Transit
WMATA considers smart passes, fare zones and more
A fare increase is likely next year. When the WMATA Board considers it, staff will give them many options for ways to make fares simpler, more equitable, or both. These options include some we've been advocating for years, and some we've brought up just to recommend against.
Photo by infosnackhq on Flickr.
Their presentation to the board, scheduled for tomorrow, emphasizes that none of the ideas are yet being actually endorsed. They're just studying many ideas right now. This is a good approach. Those of us who've written about fare policy a lot, like Michael Perkins and Matt Johnson, have our opinions about these, but WMATA has the resources to analyze them much more closely.
Plus, there are ideas we don't support, such as instituting a single flat fare, that some riders frequently suggest. If WMATA investigates the option, we'll have better information to justify a decision not to pursue that (or, perhaps, data will emerge that refutes our beliefs).
Below are brief descriptions of each idea, and our take on them.
Integrated monthly passes: Michael Perkins has long been advocating for this, which he calls Smart Passes. They resemble Sound Transit's ORCA system. Basically, it could be good to get most regular riders habitually buying monthly (or weekly) passes. But how much should a pass cost? There many different fares.
The idea is to let you buy a pass of any size. It will cost 40 times the regular one-way fare of your regular commute. You get to take that trip, or any other trip of equal or lesser cost, for free with the pass. For more expensive trips, you pay the difference.
Benefits of this option include encouraging more off-peak ridership ("free nights and weekends"). Mobile networks are least busy nights and weekends, which is why many now offer these times free. Metro and buses are similarly less crowded, which is why off-peak ridership should be encouraged.
Many riders will save some money, so it might cost Metro, but on the other hand it will stabilize the revenue. If there's a major snowstorm or government shutdown, Metro won't lose as much because people will still have bought their passes.
Image by Matt Johnson.
Zones make it a little easier to calculate your fare, since you just have to count zones. But you would still look up your fare in a table unless you opt to study the map and add. A zone system would still be complex, and some riders whose stations lie right near a zone boundary could end up paying a lot more.
Metro is studying different zone alternatives besides just the one Matt and Michael analyzed. One possibility would be to study a system where if you cross from, say, Zone 3 to the core (Zone 1) and back out to Zone 3 on the other side, you pay for 6 zones instead of 3. But that would still save some a lot of money and cost others greatly.
Flat fares: The simplest option is to just charge one fare. It gets suggested frequently, especially by people familiar with other subways like New York's.
However, that comparison actually isn't right. Metro is a hybrid of commuter rail and urban subway. In New York, Boston, Chicago and many other cities, the subway stays inside city limits, and a separate commuter rail system serves more outlying suburbs. Those commuter railroads all charge based on distance or zones.
Metro, and BART, combine the two. Someone commuting downtown from Shady Grove is more equivalent from coming in from White Plains on Metro-North. If DC's transit were like older cities, Metro would not go outside DC, Arlington, and Alexandria, and most people in Montgomery, Prince George's and Fairfax would take a larger MARC or VRE.
Anyway, a flat fare would mean everyone pays $2.70 per trip, much more than in other cities with urban subways that don't go to the suburbs. Now, a lot of short Metro trips cost only $1.60, much less than, say, New York's $2.25 regular fare.
And there's the question of equity. A flat fare would mean people taking shorter trips would pay more to subsidize people taking longer trips. Is it fair to charge someone traveling from Union Station to Rhode Island Avenue the same as someone traveling from Shady Grove to Metro Center?
Flat fares for paper farecards: One way to simplify things for tourists would be to charge a flat fare for using a paper farecard, either everywhere or just inside a core zone. That fare could be the highest fare you'd pay for any trip in that zone. That costs tourists (and those without SmarTrips) more, but is very simple.
Free bus-rail transfers: During every fare debate, some suggest raising bus fares substantially. They point out that bus fares are much lower than rail fares and the farebox recovery rate on bus is much lower than on rail. Many other cities, including New York, charge the same flat fare for bus as for subway trips.
The typical counterarguments note that bus riders are generally lower income, meaning the difference serves a social equity purpose, and that buses are slower than the trains. There's one more important point to remember: in New York, for instance, while one pays the flat fare for a bus ride, they can then transfer for free to rail, and vice versa.
Metro, instead, charges the full bus fare minus a 50¢ transfer "discount" when riding both modes. Metro could instead make the transfers fully free, letting anyone get on a bus who's just gotten off rail without paying, and deducting a bus trip from the rail fare if someone rides bus and then rail afterward.
Higher fare for faster buses: If part of the reason for lower bus fares is that buses are slower, what about the faster limited-stop buses? Maybe those should cost more?
This makes some sense. One potential drawback is that riders who don't understand the more confusing system could end up in altercations with bus drivers. The limited-stop buses are supposed to be blue while the local buses are red, but the bus garages don't always follow the rules properly. It would be much more important to get them right if one type of bus costs more.
Get rid of "peak of the peak": We pushed for instituting peak of the peak last year, but it hasn't worked as hoped. The idea was to charge more at the busiest times, to either encourage people to shift when they commute or shift to bus.
However, very little behavior shifting happened. Metro made the peak-of-the-peak period longer than advocates had suggested, and decided to apply it to all trips instead of ones in the congested core, peak direction. Also, it was just more confusing. Few people will change their behavior if it's not easily evident to them when they're paying more versus less. And many people can't change their travel times.
