(TBD)

UPDATE, 11:51 a.m.: OK, OnFoot is out of here.

UPDATE, 11:20 a.m.: This is what a lot of folks have been waiting for -- info on the L'Enfant escalator incident. According to a Metro safety officer Robert Maniuszko, here's what went down, from their preliminary investigation:

The escalator that malfunctioned had been ascending that day, until a station manager decided to make it run down instead, since people were starting to leave the rally. It was extremely crowded. The weight of all those people caused the escalator to speed up, which triggered the motor to stop as a safety precaution. (The brakes kick in at a ten percent increase over normal escalator speed, which is 90 feet per minute.) The brakes engaged but they failed to hold because of the weight.  That's why it began accelerating, dumping people at the bottom. 

As people poured off and the weight lessened, the escalator eventually came to a stop. They examined the escalator's three motors, each of which has its own brake. Two of them were faulty -- one had oil on it from a leaking motor, the other had worn brake pads.

The long and the short of it: The brakes engaged, but they failed to hold.

The escalator was installed in 1977 and rehabbed in 2004. The last inspection was Sept. 28, 2010.

As for the injuries at L'Enfant: Sixteen were hurt, four of them treated at the hospital. One of those people had serious injuries including internal bleeding. The investigation, Maniuszko says, is ongoing.

UPDATE, 11:10 a.m.: On to SmarTrip. This issue refuses to die. And it's still as confusing as ever.

Metro is considering a move in 2012 away from SmarTrip and toward "commodity cards." Though we're not sure what those are exactly, they're apparently cheaper than SmarTrip cards. Metro could therefore charge less for them, in which case they would have to rethink this entire debate.

Also: As has been pointed out here, even if they figure out a SmarTrip scheme, it will become increasingly difficult to prevent people from gaming the system as fares continue to rise.

UPDATE, 11:00 a.m.: Remember how there was a drop in bus ridership after the fare increases? Apparently in recent months there's been an uptick. A slight one. But an uptick nonetheless. "The recovery might be longer than anticipated."

Graham says he'd like to hear an explanation as to why the D.C. Circulator fare can be so much lower than Metro's bus fare. He finds it troubling.

UPDATE: 10:48 a.m.: Board member Jeff McCay wants to make sure there's flexibility in the capital improvement plan to address the elevator and escalator issues. Referring to the recent elevator/escalator audit, McCay says, "We're not getting the full picture as to what our commitment is." He says the money should be there to address it. "It's a safety issue."

UPDATE, 10:20 a.m.: Though there are no guarantees today, Benjamin says he'd like to see the current fares maintained in 2012. Surely many riders do as well.

UPDATE, 10:10 a.m.: They're taking a preliminary look at the FY2012 budget. Here's the basic recipe:

Contractual raises in wages and benefits for employees + a ten percent growth in MetroAccess usage + no reductions in bus or rail service = an $89 million budget gap.

UPDATE, 10:01 a.m.: On to the finances. Metro has roughly $150 million in obligated but unspent funds from FY 2010. The money's from the Metro Matters program. They're considering rolling that money over into the 2011 budget, which would boost the overall annual budget from $713 million to $844 million. Benjamin is wondering if they can legally do that.

UPDATE, 9:40 a.m.: A couple of times already Benjamin has brought up the idea of a touch-screen machine that tells you your fare. Just pop in your destination and the fare comes up.

Of customers who don't like fare charts, Benjamin says, "All they're saying is, 'Can you give me something other than a great big table?' And I agree with them.... We want a mechanism that says, 'I'm going from A to B and this is what it'll cost me.'"

UPDATE, 9:25 a.m.: Metro is considering some changes to their "fare policy principles." Some research on focus groups turned up a few things, none of them all that surprising: Riders find the fare charts hard to understand and the distance-based fares too complex. They're also down on peak-of-the-peak fares, naturally.

Among the proposed changes in fare principles: "Develop fares so they are easily understandable" and Charge fares relative to level of service."

Chair Peter Benjamin takes issue with both of them, particularly the latter. "That will be used against us any time we reduce levels of service for maintenance," he says. "Our level of service reflects the demand. In periods of low demand, we will charge less. In periods of high demand, we will charge more." The new principle, as stated, "would totally change our fare structure." In the end, he says, "I don't think I could possibly vote for this."

ORIGINAL: We're at Metro's finance and customer-service committee hearings right now. We'll be updating this post throughout the morning.