Michael Perkins - Greater Greater Washington

Metrorail fares flirt with historic highs

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:24:00 EDT

Adjusted for inflation, Metrorail fares were at their lowest around 2000, and are now either close to or above their highest point in the 1980s. The fares typically have risen during recessions and stayed steady in good economic times.

The graph above shows the peak fares for Metrorail trips of different distances since the system's opening in 1976, including the "peak-of-the-peak" surcharge added in 2010. It also shows gas prices, and lists both fares and gas prices adjusted for inflation.

In 2010, Metrorail trips of 14 miles and above all cost the same maximum fare. Under the new proposal, Metro riders will have to pay more for miles 15 and 16, as they did before 2008. The net result is that trips longer than 14 miles will see a fairly substantial fare increase, while fares for all other distances will decline.

Although raising the maximum distance cap from 14 to 16 miles will probably prove unpopular among longer distance Metrorail commuters, opening the Silver Line to Dulles may require Metro to reevaluate the maximum distance cap again in the future.

Fares appear to follow a clear trend of increasing in times of economic hardship and decreasing when the economy is stronger. Today's historically high fares should come as little surprise given the severity of the current economic slump. Metrorail riders feeling the pain of these prices may have to wait for a stronger economic recovery to take hold before they can expect any lasting relief.

Sources for this article included WMATA: History of Fare Increases, Metrorail 1976-2010 (PDF); WMATA: Proposed FY2013 Fare Adjustments, Proposed FY2013 Capital Improvement
Program, and Federal FY2012 Grant Applications (PDF); U.S. Energy Information Administration: Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average, 1976-1990 (PDF); and U.S. Energy Information Administration: Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, 1990-2012.

30 comments

Can Metrorail fares be simpler? (Nov 17, 2010)
Metrobus, MetroAccess fares have declined with inflation (Mar 9, 2009)
Ask GGW: What will the Metro fare to Dulles be? (Jul 20, 2011)
Fare hikes probable to cover part of Metro's $120 million gap (Dec 2, 2011)
Metro outlines fare policy principles (Jan 12, 2010)

Last chance to weigh in on Silver Line station names

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:56:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Metro's online survey about station names for the new Silver Line to Dulles and Reston will be ending on March 21. Have you filled it out?

Image from WMATA.

This is your chance to push for station names that create a sense of place and tie in to the region's history and geography, rather than a boring, long, hyphenated string of road names.

Here are my picks, versus the official recommendations from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors:

My pick	Fairfax Board pick
Scotts Run	Tysons-McLean
Tysons Corner	Tysons I&II
Westpark	Tysons Central
Spring Hill	Tysons-Spring Hill Road
Wiehle	Reston-Wiehle Avenue
Reston	Reston Town Center
Herndon	Herndon-Reston West
Coppermine	Herndon-Dulles East
Dulles	(Not specified)

These names are short, can be used in the names of developments or buildings in the area, and will create a memorable name for the area around the station.

What did you pick?

36 comments

Fairfax Silver Line names are boring and repetitive (Mar 29, 2011)
Proposed Tysons Metro station names are still a little dull (Oct 21, 2010)
WMATA considering policies for shorter station names (May 23, 2011)
What you said about station names (Oct 13, 2011)
Will the Silver Line produce sprawl like highways do? (Mar 20, 2011)

Metro opens doors, closes data

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:19:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Metro used to publish lists of service disruptions online, but soon after I published a post analyzing the data, Metro stopped posting new reports and eventually removed the entire archive. Is this good customer relations?

Photo by Marcin Wichary on Flickr.

Metro officials say that the reports require a lot of staff time, but they already have internal reports that show the same information, just in a more technical way. Metro could, and should, still release those reports to interested members of the press or transit aficionados who can interpret them for the public.

If Metro's performance is getting better, then posting these reports would help advocates write reports or articles about that fact, and boost public confidence in the work CEO Richard Sarles and his team are doing. If the performance is not getting better, then we should be having a public conversation with WMATA officials about what it would take to get improvements, or when the current repair schedule will start to bear fruit.

