WHILE WASHINGTON-AREA leaders duck, dodge and squabble about how to fix and fund Metro, localities elsewhere that rely on transit have taken matters into their own hands. In cities and regions across the country, voters last week approved about three dozen ballot measures to increase their own taxes to raise a staggering $170 billion for an array of train, subway, light-rail and bus projects.

Alone among major American transit systems, Metro lacks just such an earmarked funding source, depending instead on the kindness of its governing jurisdictions, the District, Maryland and Virginia. Leaders in those places may be fickle, or politically evasive, or, in the case of the two states, less beholden to Metro’s ridership than they are to exurban and rural residents far from the Washington suburbs.

Forward-thinking officials have pressed for an earmarked, ongoing funding source to undergird Metro for decades, to no avail. Every year, Metro must go to its funders, hat in hand, and hope for the best. Unshockingly, the result has not been the best; Metro is in bad shape. The region, having failed even to provide effective safety oversight, has ceded that role for the time being to the feds.

It would be nice to think that Washington-area leaders might learn from voters and responsible local officials nationally. From liberal states such as California, New Jersey and Oregon to conservative ones such as Indiana, South Carolina and Georgia, they proposed and passed higher sales taxes, income taxes and property taxes, in addition to the usual bond issues earmarked for transit projects. Many of the taxes-for-transit ballot measures passed by overwhelming margins, often in the range of 2-to-1. In the case of California, which requires a two-thirds majority to approve such proposals, even the proposals that failed still gained clear majorities.

But while Metro badly needs long-term, reliable funding, the political obstacles are overwhelming. D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s (D) proposal this fall for a sales tax surcharge, dedicated to funding Metro in the District and surrounding localities, fell on deaf ears. In Maryland, Gov. Larry Hogan (R) gave the idea the brushoff before softening slightly. In Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) let it be known that the timing was not right, especially given what would probably be blanket opposition from Republicans who control the legislature in Richmond. Even projections that Metro’s continued deterioration will cost area governments as much as $2 billion annually in lost revenue have failed to focus leaders on the magnitude of the threat.

Metro plans to improve safety and reliability first, then ask for more funding. That strategy may also be doomed in the absence of more sweeping structural reforms within Metro — specifically, a better governing structure than the existing, highly political board, and more flexibility to implement reforms than current labor contracts allow. In the end, it may take the credible threat of a federal takeover to shake regional leaders from their lethargy and get this region’s passengers the transit service they need and deserve.