PA: SEPTA faces class-action lawsuit over fare increases

Oct. 8—George Bochetto is taking SEPTA to court, again, this time with a proposed class action targeting the mass transit agency's fare increases.

The lawsuit seeks a refund of recent 21.5% fare increases to riders.

It comes just a month after a Philadelphia judge ordered SEPTA to reverse 20% cuts in services that the agency implemented as it faced a significant financial shortfall and there was no deal on increased state funding for transit.

The judge's order allowed the fare increases to take effect.

SEPTA appealed the order in Commonwealth Court, but restored service regardless after getting approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to use funds appropriated for capital projects on operating expenses.

The September injunction came in response to a previous lawsuit by the Bochetto & Lentz law firm, which alleged that the cuts disproportionately harmed low-income Philadelphians and city residents of color.

Bochetto filed the new lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of Lance Haver, a consumer advocate who was among the three city residents represented in the discrimination suit.

The proposed class-action suit repeats the claims Bochetto made during two days of hearings: There is no financial crisis, the suit says, and SEPTA made it all up to force Harrisburg lawmakers to give the agency more funds.

A spokesperson for SEPTA declined to comment.

The complaint doesn't mince words or metaphors, comparing SEPTA to Gen. Jack D. Ripper from Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove, who "intentionally initiates a nuclear war and precipitates a nuclear winter."

"SEPTA's 'Doomsday service cuts' would similarly lead to a disastrous scenario for SEPTA, including what SEPTA itself calls the 'dismantlement' of public transit in Philadelphia, part of a 'death spiral' which includes riders' reaction to the Fare Increase," the suit says.

The lawsuit claims to represent any person who has paid a SEPTA fare since Sept. 14, when the increase went into effect. It says SEPTA inflicts $571,000 worth of damages on class members — meaning SEPTA riders — per week. That number comes from a SEPTA official's testimony about the cost for SEPTA if the agency was ordered to reverse the fare change.

The increase "was a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion" by SEPTA because the agency has the money in its service stabilization fund to provide services until a state budget passes, the suit says.

"SEPTA has the ability to fully fund operations without raising fares. ... Its refusal to employ these resources is a willful and wanton decision aimed at inflicting maximum disruption on the very communities that depend on it most," the complaint says.

The suit also accuses SEPTA of deceiving the public. For example, the complaint says SEPTA is "minimizing and concealing the true magnitude of fare evasion" as it "shifts blame away from its failure to enforce existing fare laws and toward its paying riders."

And it attacks the process through which the cuts and fare increases were approved, referencing security removing Haver from the podium during a public hearing when he attempted to ask questions.

"This gestapo-like conduct exemplifies the unfettered, draconian, and dictatorial manner in which SEPTA now operates," the suit says, "removing and silencing those who attempt to ask reasonable, relevant questions when those questions do not align with the Authority's agenda."

SEPTA previously rejected the notion that it could just tap into its stabilization fund to avoid the cuts. The money in it pays for ongoing bills, SEPTA has said throughout the process.

Tapping into the fund would "run the risk of accelerating SEPTA's path to fiscal insolvency," general manager Scott Sauer said during an August court hearing.

Officials also responded in court to questions about the process that led to the adoption of the plan, as well as the opportunities for public participation.

In closing arguments during a September injunction hearing, Matthew Glazer, a Cozen O'Connor lawyer representing SEPTA, referenced a 1989 Commonwealth Court opinion that reversed an injunction on a SEPTA fare increase.

Similar to the current case, that case also included allegations that the process through which SEPTA approved the increase was not sufficiently open to the public because the agency did not give enough time to a prominent advocate for questions.

The court, Glazer said, concluded that judges "may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency" as long as there was no flagrant abuse of discretion or error of law.

Bochetto has been asking the court to do exactly that, Glazer said, "override well-reasoned agency judgment."

© 2025 The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pa.).

Visit www.inquirer.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.