Here's an example service disruption from a report I received from a WMATA insider:

TRAIN GOES TO B4 AT POINT OF POWER, HAVE TO CUT OUT ATP TO MOVE, NOT DISPATCHED, K08, CMD, ATCC, 918

Other reports are a little simpler to understand:

NO ALL DOORS CLOSED CUSTOMER POSSIBLY HOLDING THE DOORS

A lot of this message wouldn't make sense to the vast majority of commuters. WMATA could still post these with a glossary that helps decode even this cryptic report, though there is the possibility that customers would see them and be confused, or call in to customer service about it.

Instead of posting these, WMATA created a "Vital Signs" report, which lists a few high-level metrics like overall rail on-time performance. But one number for rail on-time performance hides a lot of important information. A train can be late up to half the headway and still count as on time, meaning that when trains run every 20 minutes, trains could still be 10 minutes late or early. It doesn't include performance during planned track work, and other factors.

Today, WMATA's approach to public information seems to be to release only a few conclusions, not any deeper information. When the Riders' Advisory Council or others have asked for more, they've been told that it's the job of staff, and nobody else, to analyze data and tell the public and press what to believe about the issues.

But to many riders, this isn't satisfying. WMATA officials say they're aggressively fixing problems, but will those fixes actually lead to better performance, and when? So far, the agency has just cut the on-time performance target from 95% to 90%. It's never met its goal for the frequency equipment breaks down ("mean time before failure") since the data have been reported, and does not appear to be improving.

It's no secret that WMATA's reputation as a reliable transit service is tarnished by frequent service delays and offloads. If Metro begins to publish these reports again, customers could decipher the differences in service disruptions that are the fault of customer behavior like blocking doors, sick passengers, or police activity, and those that are due to maintenance issues like brake, track control circuit, or door problems.

Compare this to San Francisco and Chicago, two transit agencies that have longer histories of reporting service data.

Chicago reports number of rail delays of 10 minutes or more, percentage of track that is affected by a slow zone restriction, miles between rail vehicle defects, percentage of the rail fleet unavailable for service, and percentage of customer complaints not closed out within 14 days.

San Francisco reports how closely they're meeting the schedule (similar to WMATA), how the headways match up against the plan (more useful to customers for frequent routes), the amount of service, late pull-outs, overcrowded vehicles, the number of unexcused absences, mean distance between failures for trains, vacancy rates for service-critical positions, and the complaint resolution rate within 14 days.

San Francisco and Chicago implemented better performance reporting as part of an effort to regain the public trust after a long decline in service. Metro should do the same in a concerted effort to truly move Metro Forward.

10 comments

Use industry standards for bus and rail on-time performance (May 25, 2011)
Metro trackwork announcements take tentative step forward (Feb 4, 2011)
Metro suffers complete blackout (Jan 27, 2012)
Lessen weekend service impacts with Metro timetables (Jan 19, 2011)
New calendar shows scheduled Metro track work and delays (May 4, 2010)

Metro's proposed monthly pass could serve more riders

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:54:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins, Dan Malouff and Matt Johnson

An unlimited-use pass could allow Metro to reward their most frequent customers and increase off-peak usage. But the pass needs to be well-designed if it's going to succeed. A good pass system needs to work on SmarTrip, offer price levels that would work for many commuters, and provide enough of a discount to be worthwhile.

Photo by jcolman on Flickr.

System shutdowns for track maintenance and replacement are making rail service outside of peak hours worse. Unlimited monthly passes would allow customers to get their off-peak trips for free, giving them reasons to keep riding even though the service has degraded during maintenance.

A pass would let customers pay a lump sum up front each month, then ride as much as they want. The proposal has merit, but will likely prove unpopular unless it is tweaked to provide a better deal than the weekly paper pass that already exists.

Under Metro's proposal, riders could choose from two differently-priced 28-day passes, good for trips up to $3.25 or unlimited. Any trip of the pass value or less would be free. If customers use a pass for a more expensive trip than the cap, they'll pay the difference.

Passes need to be on SmarTrip

Metro's pass proposal calls for using paper farecards, at least initially, for the monthly pass. But that will depress use of the passes, as it does with the two existing weekly passes.

