrd the GAO discussed (on p. 20 to 21) several specific contract cost overruns. Were these reflected in the $139.9 million increase noted in the August, 1975 Office of Program control report? (p. 1623) 14. Are there now any delays or cost overruns which the staff foresees but which have not been publicly reported? If so, please submit a description of these for the record. (p. 1624)

« PreviousContinue »