Graham, Albert did allow several options for public hearings

Yesterday, I expressed my disappointment that the WMATA Board’s vote for public hearings on the FY2010 budget prevents targeting a larger temporary fare increases to some times of day or groups of riders. I’m still disappointed.

However, I also used sharper language than usual, and ended up attacking in a much more pointed way than, upon reflection, seems appropriate. Part of this was because I really was frustrated about this crazy vote. Part was because I was writing the piece from my phone over lunch, rushing to an appointment, and didn’t edit as much as I should have.

I criticized Jim Graham and Neil Albert for vetoing Chris Zimmerman’s original proposal to let the hearings cover any fare proposals up to increases of 20¢, and limiting it instead to 10¢. And I still think this was a bad vote, including being bad for the District. That’s because the lower the total cap, the more likely we’ll have an across-the-board fare increase than a more targeted one that’s larger for some but smaller for others.

On the other hand, Graham and Albert’s vote was not just about foreclosing options, as the piece implied. In fact, they allowed some options they probably oppose, and even ones I hope they oppose. In addition to a fare increase which Graham knows many voters will howl about, he accepted an option to restrict the total number of hours of service instead of lengthening headways late at night.

I am personally very skeptical about restricting hours. Is it better to close the system an hour early or have 30-minute headways during the last few hours? Michael Perkins thinks so, while I think it’s better to keep the system open, so at least nobody gets stranded. A rider might decide to drive instead of taking Metro if they know the waits will be long, but they’ll also do so if they think there’s a good chance the system will close before they’re done. Either way, it’s a debate worth having.

In addition, the whole resolution to open up the public hearing came as a surprise, giving DC members little time to fully weigh the proposal. The public hearing notice had to go out within two hours, alternate DC members weren’t present, and even some press accounts were a little confused too.

The resolution got unfortunately tangled up in the issue of this “cap.” Zimmerman appeared to be trying to just cast a wide net and make many proposals eligible for public comment. However, to many people, it sounded like he was suggesting an across-the-board flat rate surcharge. In fact, some commenters here suggested that the 10¢ across-the-board increase would avert the service cuts, so we’re in good shape.

I don’t believe that would be a fair proposal at all. People who take short trips on rail or bus pay much less than those going long distances. Why should a $4 fare just go up to $4.20 but a $1.25 fare go up to $1.45? As Graham pointed out during the meeting through questions, that’s a 5% increase for the first rider but a 16% increase for the second.

Zimmerman originally asked if it were necessary to set a cap. If the resolution had just said that public hearings could consider fare increases of unspecified size, it would have been fine. That would probably have passed.

Graham later asked if we could offer a percentage increase instead of a flat one. That would have been much fairer, and if the Virginia or Maryland Board members had opposed that, we’d be talking about their bad votes instead of the DC members’. Unfortunately, John Catoe said it would be difficult, and in doing so stopped administrative complexity but added political complexity.

Zimmerman did a nice thing by putting a bunch of options on the table which may or may not be good. He might not support them all, he said. I don’t support them all. But the plan was to open them up for discussion. What caused problems was how the DC members, in their understandable reluctance to raise fares unfairly across the board, ended up scuttling the one provision that would have made the budget solutions most fair.

For all the “Grahamstanding,” and despite not riding the system on a daily basis, I have no doubt that Jim Graham really is a dedicate advocate for better transit in the District of Columbia. His M.O. of rejecting options outright even paid off last year: others suggested a 10-cent across-the-board increase, which DC vetoed, and then jurisdictions managed to come up with money to avoid all but a few bus cuts. Unfortunately, that option seems far less feasible this year, and the budget situation more dire.

Graham pushed back on fare increase proposals because a lot of voters email him every time there’s a fare increase on the table. Certainly, they will also complain about any reduction in service. Some of you suggested trying to defeat him for reelection. There’s a better way for the Ward 1 voters, who have that power, to get good policy: email him. Unlike most Councilmembers, Graham reads all his email personally, and replies to a lot of messages.

For future Metro issues, I’ll be encouraging residents to email him as well as commenting here. We all saw the many comments pushing for a surcharge instead of long headways, and so did Chris Zimmerman; we can work together to make sure Jim Graham sees them too and knows some of them come from his voters.