The weekly rail fast pass and short trip pass are not popular, in part because paper farecards are inconvenient and relatively fragile. The short trip pass is especially inconvenient since it requires Metro customers to carry exact change for every ride that is more than $3.25. With a Smartrip card, this extra fare could be automatically deducted from stored value.

The risk of damaging the card combined with the need to carry a bunch of coins for more expensive trips tilts the field away from using passes. And the calculus is even worse for a pass that needs to last a full month rather than a week. If the new passes are paper-only, customers likely won't buy enough of them to make the new passes worthwhile.

Add a 3rd tier for the shortest trips

While a choose-your-own-value pass is ideal, Metro believes it's too technically complex to implement. But they could improve upon their proposal by adding a third tier for shorter trips.

The two existing passes are good for trips up to $3.25 and up to maximum fare. This offers a good deal for customers that regularly take medium and long-distance trips, but is not a very good deal for customers that live closer in and rarely take a trip that long.

The new pass should be good for trips costing up to $2.10. Any additional fare would automatically come out of the stored value in the customer's Smartrip account. Metro should encourage customers to buy higher-tier passes by adjusting their prices. The higher-tier passes should be slightly cheaper in comparison.

Price 28-day passes differently than weekly passes

Under the current proposal, the "monthly pass" would actually be a 4-week pass, and it would cost exactly 4-times the amount of the weekly pass.

Mathematically that may make sense, but it doesn't make sense from a customer service perspective. Considering the added risk of losing or damaging a farecard, or of not using it on vacation or sick days, customers would have little incentive to purchase a monthly pass instead of 4 weekly passes.

The monthly version would be a greater risk, and would offer no corresponding greater deal to compensate. So why buy it?

If WMATA wants customers to pay more up front, there will have to be some added incentive to do so. One option might be to make the 4-week pass a true monthly pass, which would essentially make the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of each month free to pass holders. Another option might be to reduce the cost of the 4-week pass, to be slightly less than 4-times the cost of a weekly pass.

Based on these ideas, Here's table showing suggested passes and prices:

		Pass cost
	Good for trips up to	Day	7-day	28-day
Very Short	$2.10	N/A	$22	$84
Short	$3.25	N/A	$32.50	$125
Unlimited	Max fare $5.75	$14	$55	$210

WMATA deserves praise for considering more flexible payment options, but needs to more carefully consider its pricing structure. If monthly passes don't offer a stronger incentive, customers will probably not use them. That should not be taken as a sign that monthly passes aren't needed, only that the math isn't working for customers.

29 comments

Metro doesn't need just any "monthly pass" (Jan 23, 2012)
Metro to offer rail passes on SmarTrip in the spring (Oct 7, 2011)
"Peak of the peak" makes flexible passes more crucial (Jun 16, 2010)
WMATA would cut last commuter discount, has no pass plan (Jan 25, 2012)
Metro's lost passes (Sep 8, 2010)

Metro suffers complete blackout

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:33:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins and David Alpert

Metro suffered a complete system failure last night around 11:30 pm. The failures were so extensive that all communications, including track circuits, were out of service.

Photo by Make Lemons on Flickr.

Customers on Twitter were reporting that rail operators had to leave and walk to the next station to get permission to move. WMATA's website was down, no communication came over any of the alert systems.

Former DCRA tweeter Mike Rupert wrote in the Local Gov blog that he thinks the complete lack of communication killed months of goodwill.

This wasn't Metro's only problem yesterday. In the morning, a cracked rail forced single-tracking between Van Ness and Friendship Heights, and then one train single-tracking stopped for 15 minutes due to door problems, forcing long delays for all riders trying to traverse the area.

With Metro's 30-plus year old system and a long backlog of deferred maintenance needs, some problems are going to crop up, but many riders and the Riders' Advisory Council have repeatedly faulted inadequate communication during crises.

Meanwhile, while Metro has launched a detailed campaign to explain its need for maintenance work, it has been tight-lipped about more specifics, such as timelines and costs for various aspects. Riders frustrated by multiple overlapping outages of lines, escalators and more may well tire of just hearing entreaties to be patient for a period of years, with little more to reassure them that the delays are leading to actual change.

