I like option 4 it should never have been taken away from the get go; it was probably taken away because of budget problems or greed.

WMATA should have Weekly, Monthly, and the option of choosing the time you want to have the pass for. I probably isn't that hard to do since they do have to do programming for time changes, and one days pass that could be extended with little work.

What about passes based on area (pass can be used in DC/VA, DC/MD or all three.)

Why not have a One Day pass that is usable on both bus and rail. Why should rail riders get a day pass while bus riders do not.

I had a feeling that they were not going to keep many of the changes that they made over the past 2-3 years especially the 3 hour transfer which now looks like a bate a switch (get everybody hooked on smartrip transfers for 3 hours then take it away which was one of the main benefits for customers)

by kk on Jun 16, 2010 3:36 pm  

A known secret about Metrobus transfers that has existed since they began on Smartrip (pre and post 2009): The transfer period resets to 3 hours whenever a Smartrip is hit on the target. Who knows how much money WMATA lost with people who'd ride a bus, then board another 2 hours later, and so on and so forth.

by Jason on Jun 16, 2010 3:44 pm  

I'd ask the ugly question of why pass holders are getting the shaft. That little $2 bump down the road almost seems predatory, as the number of pass holders is so small (as I recall reading) that it seems it does little in terms of generating revenue.

My feelings on purchasing a pass might be ignorant, but I've always been of the mind that buying a pass is getting a discount. It serves the purchaser by offering up a discount over multiple purchases. It serves the seller by providing the purchase up front in advance - with Metro a week, though it certainly could be longer.

Now it sounds as if it it's largely being seen as a convenience to the purchaser only, as in they don't have to hit the fare machine as often - OR - use a SmartTrip card.

As many fast passers know, parking and the fast pass do not get along. So for oh these many years, we've been punished for buying the fast pass by not getting discounted parking, forcing all sorts of queer arrangements.

But now, suddenly the fast pass (and others) are this deal that needs an additional $2 surcharge. I just don't get it. When fares jumped up 18% instead of 15% it was BS. But at least the pass kept that 15%. But it just keeps on going.

With the obvious reality that local governments that really do see a benefit out of public transit are passing the buck to the riders. But what do we get? BS that's what we get - bad service, broken equipment and guess what, an increase in the number of sad-sack WMATA employees that are doing nothing for us.

And we still don't have resolution on the crash that's keeping our trains on manual and our necks sore.

I'm a huge WMATA booster, but I'm being nickel and dimed and it's never been clearer than in that final $2 nail in the coffin. The slippery slope has started its slide and I'm about to start driving.

by Pass Holder on Jun 16, 2010 3:47 pm  

@ Pass holder

Thats sort of why I stopped buying passes.

I use to buy a rail pass and when im on the train get a paper transfer and pay the 25 or 35 cents which ever it used to be. If i still brought the pass I would be paying for the pass and then be paying a regular bus fare.

WMATA needs to get there crap together each part of the agency acts like a separate company. All bus/rail fares and parking fees should be under one unified system and can be paid with any thing that is accepted on the others except for passes.

I dont remember WMATA having any good service in the past 15 years. I can think of many small things they did that are not done now in any way.

Don't forget when the parking lots switched over to smartrip because of stolen profits; the customers had nothing to do with it and it was there employees but the customers got the blame by making smartrips the only way to pay which goes into basically telling pass users f**k you it was our fault but because we can the blame is being put on you.

WMATA has a problem of doing one thing and then 3, 5 or 10 years later doing the exact opposite; which was on the drawing board from the get go and could have just been done then.

WMATA has history of doing shady crap over the past 30 years. Ever wonder why bus fares in some areas were 50 and 60 cents; it was not because of the areas being poor or anything.It was because they cut everylast bus route in some areas to end at one station when service was extended forcing all who wanted to go further to take the train and then another bus which jacked up fares 2 to 4 times what they were before and people b***hed about it.

by kk on Jun 16, 2010 4:22 pm  

Can't say I am surprised. WMATA isn't interested in giving you, the rider a good deal. They are interested in extracting as much cash out of you.

In terms of the potential electronic options:

I'm all for simplification, for I'm not sure the incentive is there. Getting it to work with regional partners is also a bridge too far, no? And not including parking is a problem, although perhaps you could carry 2 smartrips. But for a real suburbanite, your commuting expenses are looking at 248 (pass) + parking (8*20, 160). That is really approaching the monthly leasing cost of a nice parking space downtown.

