Political Realities Stalled Fare Hike
Resistance Offers New Metro Chief Lesson on Board

By Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 23, 2007; C01

Before publicly divulging his plan to raise fares, Metro General Manager John B. Catoe Jr. met for well over an hour with each of the agency's 12 board members to sketch the outlines of his much-anticipated plan. He didn't want them to be surprised when he made his pitch in public.

But it was Catoe who was taken aback when he laid out his plan. Instead of making the proposal the starting point of discussions, as Catoe anticipated, board members took the drastic step of halting the dialogue altogether. Board members said they would consider higher fares only after Catoe returned with more justification for why they were needed and with a long-term policy for how fares should be set -- issues that Catoe expected to be hashed out as part of discussions.

With their actions, board members sent a message about Metro politics: Don't put us on the spot with something so charged -- raising rush-hour subway fares by 45 cents and bus rides a quarter -- and expect us to approve it without a substantial public vetting.

As T. Dana Kauffman, a Fairfax County supervisor who represents Virginia on the Metro board, put it: "You can't present hard numbers at 9:20 and expect agreement by 9:30."

For Catoe, a District son who returned eight months ago to take Metro's top job, it was a harsh introduction to the unique politics of the agency's governing board. The 12 officials hail from not one but three jurisdictions, and they bring with them very different priorities. Board members are appointed by elected officials or elected in their home jurisdictions, so their political realities often come into play.

"It was naive of me to hope they would agree to set a date for public hearings with the information we provided," Catoe said. "We didn't give them the level of details we should have given them."

What Catoe did give them were fare numbers -- the first time board members had seen the figures -- without specifics about the agency's projected $173 million shortfall. He also laid out a daunting timetable that left little time for board members to have their say.

"It was too much to get the board to do at one meeting," Catoe said. "I took them out of sequence. It dawned on me: Duh."

Since Catoe's proposal Sept. 13, he has spoken with several board members, and the agency's finance staff has reworked expense and revenue forecasts. A scaled-down fare increase will be presented to the board Thursday, he said, along with detailed cost and revenue projections that show a smaller shortfall of $141 million.

Catoe has said the Metro board needs to move quickly so a fare hike can take effect in January.

But current and former board members said politics almost always complicates and delays decisions. The issue is always equity: How should Metro's costs be divided among riders and local governments, between suburbanites and city dwellers? Officials tend to fracture along geographic lines that pit the District against its suburban neighbors.

"You've got multiple jurisdictions, and when you're talking about a fare increase, it's more an exercise in modern dance than a display of direct action," Kauffman said.

"I think [Catoe] probably was relying on what he thought was a very logical argument that made sense to any number of people," said Robert Smith, a former Metro board member for Maryland. "But you can't confuse what would be logic with the politics of the Metro board. It's the politics that prevail, not the logic.

"Politics in the District are very different from politics in Maryland and different from getting elected in Virginia," Smith said. "It causes people to vote in ways that may not be in the interest" of Metro.

Metro directors rarely agree to any politically sensitive proposal -- especially one that calls for a significant fare increase -- the first time it is presented in public. If fare increases are necessary, as several board members have acknowledged, it's often to their political advantage to criticize them in public and press Metro staff for reductions.

"That way it looks like they are looking after the riders' costs," said Charles Deegan, another former board member for Maryland.

Such maneuverings could continue next week. Asked whether it was likely that the Metro budget committee would sign off Thursday to begin the public hearing process based on a smaller fare increase, Jim Graham, the committee chairman, replied: "I think the likelihood of that is zero."

If finance staff members can come up with a reduced projected shortfall for next year, Graham said, there might be less urgency for a fare increase in January. "What's the bum rush?" he said.

Finding a proposal acceptable to all three jurisdictions is a complicated balancing act.

"Each jurisdiction has a different way of how it views what its riders have to pay for a fare increase," said board member Peter Benjamin of Maryland, who was the agency's chief financial officer for 13 years. "Those of us in areas where there tend to be longer rides and more people who park are going to look more carefully at fare increases for someone taking long rides."

Metrorail fares vary depending on the time of day and trip length.

Many suburban jurisdictions also have their own bus systems and are less dependent on Metrobus than the District, which has a significant number of Metrobus routes.

In the District and its closest suburbs, passengers tend to take shorter rides, and there is less parking available at Metro facilities, so the fare focus is more on how an increase would affect short trips and bus fares.

In the proposal Catoe presented Sept. 13, the largest percentage increase would have hit short-distance riders because minimum subway boarding fares during rush hour would have increased to $1.80 from $1.35, a jump of 33 percent.

By contrast, the long-distance rider who parks at Shady Grove and would pay the higher parking fee of $5 instead of $4 and the higher maximum fare of $4.50 instead of $3.90 per trip, would have seen an increase of 20 percent.

Bus riders, who are typically poorer and less likely to own a car, would have seen fares rise 25 cents to $1.50, an increase of 20 percent.

"A balance has to be arrived at by the board looking at the various combinations of what is a fair increase for all those sets of people," Benjamin said.