Pinky and Williams Plot Metro Takeover

Exhibit A: Richard White, Metro's Recently Ousted General Manager
Eldridge claims that White "was replaced in large part because of political elements from the District..." Really? We thought White was given the boot because of billions of mismanaged contracts, a neglect of Metro Access and Metrobus, poor handling of safety problems, penchant for taking Metro's "Black Line" (also known as his WMATA-issued SUV), and general aloofness. If the "political elements from the District" were the only ones who saw this as a problem, we're glad they took charge.

Exhibit B: White's Replacement, Dan Tangherlini
Eldridge goes on to point out that a District employee got the job, implying some sort of municipal nepotism. Well, it makes sense that WMATA (whose board consists of members from Maryland and Virginia as well as the District) chose someone who had a good knowledge of the system and the issues it faces. Tangherlini had led the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) for 4 years and served on the board of Metro for 10 months when he was appointed interim manager. He also had a reputation for possessing the qualities White did not, including a good relationship with his employees, a genuine interest in the benefits of transit, and a strong concept of managerial leadership. Since he has come on board, the press has been mostly positive, employees are expressing satisfaction, and the Metro board is talking about making him the permanent CEO. Sounds like a change for the better to us...

Exhibit C: Metro Employees are Increasingly Coming from the District
This may or may not be true, since Eldridge does not give a source (not even the infamous blind quote). Cite your data, Steve, because without references, it might as well not exist. (For the record, we looked for publicly available labor and hiring stats from WMATA's and could find none.)

Exhibit D: The Dismissal of a Maryland Metro Board Representative
Is it us, or is this situation totally unrelated? Eldridge implies that Jim Graham, D.C.'s openly gay Ward 1 Council-member and member of the Metro Board, had an active role in Bob Smith's dismissal, as a result of Smith's anti-gay remarks on cable TV. But Smith was fired by Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich because his comments were "in direct conflict to [his] administration's commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity." The only thing Graham did was to be offended and call for an apology, for which we cannot blame him.

His Verdict?
After presenting his litany of evidence, Eldridge goes on:

"The District wants to pay less for its role in Metro though an equal share of service (especially the loss-leader bus service) is inside its borders and it wants to have more of a say. Don’t forget boys and girls that the District is roughly half the size of both Fairfax and Montgomery counties, which are not individually represented."

First of all, Eldridge's manipulation of the facts to make his points undercuts his own arguments. When he objects to D.C.'s financial contribution to WMATA, he points out that at least half of Metro service is in the District, as well as the most unprofitable Metrobus service. But when he wants to show that D.C. has a disproportionately large representation on the Metro board, he points out that the city is smaller that Fairfax and Montgomery Counties, and therefore should have less of an influence. So the District has more service and should pay more, but we're smaller, so should be less represented. Right.

Second, the situation to which Eldridge is referring involves a debate between D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, over how contributions to Metro should be determined. Virginia and Maryland argue that the percentage a jurisdiction pays should be based on the number of stations within its borders. The District is saying that it should be based on the number of residents that use the system instead. This would mean that D.C. would pay a lesser proportion, since there are more riders living in the suburbs, outside of the District. However, considering that D.C. is the only one of the three to pass legislation approving a dedicated funding source, which WMATA desperately needs, we find it hard to agree that D.C. is somehow trying to weasel out of contributing to Metro.

We don't mean this as a personal attack on you, Mr. Eldridge, and we look forward to your column every morning. However, we also love our city and our transit system (despite all our complaints). Even if the claims you make weren't so baseless, they still seem unproductive and immaterial to the task we have in common - making Metro the best system possible. If you just want to rant, Steve, post a comment.