Were you stuck in either of yesterday's problems? Looking constructively, what level and type of communication do you think Metro needs to achieve?

41 comments

Lessen weekend service impacts with Metro timetables (Jan 19, 2011)
Weekend station closures will become common on Metro (Jul 14, 2011)
More weekend closures, less single-tracking for Metrorail (Jun 10, 2011)
Metro trackwork announcements take tentative step forward (Feb 4, 2011)
Metro needs to communicate service disruptions in stations (Aug 5, 2010)

WMATA would cut last commuter discount, has no pass plan

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:23:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Tomorrow, the WMATA Board will approve a docket for public hearings with potential fare increases, which does not include a monthly pass proposal as the finance committee requested.

Only fare increases have to go to the public for comment, and a monthly pass could be considered a fare reduction. That means it's still possible for the board to work out the details of a pass option during meetings between now and June, when they must approve the budget.

The docket also eliminates the last discount available for riders that only take 10 trips per week, a normal commute for some people. Metro proposes raising the price of the rail fast pass to exactly 10 times the maximum rail fare.

Previously, Metro offered a few discounts for frequent riders: a 10% bonus fare for people who bought farecards of $20 or more, a weekly bus pass that cost about 8.5 trips, and the rail fast pass.

The 10% bonus fare was eliminated in 2003. The weekly bus pass discount was eliminated in 2010. Metro now charges 10 times the Smartrip fare for a pass.

For a regular commuter taking 10 trips per week which are long enough to hit the maximum fare, the rail fast pass currently offers about a 10% discount compared to 10 individual trips, as well as free trips after that. This proposal will eliminate the 10% discount and almost certainly drive customers away from using the rail fast pass.

More to follow after the Thursday board meeting.

13 comments

Metro doesn't need just any "monthly pass" (Jan 23, 2012)
Metro's lost passes (Sep 8, 2010)
Bring back bus-rail transfers for pass users (Sep 10, 2010)
WMATA proposes fare hike, eliminating "peak of the peak" (Jan 10, 2012)
"Peak of the peak" makes flexible passes more crucial (Jun 16, 2010)

Metro doesn't need just any "monthly pass"

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:27:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

At a finance committee meeting on Thursday, WMATA board members approved putting "a monthly pass" on the docket, without providing much detail. Metro now has an opportunity to provide a needed and valuable monthly pass, or they can hinder the process by creating a pass nobody wants.

Photo by aaron13251 on Flickr.

During the meeting, discussion about various passes showed differences of opinion about what a monthly pass would be good for. Metro has proposed getting rid of the all-day rail pass, stating that the pass is not popular. Similarly, Metro cited lack of interest when they proposed discontinuing the short rail pass.

Metro Chief Financial Officer Carol Kissal pointed to the SmarTrip card as one reason that riders wouldn't need a pass. She stated that since SmarTrip holders don't typically know the balance on the card, and don't always know what trips will cost them, customers wouldn't benefit from a monthly pass where additional trips are free.

Kissal also compared Metro to London's Tube, which has passes available in daily, weekly, monthly, and annual time periods. According to Kissal, the Tube gets a lot of tourists, while Metro has a larger proportion of commuters. She stated that there might be a place for passes but it might not be for the majority of riders.

As we have advocated before on Greater Greater Washington, the best "audience" for passes in the Metro fare system is front and center: daily peak commuters.

In our view, customers who pay for their regular, daily commute should get the rest of their trips included on a monthly pass. This is similar to many transit agencies around the country, including Portland's TriMet, Philadelphia's SEPTA, Chicago's CTA, and San Francisco's MUNI. Metro's time and distance based fares complicate the issue, but an innovation in Puget Sound makes monthly passes possible even with a variable fare system.

For most transit agencies, a monthly pass is typically a multiple of the single ride price. This multiple is usually around 38—40, which is the number of trips people typically take in a month to commute to a regular office job. Since most transit systems have only one adult fare, there is often only one monthly pass.