For me, I'd have to buy a $30 pass a week ($3 a day x 10). That would give me unlimited bus trips -- but not rail? A bit confusing.

And honestly, not worth it. That is $120 a month in transit out of my pocket. Right now my Metro expenses are running about $12 a week -- with judicious use of blue bus and some walking. Metro off peak service is so crappy that it isn't worth the extra $72 a month.

That why I advocate for lower fares. Getting me from spending $48 on WMATA to say $60 a month would be good. Jumping from $48 to $120 is too much with their crappy off peak, weekend service and buses w/o working AC. I'd be willing to pay 50 cents on the weekend for a train ride that I have to wait 20 minutes for, but buying a pass then getting that crappy service isn't a help.

by charlie on Jun 17, 2010 8:55 am  

@Charlie: Getting it to work for regional providers is essential to keeping those providers in the system. Arlington has set a deadline of October or they'll make their own pass that only works on ART, and they will no longer honor the WMATA pass.

Your math is all weird. It's ten times the one-way ride. So $15.00 per week would get you unlimited rides that are less than $1.50 each. If it's more than $1.50 each way, you'd have to pay the extra. So you wouldn't get any rail trips "free" but you'd get $1.50 off any rail trips you do take. If you paid $30.00 per week you'd pretty much have your run of the system during off-peak, and some fairly long rides during peak service. I think you meant $15.00 per week.

So you're saying metro off-peak service is crappy, but you're willing to ride if they make it worse, as long as it's cheap?

by Michael Perkins on Jun 17, 2010 10:21 am  

So, I'm a regular reader of this blog. I ride metro on a daily basis. I've read this article twice now, and still don't get it. This is a sign that the pricing of WMATA is just too complex. Can we just get something that you don't need a PhD in Urban Design for to understand?

by Jasper on Jun 17, 2010 10:31 am  

@jasper:

Here's how the script might go:

Do you usually ride metrorail or metrobus at least 10 times per week? If so, a weekly pass may save you money. If not, we encourage you to tie your credit account to Smartrip so you always have some money available for fares. (Customer answer: yes)

What's the trip you take most often (usually this is to and from your work place)? (customer chooses an origin and destination and time of day, which in our example costs $3.00 one way, including a peak surcharge).

I see that your usual trip costs $3.00 one way. Would you like to buy a weekly pass for $30.00? This pass is valid for all trips up to $3.00 one way including transfers and surcharges. If your trip costs more than that, we'll automatically deduct any extra from your stored value. It's like getting a $3.00 discount on any ride you take. (customer answers "yes")

Would you like to sign up to have this pass automatically renew when it expires? This will charge your credit card or your stored value account $30.00 per week, and your pass will remain valid until you tell us to cancel. You'll continue to enjoy unlimited Metro rides of $3.00 or less, and a $3.00 discount on any other rides. (Customer answer: yes).

Done.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 17, 2010 11:39 am  

@Jasper: if you want it simple, there can be only one pass. It's good on everything, but it's $62.00 per week.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 17, 2010 11:42 am  

This pass is modeled off the Puget Pass, which is described here:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x1854.xml

Use your ORCA card like a Regional Pass (PugetPass)
A regional pass lets you travel on all bus and train services in the region for a specific period of time. An ORCA regional pass is valid on Community Transit, Everett Transit, King County Metro Transit, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit and Sound Transit. The pass is valid for payment of trip fares up to the value of your pass.

Passes may be purchased from the 15th of the previous month to the 14th of the valid month. Example: A July pass may be purchased from June 15 to July 14 and is valid July 1-31. You can not purchase the current month's pass after the 14th.

Purchase a pass for the amount that has the “per-trip value” of the trip you are likely to take. Buy a pass online or via phone, mail or at a retail outlet.

Pass denominations available on ORCA

(table)

by Michael Perkins on Jun 17, 2010 11:48 am  

@Mperkins; I think it shows that the system is confusing.

Rosslyn to Foggy Bottom. That is $1.75 now, going to $2.25 with PoP? So I'd need to get a pass for 22.50 a week? or 1.75? I think I was using a round trip of 3.0, which does change it dramatically. $90 a month. Closer to still too far for occasional users.

