Riders Give Metro an Earful
Board Will Weigh Gripes in Finalizing Fare Increases

By Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007

They speak of love and hate and of promises not kept. Their words are full of passion. Their tone is sarcastic, disappointed, even incredulous. But many are thoughtful and reasonable. And all just want their side to be heard.

Metro riders have plenty on their minds. In hours of public hearings last week and in letters, faxes and e-mails to the board of directors, riders spoke out against the largest proposed increases ever in subway fares and parking fees.

But although they were supposed to address only fares and fees, many complained about Metro's poor service, using the opportunity to address board members directly during six public hearings.

The glimpse into the minds of riders revealed a band of beaten down and frustrated people who, despite their close kinship with Metro, have had about enough. They're tired of seeing platform workers do nothing while chaos ensues. They're tired of being stuck in crammed trains, not knowing what's going on, when they should be at home or work. And they don't want to be asked, again, for more money unless things are going to get better.

"I cannot count the number of times I have seen Metro staff chatting in groups on the platform instead of calming rude teenagers or directing foot traffic or answering questions," wrote Jennifer Seifert of Fairfax.

Brenda Brown-Paul of Upper Marlboro asked board members to "take a look at the number of alerts that your system has sent to the riders over the past week," ticking off the innumerable delays caused by malfunctioning brakes and doors and reports of smoke.

"If I'm asked to pay more, I want better service and better maintenance so that these sorts of problems become less frequent, not more, as is the case now," she wrote in an e-mail.

Thomas McCann, who rides from Vienna to the Smithsonian Station stop, attached three earlier e-mails seeking explanations from Metro's customer service office for his Orange Line troubles. The lack of response, he said, was "indicative of the poor service provided to passengers on a daily basis."

The public hearings have ended, but riders can mail or e-mail written comments to Metro until 5 p.m. Nov. 26. The board had received more than 100 e-mails as of Friday morning, and 150 people testified at the public hearings. The board is scheduled to decide on a final fare package at its December meeting, and new rates could go into effect early next year.

Some directors said testimony from riders will make a difference and give them more reason to lower the size of the increase. "This will affect what we do," said Maryland board member Peter Benjamin, who attended the Rockville hearing. "I am confident we will be able to come in at a lower set of fares than what we took to public hearing."

District board member Emeka Moneme, who attended two hearings in Washington, said riders' message for better service came through clearly. "Obviously, we have to do something. We would be breaking the public trust if we didn't ensure a better level of service."

An initial step was taken Friday when Metro executives named a new chief to oversee the 86-station Metrorail system, the first in a series of steps they said were aimed at improving efficiency and reliability.

Not surprisingly, virtually all riders said they were against any fare increases. The majority of comments came from rush-hour rail customers, who will be hit hardest.

Aurelia Glenn, who commutes daily on the Green and Red lines, was one of 45 speakers who testified at a standing-room-only hearing at Metro's headquarters in downtown Washington, which drew more than 100 people.

"I know you're in a hard place," said Glenn, as she addressed Moneme and fellow board member Jim Graham, who also represents the District, as well as General Manager John B. Catoe Jr.

"But if one of your goals was to get people out of their cars, you can't have crazy increases," said Glenn, who rides from Suitland to Dupont Circle. Especially, she said, if those increases are hurting the most frequent users of the system: customers who park and ride during rush hour. Why is it, she wanted to know, that the most frequent users of Metro are penalized, while in just about every other area, frequent users are rewarded?

The biggest increases would affect rush-hour subway riders, who make up the largest portion of daily users. The proposal would increase rush-hour boarding charges by 30 cents, to $1.65, a 22 percent increase, and raise the maximum fare per trip by 80 cents, to $4.70.

At Metro parking lots, where spots cost as much as $4, a $1.15 increase is proposed. By comparison, the cost to take a bus would rise a dime for cash-paying passengers, an increase of 8 percent. The fare would remain $1.25 for riders who pay with electronic SmarTrip cards.

The increases are meant to raise $109 million to help close a projected shortfall in next year's budget. The proposal was adopted late last month after much public debate that pitted suburban board members, who want to keep parking fees and train fares low, against city members, who seek to keep bus fares low for low-income riders. The remainder of the budget shortfall is expected to come from subsidies paid by jurisdictions served by Metro.

Antiwar activists who spoke at a few of the hearings urged Metro to tax the rich, and at least one speaker noted that six hours' worth of funding for the war in Iraq would be enough to solve the transit agency's problems for many years. Metro has no taxing authority.

Speakers also urged Metro to seek more funds from local jurisdictions, noting the regional benefits of keeping cars off clogged roads. They also wanted the federal government to contribute more. Although federal workers make up 34 percent of subway riders, Metro receives no federal dollars for its operating costs. Unlike other major transit agencies, it has no dedicated revenue source. Its operating cost is paid by fareboxes, revenue from advertising and parking, and subsidies from local jurisdictions that Metro serves.

At the hearings and in e-mails, rider after rider called for a lower increase in parking rates and long-distance Metrorail fares, better service on the subway lines, particularly the Red Line, and reconsideration of a plan to increase the number of reserved parking spaces.

They also said it was unfair that there were no proposals to increase fares during off-peak hours, when tourists and other infrequent users typically ride. They also complained that suburban rail riders shouldn't shoulder more of the burden than bus riders.

Rockville resident Ira Silverman said he understood the need to hold down fares for low-income riders, many of whom live in the District. But if District officials "want to do this as a social issue, then their payment should increase by the difference between the new fares and what a 20 percent increase on all bus riders would produce," he noted.

Under the proposal, the reserved parking fee would increase $10 a month, to $55, and the number of reserved spaces would also go up by 3,500, a 70 percent increase from the current 5,000. Reserved parkers pay the monthly fee in addition to the daily parking charge.

Supporters of the move to raise parking fees said it would tap demand for more spaces, where some lots have waiting lists. But one rider said this approach was bogus. Metro lots "are supposed to support rail, not make a profit."

Tracey Harris, a Prince George's County resident, wrote: "Have you ever tried to park at any of your lots along the Green Line around 8 a.m. or 8:15 a.m.? I am already having to travel an extra 30 minutes farther to a second or third Metro station to get a parking space."

Dozens of riders suggested that Metro fill the stations, trains and buses with ads to raise money. "Can't you make up what you need with advertising? Have you already touched on that?" asked Alex Ghareeb, one of six speakers at a hearing in Reston. Told that Metro has plans for more ads, he replied: "Sweet."

The board approved a plan in June to increase advertising revenue, currently about $38 million, by $3 million through banners inside stations, graphics on the floors and trash receptacles, and putting ads on platform pylons, rail car ceilings and Metro's Web site. The Gallery Place station has several ads wrapped around entrance pylons, for example.

Ileana Schinder, an architect who lives near the Van Ness station, proposed using paper fare cards to promote events and partner with hotels and restaurants to sell SmarTrip cards already loaded with fare value. Naomi Harris suggested renting kiosk space inside stations to vendors to sell scarves, umbrellas and T-shirts.

"I will pay more, happily, happily, for good service," said Paul Kagan of the District. As Kagan's three minutes ran out, board member Graham asked him to wrap up: "Your time has expired."

Channeling riders' growing intolerance for poor service, Kagan replied: "Maybe yours has, too."

Staff writer Robert Thomson contributed to this report.