Metro's system has many possible fares. If Metro sold only one monthly pass that was valid for any trip, the price of the pass must be high enough to prevent a lot of revenue lost when people switch to passes from per-ride payment.

With Metro's proposed maximum fare of $5.75, this would make a monthly unlimited pass about $230 per month. However, most people spend far less than this per month and take much shorter trips, so a $230 pass would not be a sensible option for them. If Metro sold a monthly unlimited pass for only $150, a lot of revenue would be lost from commuters who are normally paying more than that today.

Puget Sound's innovative solution was to sell passes at varying prices via the PugetPass (Minneapolis/St. Paul's Metro Transit also has a flexible pass option). Logically, more expensive passes would be valid for more expensive trips, and less expensive passes would be valid for less expensive trips. Customers could choose a pass based on their typical trip and pay a reasonable amount for a month's worth of transit.

WMATA's finance committee has requested that the proposed public docket for board approval include a monthly pass. What kind of pass Metro offers will have a huge impact on how popular the pass is. If Metro only offers a $230 unlimited pass, few people outside of long-distance commuters will be interested. The unpopular pass will be discontinued, and the idea of monthly passes will be branded a failure.

Instead, Metro should offer a monthly pass good for unlimited short trips. For $120 a month, Metro could offer unlimited trips of $3 or less. Trips that cost more than $3 would be discounted so that you only pay the difference automatically from your SmarTrip balance.

When they requested a monthly pass option, board members cited various reasons for the request. Many pointed out that off-peak rail service has become full of delays and disruptions, and asking customers to pay more for poorer service didn't appeal to them.

Some pointed out that customers would like to chain their trips, performing errands such as shopping or picking up dry cleaning along the way. Others stated that customers might go out to eat at night or on weekends, and having a pass might entice them to take transit instead of drive. All of these uses would be met with a pass where the additional free trips are significantly cheaper than the maximum distance peak fare.

This pass would be an excellent start to a monthly pass system which offers a pass at every fare level. After a medium-value pass proves its worth to customers, Metro could start offering short trip passes for customers that live near the center of the city, and longer passes for customers that live further away and therefore take longer trips on average.

Eventually, a range of passes would be available, and all regular Metro riders could choose the pass that best suits them without being a big revenue loss for Metro.

Metro should take this opportunity to introduce a monthly pass that makes sense and prove that it's a good idea for our region.

49 comments

Seattle's ORCA passes show what Metro passes could be (Sep 3, 2010)
"Peak of the peak" makes flexible passes more crucial (Jun 16, 2010)
Rethinking Metro's passes, part 3: A new pass proposal (Dec 16, 2009)
Metro's lost passes (Sep 8, 2010)
Metro to offer rail passes on SmarTrip in the spring (Oct 7, 2011)

Melissa Bondi for Arlington County Board

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:38:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Arlington County Democrats will select a nominee this week for an open seat on the county board. 5 Democrats are vying for the slot, vacated by Barbara Favola. Because of her experience, openness to citizen input and dedication to smart urban development, Greater Greater Washington endorses Melissa Bondi in the Democratic primary for county board.

Bondi endorsed by school board member James Lander. Photo from Bondi's campaign website.

Democrats can vote in the "Firehouse Primary" on Thursday, January 19 from 7-9 pm at Washington-Lee High School, or on Saturday, January 21 from 11 am to 7 pm at Kenmore Middle School.

Bondi has extensive credentials in smart growth, environmental policy and affordable housing. She has served on numerous citizens' commissions, which effectively function as the committee system for the Arlington County Board.

She chaired the the Housing Commission, where she helped co-author Arlington's inclusionary zoning law, one of the first in the region. When on the Clarendon Sector Task Force, she worked to bring smart growth and sustainability to the area.

She worked as housing director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth for 3 years, where she pushed to integrate affordable housing into mixed-use development. She has also coordinated federal housing policy for Smart Growth America and led the regional Think Twice Before You Slice campaign for the Nonprofit Roundtable for Greater Washington, where she educated people on the impacts of budget proposals on low-income and vulnerable populations.