And yes, my point is you can balance off peak crappy service with lower fares off peak. And bus. Capture the lunch crowd, or people coming back from dinner at 8.

I'm not 100% opposed to the increasing passes idea, and maybe it is not targeted at me (occasional rail user). But it is confusing....50 cent fares at noon is easier to understand.

I'm starting to think the holy grail for WMATA is keeping poor people off rail.

by charlie on Jun 17, 2010 11:49 am  

@charlie: You don't need to get a pass at all. If you want a $1.75 discount on all trips, get a $17.50 pass, if you want a $2.25 discount, get a $22.50 pass. The choice is up to you.

For people that ride transit all the time, $90 a month for unlimited short transit rides is a pretty good deal. For occasional riders, not so much. But you're missing who's the target market for passes, it's not the occasional riders, who should be attracted by things like having off-peak rides cheaper than peak rides. It's the regular, frequent riders.

Passes are not really appropriate for "occasional" users regardless of the fare structure or transit agency. If you don't ride enough to take at least 10 trips regularly, it doesn't make sense for the agency to give you a discount on it. (If they gave you the opportunity to get a pass for the price of only 8 rides, a lot of people would just ride their 10-ride commute. The agency would lose a ton of revenue from those riders).

by Michael Perkins on Jun 17, 2010 12:21 pm  

Is it easier to understand if you think of it as Metro is selling you an unlimited "$1.50 off Metro" coupon, that you can use again and again for the whole week? That coupon costs $15.00.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 17, 2010 12:24 pm  

@ Michael P: Here's how the script might go:

Do you honestly belief an average person can get through this with average WMATA customer service?

There are four false assumptions here:
1) Everybody is intelligent and can do quick math in their heads.
2) People know what their trips costs.
3) Trips cost the same, everyday.
4) WMATA customer service can handle such a script.

by Jasper on Jun 17, 2010 1:11 pm  

@Jasper; well, the average income of rail riders is over 100K right -- they should be smart enough to figure it out.

@Mperkins; maybe it is hangover I am nursing today but the idea of a "coupon" book is making me dizzy.

Where is the low hanging fruit here? It seems as if the intractable problem is we have a suburban rail system masquerading as an urban subway. The most expensive users - and the ones buying these passes, will live far out on in the suburbs where their opportunity to use the rail lines are very limtied. Wouldn't it be better to get urban/semi-urban residents who already use the metro to use it more?

I think the basic point is we have very poor ideas on how uses WMATA and associated transit agencies...

by charlie on Jun 17, 2010 1:39 pm  

Reposting something I wrote for another message board here:

For reasons that I don't want to get in to right here and now, WMATA is going to continue charging distance based fares for Metrorail for the forseeable future. That said, I I consider passes to be impractical under a distance based pricing system. Admittedly, other distance based systems to have passes, such as in London. But unlike in London, WMATA's fares are determined by how far you travel, and not by how many zones you cross. I actually prefer this, because it means that riders pay for the distance they actually travel, and the fares don't go up based on some arbitrary line that was drawn 50 years ago. The "downside" to this, however, is that it gets very difficult to reward frequent travelers by offering them a pass, because you can't really come up with a fair price for the pass, whereas in a zone system you could do so easily.

Personally, I think BART does passes the "right" way for a distance based system. The BART website states that "BART fares are set with a mileage-based formula, therefore time-based passes (e.g., weekly or monthly) are not available." In my opinion, WMATA should do the same and be done with this nonsense, and I could end this post right here and now. I don't think many riders use the rail passes anyway, and they are priced in a way that short distance riders have a tough time making them cost effective. Instead of offering passes, I'd bring back the bonuses for high value purchases, figuring that tourists aren't going to be loading 20 or 50 dollars onto Smartrip cards. I also realize this creates equality issues, but in light of the mileage based system, I still think this is the fairest system. BART does offer such a discounted ticket, but it isn't available at farecard machines.

But, if passes must exist, or if passes are better for the bottom line at the end of the day than the bonuses I've (re)proposed, I think that WMATA can and should turn to London to implement it. This will not be a perfect system by any means, because it will largely favor riders who travel longer distances, but I do think it works best for the most people.

