Metro Board Weighing a Scaled-Down Fare Hike

By Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Metro General Manager John B. Catoe Jr. is proposing a fare increase to board members that is smaller than the one he brought forward two weeks ago. Under a range of options to be presented to the public tomorrow, minimum rush-hour fares on the subway would go up between 20 and 40 cents, depending on when a fare increase is put into effect.

Metrobus rides, which cost a flat $1.25, would increase 25 cents, and parking fees would increase 50 cents regardless of the timetable.

The options, which were given to board members last night, are to be discussed at an agency board meeting tomorrow. Even though the latest numbers are smaller than the ones officials presented earlier this month, they still would represent the largest increase in agency history.

Metro officials say higher fares are needed to help close a projected shortfall in next year's budget.

Catoe has said he would like the increases to take effect as early as January. Under the January timetable, fares would rise 20 or 25 cents for the subway rush-hour boarding charge from $1.35, an increase of 15 to 18.5 percent. The maximum rush-hour subway fare would go up 60 cents, to $4.50 per trip, an increase of about 15 percent.

Metrorail fares vary by the time of day and distance of the trip. Metro officials are also planning to increase costs for those who take longer trips.

If Metro waited until July to impose higher fares, minimum rush-hour subway fares would increase either 35 or 40 cents, with maximum fares rising as much as $1.25, board members said.

Still, the latest options are lower than the increases officials recommended two weeks ago, which would have raised the minimum subway fare by 45 cents, bus fees by a quarter and parking by $1 for a fare hike in January. Board members put discussion of those rates on hold so Metro staff could provide more details about the agency's costs and revenue forecasts.

"Mr. Catoe has been very wise in providing a range of options which we can explore on Thursday," said board member Jim Graham, a D.C. Council member who represents the District and chairs Metro's budget committee. "But much more detail is required before we can act intelligently."

The latest fare proposals are smaller because Metro officials revised their forecast for next year's shortfall. Instead of $173 million, officials say, the budget gap will be $141 million. Of that, agency officials hope to generate slightly more than $100 million from fares. Metro officials hope to receive the remainder from the subsidies that local governments pay the agency.

Catoe has said he is pushing for a price increase early next year to ensure Metro has enough money to operate for the fiscal year that ends in June 2009.

Rider advocacy groups have criticized the decision-making process, the push to put a fare increase into effect so early and the lack of public input.

The Riders' Advisory Council, which is appointed by Metro, called "the proposal of a mid-fiscal year fare increase disquieting," according to a statement by Chairman I. Michael Snyder. Although many riders recognize the need for a fare increase, he said, higher rates should be pegged to increases in wages, and indexed fare hikes should be tied to a performance indicator or customer-service measure, he said.

"If Metro's services are meeting expectations, riders would be more receptive to a modest fare increase," he said.

Jack Corbett of MetroRiders.org criticized Metro's request for a fare increase in the current fiscal year when the anticipated shortfall isn't likely to materialize until the next year.

"That's like a landlord asking a tenant voluntarily to increase her rental payments starting at mid-year so the rent to the next tenant won't have to be set so high!" he wrote in a letter this week to Metro Chairman Elizabeth "Betty" Hewlett.

Corbett also pointed out that Metro's estimates of needed revenue keep changing and questioned whether the latest numbers are accurate.

In December, agency officials asked for a controversial fare increase to fill a projected budget gap for this year. But shortly after Catoe became the general manager in January, he shelved the proposal and said no increase would be needed. Instead, the agency cut 254 positions, about 20 percent of its administrative staff, and reduced other costs.

Transit agency officials say expenses have soared in recent years as the system has set ridership records. The extra money at the farebox has not offset growing expenses, including an 80 percent increase in health insurance costs, a fuel cost increase of more than 300 percent since 1995 and maintenance needs for the 31-year-old system.

Catoe has said the fare increases, which would be the first in four years, are needed to offset the shortfall and to pay for boosts in service, such as running more buses and eight-car trains to improve reliability and reduce crowding.

If Metro provides a minimal level of additional service in the next fiscal year, expenses will grow by $20 million more. This additional service would include the costs of operating the new rail cars, extending Yellow Line service to Fort Totten during off-peak hours and the cost of ending the Red Line turn-back at Grosvenor-Strathmore during off-peak periods.