Her experience in Arlington includes dozens of site plan projects, zoning issues, and long range plans. Bondi is qualified for the County Board because she has already been working on the County Board's business for years.

Discussing the "Arlington Way," Bondi pointed out a generational shift in how citizen interact with their leaders. Traditionally, people in Arlington have engaged leaders, county staff and fellow citizens at frequent, in-person meetings. But as Bondi noted, people now want to engage with civic affairs though blogs like Greater Greater Washington, social media, and other methods.

Bondi wants the county to put extra effort into involving the public in policy decisions early, and recognizing when citizens want to communicate in ways besides meetings. She'd like the county to participate more in blog discussions, providing important information about issues citizens are discussing.

Community leaders hail her ability to coordinate among varied interests and ability to listen to ideas from stakeholders. Bondi has won the endorsement of former board member and current Clerk of Court Paul Ferguson, current board members Walter Tejada and Chris Zimmerman, school board member James Lander, and Delegate Alfonso Lopez. Bondi has the instincts of a great board member who can listen to input from citizens and other stakeholders and reach compromises that benefit everyone.

Melissa Bondi is the strongest supporter of the Columbia Pike streetcar among the candidates. She understands its role in broadening Arlington's high-quality transit network and the challenges that it can present to existing residents in the area. She understands the streetcar's financial situation, and believes the county must better communicate the reasons for increased cost as well as the benefits to the corridor and the county as a whole.

Other candidates have taken more negative positions on the streetcar, and on urban redesign like in Crystal City. A flyer put out by opponent Libby Garvey stated, "I won't let runaway development take away what we love most about Arlington."

In our opinion, the areas in Arlington that have seen development (Clarendon, Court House, Ballston, Shirlington, Columbia Pike) are prime examples of good transportation-oriented development and urban design. Development has more often than not brought what we love most about Arlington rather than taken it away.

Several tax controversies have emerged around Bondi. One involved an IRS tax lien that was unknown to her until it was published on a local Arlington watchdog blog, and another concerns late payments for personal property (car) tax.

Bondi is acting responsibly by working with the IRS to resolve the tax lien, and has properly paid property tax on the car she owned, including penalties for her tardiness. Since these personal finance issues did not involve any public funds or positions of public trust, we feel that Bondi should receive the nomination based on her qualifications and experience.

We encourage Arlington County Democrats to vote for Melissa Bondi in the primary on Thursday evening or Saturday.

113 comments

Arlington candidates discuss streetcars and Crystal City (Jan 10, 2012)
Do Arlington candidates only like smart growth in theory? (Jan 9, 2012)
Chris Zimmerman for Arlington County Board (Oct 21, 2010)
Arlington Democrats to select delegate on June 9th (May 28, 2009)
Drink, testify, and meet Chris Zimmerman (Mar 24, 2010)

WMATA proposes fare hike, eliminating "peak of the peak"

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:49:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Metro is expected to announce a proposed fare increase today. The proposal from CEO Richard Sarles calls for eliminating the peak-of-the-peak fare and instituting a flat fare for paper farecards as part of his annual budget for FY 2013, which starts in July.

Photo by RambergMediaImages on Flickr.

Compared to previous fare increases which were targeted at less sensitive peak fare customers, this increase is directed at occasional riders and visitors. The maximum off-peak rail fare is currently $2.75. It will rise to $3.50 under this proposal—an increase of 27%.

The fare increase will provide an even bigger incentive for people to obtain a Smartrip card, since all paper farecard trips will cost $6 each way during peak periods and $4 each way during off-peak periods.

With a SmarTrip card, rail fares will range from $1.70 to $3.50 off-peak and from $2.10 to $5.75 during rush hours. Regular local bus fares will rise from $1.60 to $1.70 for SmarTrip customers, while customers paying in cash will have their fares rounded to the nearest dollar.

Since use of SmarTrip by visitors and non-regular riders is expected to increase, SmarTrip vending machines will be installed at ~~more~~ all stations.