London's equivelent of Smartrip is the Oyster card. Meanwhile, riders can also purchase travelcards (essentially unlimited use passes for whatever their period of validity is) or pay with cash for single fares. (Oyster cards are also sold in every Tube Station, WMATA take note...) TfL has provided a number of incentives for riders to use Oyster cards instead of the other fare payment options. Oyster is always the cheapest fare. Cheaper than using cash, every time. Cheaper to load a travelcard onto an Oyster than to get a paper travelcard. And, perhaps most importantly, the Pay as You Go (PAYG) Oyster is always calculating what the cheapest option for all your fares as you travel, and always makes sure that you pay less than the cost of a paper travelcard. For example, you take enough rides in a day such that you should have bought a daypass? It stops charging you. You then take enough rides for a weekly travelcard? It stops charging you. It accounts for the zones, obviously, as it calculates as well.

I don't know exactly how WMATA is determining what to charge for the passes, but here is what I would do. First off, abolish all paper passes. You want a pass? Get Smartrip. Besides, with the cash/Smartrip differentials, the Smartrip is going to pay for itself very quickly. (For the tourists, they could even make the 5 dollars a deposit that can be returned, like in London, or make a "temporary" Smartrip card like they have in the Netherlands.) Next, institute the system that PAYG Oysters have where Smartrip is always the cheapest fare. If you take a day pass's worth of rides in a day, it stops charging you. Same for the week and for the month. Close in riders may never hit those caps, but the longer distance riders might. This could then be extended to create passes that work on both Metrorail and Metrobus. Again, once the cap is reached, no more being charged.

Also, London has an option to automatically have your Oyster refilled when its value goes below 5 GBP by charging your credit card. WMATA ought to institute the same for Smartrip.

by OTP on Jun 20, 2010 10:27 am  

@OTP: It's practical to have a pass system compatible with distance-based fares. Metro already has one, with two fare levels. One level is for unlimited distance, and the other level is for trips up to $2.65 in price. The proposal I have would merely extend the short rail pass to other fare levels, which would be possible now that passes are being integrated with the Smartrip card.

I'm not sure why you believe that it's harder to come up with an appropriate price for a pass under a distance system than under a Zone system. You come up with a basis and a multiplier. For the Zone system the basis is the price of the most expensive trip the pass is valid for, and the multiplier is some number close to 10 for a weekly pass and 40 for a monthly pass. More generous agencies go below those numbers, effectively giving a discount even to people who commute and nothing else. Less generous agencies give passes only at multipliers that limit their usefulness to people who ride a whole lot more. I would say that exactly 10 and 40 are good multipliers, providing a discount on rides beyond the typical commute, but not requiring an exceptional amount of additional rides to enjoy a discount.

So for a distance based pass, you can pick a fare level it's valid for, and Metro can sell you a pass for ten or forty times that amount, and it's good for a week or a month for trips up to that value.

The current rail passes are not used because they're a serious pain in the ass to use.

The rail fast pass has to be purchased as a physical paper card weekly. The fast pass is expensive, and only makes sense if you are one of the longest commuters. It is not compatible with using a Smartrip card to pay for parking, so at many lots you will get charged the higher non-rider price for parking. Now that Metro has removed the transfer printing machines, the passes are incompatible with transferring to buses. Because of the development patterns around the furthest out stations, most riders access those stations by bus or park and ride, making pass usage less financially beneficial.

The short rail pass is even worse. While it offers financial benefits for anyone whose regular commute is longer than $2.65 in price each way, you have to purchase a physical card every week, and just like the other pass it's not compatible with bus transfers or parking. Also, if your ride is not exactly $2.65 each way, you have to carry *exact change* for that particular ride, and add the value to the pass just before you exit. I asked whether it would be possible to purchase the pass and then add a week's worth of overage to the card, but unfortunately that's not possible.

So Metro's current rail passes exist and are a good deal for a fairly large segment of regular riders, but I would argue that the reason they're not well used is that they have issues of convenience and with compatibility with the rest of the system. If these same exact passes existed on Smartrip today, I would say that they'd be much more popular (for instance, I would get one and there are many people like me).

