Disabled riders say already bearing brunt of last hikes
Metro riders turned out in droves to six public hearings on the agency’s plans to raise their fares. But the best-represented group has the smallest constituency: MetroAccess riders who rely on the system as a lifeline to the outside world.
Many of them are already on fixed incomes and don’t want to bear higher costs that now reach up to $14 for a round trip.
| Have a say |
| It’s not too late to comment on Metro’s fare increase proposal, even though public hearings wrapped up last week. Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. Monday. Fax them to 202-962-1133 or e-mail [email protected]. Riders can also fill out an online survey: www.wmata.com/budget. |
“I often must choose between heat, food or medicine — or how often I go to dialysis,” rider Paul Semelfort testified.
He and others are still feeling the pain of fare increases that took effect last February, leaving them in a confusing system in which the price of the same trip can vary widely. Last year, Metro changed its fare policy to make the shared ride paratransit service cost twice a comparable bus or rail trip to a maximum of $7 per trip. It was an attempt to stave off huge ridership growth in the expensive federally mandated program. They also encouraged more riders to use the train and bus system.
The plan worked.
In the first quarter, MetroAccess ridership dropped 16 percent from the prior year, even more than expected. Riders took 93,000 fewer trips.
Even so, the agency brought in more revenue than expected, earning 77 percent more in fares than the same period the previous year, up from $1.3 million to $2.3 million.
Currently, about a quarter of all MetroAccess riders pay the maximum $7 fare, according to Metro.
Now, the agency wants to raise the cap on those trips to $7.40 for a one-way trip, making some round trips cost $14.80.
“You ought to be ashamed,” Denise Rush, who has taken MetroAccess for 14 years, told Metro officials.
Regina Lee presented a petition with more than 250 signatures calling for a delay in the MetroAccess increase until it could be studied further, suggesting flat fares instead of the current confusing system.
Beyond MetroAccess concerns, riders repeatedly complained about being asked to pay more for less service, including delayed trains, stalled escalators and stations that look like construction zones.
“Do not raise the fares until you show us the money you already spent was used to improve the system,” Montgomery County resident Paula Bienenfeld said.
Leslie Wilcox said she moved to the region from Los Angeles so she didn’t have to drive to work. However, her trips from Congress Heights to her Montgomery County job cost too much at $10 per day. A fare increase would push her to look into buying a car.
Metro is looking at the fare increase to fill $66 million of an $119 million budget gap in its $2.6 billion budget proposal.
Metro could keep the 20-cent peak of the peak surcharge on rail trips, as some riders suggested.
The agency could seek higher taxpayer subsidies, even though it is already asking for an 8 percent increase from last year, about $53 million.
It could also trim. Wilcox, a union worker in a local government job, said Metro needs to eliminate nonessential jobs — in management. “No government agencies are exempt from overdoing it on the bureaucracy,” she said.