With the elimination of the peak-of-the-peak fare, station fare tables will go back to having just two columns. But riders shouldn't expect to save a whole lot, since the "regular" fare has been increased enough to cover the difference. With the peak-of-the-peak surcharge, the current maximum fare is $5.20. It will rise to $5.75 under the proposal.

Parking at Metro lots and garages will increase by 25¢ per day, about a 5% increase. Bike locker fees will be cut from $200 per year to $120 per year, something we argued for based on low demand for lockers.

Most disappointing to me is that discussion of implementing some sort of flexible monthly pass has stopped for this budget cycle, meaning that Metro customers will likely have to wait at least two more years to have the flexibility of paying for their commute and getting their off-peak trips for free. The topic of monthly passes was briefly discussed during an October meeting of the finance committee, but by November had disappeared from the discussion.

The fare increases are expected to raise about half of Metro's $120 million shortfall for the coming fiscal year, with local jurisdictions expected to chip in the other half of the shortfall in order to balance the budget. Metro's finance committee will discuss the fare increase along with the rest of the budget on Thursday morning.

91 comments

Fare hikes probable to cover part of Metro's $120 million gap (Dec 2, 2011)
Replace paper card fares with a single fare table? (May 31, 2011)
WMATA budget deep dive, part 4: A better fare increase? (Feb 25, 2010)
WMATA Board approves fare hikes, no service cuts (May 27, 2010)
Can Metrorail fares be simpler? (Nov 17, 2010)

Prices affect parking less than San Francisco expected

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:09:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Perfomance parking has not has as big an impact as was expected in San Francisco. Even with high rates, popular blocks still fill up, and other blocks remain under-filled even at low prices.

Photo by niallkennedy on Flickr.

SFPark is an innovative, federally-supported performance parking pilot program. But it will adjust meter rates in its seven pilot areas this month—the third adjustment since the program's launch in 2010.

Each time San Francisco has adjusted the rates, the spread between the least expensive and the most expensive blocks has increased. After this latest adjustment, parking rates will vary from a low of $0.75 up to $4.25/hr. To date, the most crowded blocks have typically continued to be crowded even after adjusting the prices upward, while under-occupied blocks have not filled up even after dropping the price.

If the pricing spread continues to widen, parking on some blocks in San Francisco will be a considerable bargain compared to spaces even one block away. One particular block in the Civic Center area is $0.75/hr while the next block is $3.25/hr until noon, and then $3.75/hr from noon until 3pm.

At Fisherman's Wharf, parking can range from $1.50/hr to $2.75/hr within a few blocks as proximity to the tourist attractions in the North increases. In the Marina area, a one-block difference could mean paying $1.50 more for an hour of parking.

Even these steep price differences don't seem to be causing the cheaper blocks to fill up. Blocks in the program that end up below their target occupancy will again have their prices reduced during the next round of adjustments.

San Francisco is collecting data about congestion relief in the areas targeted in the SFPark program. It appears we've learned several lessons already.

This performance parking experiment is demonstrating that on high-demand blocks, drivers are very insensitive to price increases. The experiment is also showing that parking demand is highly localized, with price differences of as much as 100% continuing even through two adjustment cycles.

On the other hand, there's still more to learn.

Even if blocks are missing their target occupancy, performance parking could still be having a positive effect. Are the prices leading to a higher turnover in available spaces? And if so, are the available spaces leading to a reduction in drivers hunting for parking, as the theory suggests?

Are there other factors that could be influencing the success of the program at changing parking demand, such as the size of the pilot zones or their proximity to non-pilot zone areas? Or do city administrators and performance parking advocates need to fundamentally reexamine assumptions about performance parking systems?

According to project advisor Donald Shoup, the project report will answer these questions later next year. The things planners learn in San Francisco could have a big impact on the way we think about and design parking and parking policy.

67 comments

Market-rate parking comes to SF. What can DC learn? (Apr 11, 2011)
Performance parking but no spaces at Barracks Row (Nov 24, 2009)
DDOT releases ballpark parking report (Jan 25, 2010)
Columbia Heights parking report needs more detail (Dec 7, 2009)
M Street "performance" parking doesn't match principles, doesn't perform (Mar 26, 2009)