Compared to BART: BART offers a bonus value if you purchase a lot of credit at the same time, just like Metro used to when you bought $20 or more. Compared to passes, the problem with this policy is that it gives riders a discount even if they ride only during their normal commute and nothing else. For a transit system struggling to convince people to ride mostly empty vehicles, discounts on peak service make sense, as it's good policy to encourage people to try transit instead of driving. But Metro has a problem that it's nearing its ultimate capacity during rush hour, so giving discounts on riding during rush hour don't make a lot of sense. What Metro should be doing is encouraging people to ride during off-peak, where there's surplus capacity. One way is to provide lower fares during off-peak, another way is to give people free off-peak transit once they've paid for all the on-peak transit they're going to use. That's what passes do compared to volume discounts like BART's. They encourage people to hand over all of their normal commute fares in advance, in exchange for their normal commute plus any additional rides they might take.

We're moving to a system where all the passes will be Smartrip only. There might be a policy reason to retain the paper bus passes, and I don't know where that one is going to turn out, but I don't think the paper rail passes will survive much longer once Smartrip passes are available.

The daily price capping London provides might make it here on Metro. I think the day pass is an exceptionally bad deal, so Metro doesn't stand to lose much revenue that way (It's almost $10 and doesn't let you ride during the morning until 9:30 AM).

Weekly and Monthly price capping if they're done at the same prices as regular pre-purchased transit passes are an exceptionally bad deal for the transit agency. It's setting up the kind of "heads, I win, tails, you lose" deal that would make Metro worse off. Here's why:

If you sign up for a subscription to a weekly or even better a monthly transit pass, you're agreeing to give Metro the money in advance, without knowing for certain what your commuting week is going to look like. Most of the time, this is going to be a good deal for you, because you know that most of the time, you're going to go to work every day, taking a round trip for every weekday. The idea of getting additional trips free entices you to give Metro the money in advance. That's great, because the extra trips you're taking cost Metro very little to provide. They already have the trains or buses purchased, maintained and running, and the extra trips you take are unlikely to cause any crowding or the need to run additional trains.

Some of the time with a pass, you're going to "win" and Metro is going to get less money than they would have if you didn't have the pass and rode the same. Some of those extra trips are going to be ones you wouldn't have taken if you had to pay for each trip, and some of those are ones you would have taken anyway.

This is going to be balanced out by the times where Metro "wins" and due to illness, leave, or "stuff happening", you don't end up even commuting your full five days. This is more likely if the passes are on automatic subscription, because you're less likely to bother trying to game the system by figuring out exactly what you're doing each week or month. It's also more likely if the passes are for longer periods of time, because you're not able to predict leave or sick days for a whole month like you could with a weekly pass.

From my discussion with Board members, staff members for the Board and Metro staff members, most of them seem wary of passes. They're worried that passes are going to be a revenue loss, and I think a lot of it is that they're hard to analyze. It's hard to tell what's going to happen when these become a lot more convenient, and it's going to be hard to tell what happens if we start up a system like what I'm proposing.

So I think the last thing we need to do is to set up a system where the system automatically buys the rider a pass based on what's the best deal, because that system automatically chooses whatever's the worst deal for Metro. Either the rider rides a lot and Metro gets less revenue because the fare is capped, or the rider rides a little and pays less than the pass. If that's the way passes are going to work, good luck getting Metro to propose it and the Board to approve it. There has to be a little bit of give and take.

The other idea of giving people a discount on buying fare value in bulk has the same downside for Metro, so I'm convinced you won't be able to get that through the Board, either. Remember that 40% of peak riders are made up of people that just write numbers on their federal subsidy forms and get practically any amount of transit money they need. Why would Metro suddenly decide that they're going to give away 10% of that value? At least with passes at a multiplier of 10x, the federal subsidy recipients will be collecting the same transit subsidy to give to Metro. In fact, it's a little better with passes because the subsidy recipients will buy passes, providing all of the subsidy to Metro, instead of just the fare value they actually use (subtracting off sick, leave or travel days).

I think overall passes offer some benefit to the riders and to regional congestion. They're only going to happen if Metro is convinced they're not a huge money loss, and they're only going to be used by a significant percentage of riders if they're not a terrible deal. I think pricing them at 10 times their face value is the break point between these two constraints. Any less, and you provide too much a discount to people that are only commuting and nothing else. Any more, and they'll make financial sense only for the most frequent riders anyway.

I don't know if this comment is very well organized. It's certainly one of my longest comments on GGW ever, and longer than many of my full posts. If you would like to discuss further, please email me at michaelp@ggwash.org, or I guess continue in the comments.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 21, 2010 12:12 am