No proposed cuts to rail. Fairfax increased its subsidy so there are no cuts there. Alexandria is widening some headways and eliminating some weekend service. Arlinton is taking over two routes and converting to ART. Washington, DC is making some significant cuts by widening headways but no outright deletions.

On the other hand, Maryland is proposing to cut about $10 million in bus service--much of it regional bus service. The worst cuts are on some of the major regional lines: Regional Eliminations: C-12, C 14, C-7, C-9, W-15. Severe truncation or hours of service on regional lines: A-12,C-4, Q-2, C-8, P17-P19.

The worst part of this proposal is that individual jurisdictions are making decisions on regional bus lines. It's a further deterioration of WMATA as a regional carrier.

Dedicated funding from jurisdictions to WMATA for operations would at least make decisions on expansion and contraction of service more rational.

by Kreeggo on Mar 26, 2009 3:58 pm  

Graham is being played in a WTOP piece saying [paraphrased]: 'When we have debated with the public whether to implement a fare hike or a service cut, I have not received one comment in favor of a fare hike'.

Either one will decrease the amount of subsidy needed since they'll only choose to cut buses that are almost completely subsidized, so either option is a reasonable approach IMO.

by Squalish on Mar 26, 2009 4:17 pm  

A propos: http://tinyurl.com/cj4k9m

by @Campariman on Mar 26, 2009 4:27 pm  

When I mentioned to him that I'd rather see a small fare increase than a service cut, he told me, "You're not poor".

Which is true, I'm not poor, and a nickel or a dime isn't going to hurt me, but it also assumes that poor people would rather lose service than pay more for the bus. I don't know whether that's true or not.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 26, 2009 4:32 pm  

I'm all for equity, but basing our transportation policy solely/primarily on the needs of the poor is wrong. I know the income of bus riders is disproportionately lower than the area as a whole but still, middle class people use transit too.

If impact on the poor is the only thing holding up fare increases (i.e. we don't think it would be unfair/usurious on the whole, we don't think it would have a significant negative impact on ridership), then increase fares and dedicate some of money to subsidies for the poor. When you collect welfare, unemployment, etc., you can also get a Metrochek (or whatever the current equivalent is) with some balance on it. Or expand the reduced fare program for disabled people and senior citizens. It's not a perfect solution, I know, but it doesn't wreck service for the rest of us!

Surely there is already some provision of free/reduced transit benefits for people receiving public services?

by Gavin Baker on Mar 27, 2009 2:05 pm  

I'm personally relucant to advocate a small fare increase now when I think a signficiant increase will be necessary to close next year's WMATA budget. It will be difficult politically for elected officials (or their representatives) to go for back to back fare increases in less than a year (since fare increases aren't on the public hearing docket, they can't be effective July 1, 2009).

If rail fares are increased, another option to hold fares steady for low income riders is to keep bus fares the same or even lowering slightly. The transfer credit from bus to rail or rail to bus with smart trip cards could also be adjusted.

WMATA also has the capability to reduce Metrorail fares originating/ending in stations in low income neighborhoods, although they did not elect to do so when they first opened Anacostia Station. Instead they (at DC's direction) reduced bus fares that fed Anacostia to offset the increased cost of commuting from Anacostia to downtown.

You are correct that WMATA bought and distributed through social service agencies 50,000 smart trip cards when they eliminated paper transfers to offset the $5 cost of the card.

by kreeggo on Mar 27, 2009 6:50 pm