There’s no question that Metro has generally improved under Interim Manager Dan Tangherlini. The District’s former top transportation bureaucrat has instituted a number of positive changes and shaken out at least some of the cobwebs. But Metro’s performance during last month’s torrential rainstorms indicates that Tangherlini still has a long way to go in transforming Metro’s legendary bureaucratic culture into one that’s efficient and customer-oriented.
For proof, look no further than Metro’s own admission that it skews performance data to make it look better than it is.
As The Examiner’s Mike Rupert reported, Metro claimed June 26 that its trains were running on schedule 97 percent of the time — despite the previous weekend’s deluge, which required the closure of two flooded downtown stations that forced frustrated passengers to exit the system and scramble to find an alternate way to work. Yet Metro’s on-time numbers made that horrible Monday commute look — at least on paper — like one of its better service days.
Only when the obvious disconnect between on-time performance figures and the on-the-ground reality was questioned did Metro’s chief operating officer for rail admit that the electronic monitoring system that records train arrivals was fixed in Metro’s favor.
The only way Metro could give itself a 97 percent on-time rating was by totally disregarding closed stations, extremely delayed trains and tens of thousands of stranded passengers. That’s like ignoring numerous traffic violations and then claiming you have a perfect driving record. Nobody blames Metro for running late after more than a foot of rain inundated the region, but such deliberate deception is another matter altogether.
Then there was the WMATA Web site, which inaccurately reported serious delays of more than an hour as minor 10- to 15-minute inconveniences. Neither Metro’s electronic sign system, for which it paid millions, nor its e-mail alert system proved up to the task of providing commuters with credible real-time information when they needed it most.
Metro managers must think that nobody notices when they fudge statistics, cover-up problems and fail to communicate truthfully with the public. But people eventually find out they’re being scammed — and wonder what else the transit agency is hiding from them. In the past, Metro has needlessly frittered away much of the good will and trust that is so essential to the public’s political and financial support, and this latest numbers game does more damage.
Tangherlini was named interim director in February, so he inherited the Metro mess from his predecessor. But if this latest example of mendacity is what Tangherlini means by “doing pretty well,” he’s obviously still got a lot to learn.
In the meantime, who at Metro specifically authorized programming the electronic monitoring system? Were Tangherlini or the Metro board informed of that programming? When will Tangherlini and the board apologize to Metro’s customers and Washington region taxpayers for misleading them?