Therefore, it's probably wise to eliminate this. That will, though, mean that regular peak fares or all fares have to rise more than they would otherwise.
The list of ideas includes a brief reference to "Rail reverse-commute discounts," which seems to mean the possibility of charging less for the trips against the rush which just use mostly-empty capacity instead of adding to the crush.
Minimum on-board SmarTrip reloads: One of the biggest sources of bus delay is people loading SmarTrips on the bus, which takes a long time. The best solution is to find more stores that can offer SmarTrip loading, or install kiosks. Meanwhile, Metro could require riders load a certain amount on their SmarTrips.
Some riders might not have that much money at one time, so it would be very important to couple any minimum with other alternatives for those riders who need to load small amounts of money.
Others: A slide lists other options without much explanation, such as rounding all rail fares to the nearest quarter, setting rail fares based on number of stations traversed (unfair; would the Orange Line between Metro Center and Farragut Square cost twice as much as the Red Line?), a bonus for storing more value on a SmarTrip, more passes, and others.
Staff expect to make a recommendation in January. Hopefully they will also be able to release details of the analysis of all of these options, to help the public better understand why they made the choice they did and advocate for or against the choice.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Live chat: Matt Yglesias, Wednesday at noon
- Half-hour Metro headways are not acceptable
- "Degree density" maps show region's east-west divide
The idea of peak of peak fares was to close WMATA's budget deficit. It was designed to raise revenue, NOT shift behavior. In fact, if it shifted behavior, then it would have failed in its purpose because the predicted revenue increase would not have materialized. Peak of peak is a fairly painless way to raise revenue since many of the people riding trains at that time have their fare completely subsidized and we now that these are the least price sensitive riders in the system.
In the private sector, most travel providers employ this sort of price discrimination because it is efficient. For example, airlines charge different prices to different market segments by creating various booking classes with different restrictions (e.g., saturday night stay required for cheapest ticket).
by Falls Church on Oct 12, 2011 12:26 pm
Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. It has been very disheartening to wait behind a passenger who goes through the reload process only to put in the $2 that they could have used to pay the cash fare (plus 30 cents). Minimum on-bus SmarTrip reloads should be fixed at $5 at the very least.
by Omar on Oct 12, 2011 12:26 pm
by Davin Peterson on Oct 12, 2011 12:30 pm
These are good ideas for similar reasons that peak of the peak is a good idea -- essentially, using price discrimination to maximize capacity utilization and maximize revenue.
Reverse commuters and night/weekend riders are some of your most price sensitive customers because there are lower cost alternatives for those rides. Parking is often cheap/free for reverse commuters and traffic is not as bad, so for metro to compete with alternatives, it needs to lower its prices. Same for night/weekend riders which would essentially be discounted for monthly pass buyers.
There's a lot of research available on the science of pricing. WMATA needs to start leveraging this body of knowledge for its decision making rather than primarily going with whatever "feels right" or listening to the loudest voices at public hearings.
by Falls Church on Oct 12, 2011 12:38 pm
Leaving aside the emergency last night at Clarendon that paralyzed the Orange Line and Rosslyn, bus and train service is still unreliable. You don't need any anecdotes from me to prove that.
Some of these ideas can be used to increase service - alternate pricing for express buses and an overhaul of the SmartCard reload system on buses would be good examples of that. But I take an express bus - the REX - now, and they can't even get them to come once every 12 minutes.
If Metro can up its service to be worth what I pay now, I won't be upset by a modest fare increase or a major fare overhaul.
by AdaminArlington on Oct 12, 2011 12:41 pm
2. Passes: MPerkins presents an eleqoent argument for passes. But I still dont' see the advantage for WMATA. It comes down to the federal subsidy. Yes, if there is a snow day federal workers won't ride, and the money won't magically change over. But guess what -- federal workers aren't really segreagting their rides. I know WMATA can't come out and say that publically -- but do people really have two smartrips for work and personal rides. The point is the snow day myth is just that -- a myth.
related to that is on rail, I think WMATA does a good job of making sure trains are fuller on off-peak hours. Shifting demand over there isn't going to do much public benefit. What we need is more frequent off-peak trains, and the pass system isn't going to help.
3. Bus tranfers. After much thought, I think WMATA doesn't want bus passengers on the rail system. You figure out why.
by charlie on Oct 12, 2011 12:41 pm
Why isn't it fair? Is it fair that airlines charge business travelers more than vacation travelers?
Bear in mind, that if you don't charge rush hour commuters more, then you have to charge non-rush hour riders more to obtain the same amount of total revenue.
by Falls Church on Oct 12, 2011 12:42 pm
Agree with your comments. While GGW and others can come up with good ideas, there are proven ideas that work/don't work. Also concerns me the amount of money WMATA probably spends on infrastructure/upkeep of all the fare machines and exit fare machines. Might want to come up with a fare structure that minimizes those costs.
by Agree on Oct 12, 2011 12:43 pm
Subsidized by whom, the Federal Government? In which case, it makes more sense to get the money from the Feds directly.
There's a lot of research available on the science of pricing. WMATA needs to start leveraging this body of knowledge for its decision making...
This makes sense if WMATA was a private utility, and was trying to make a profit. However, it is not. This implies that you favor privatization...
by goldfish on Oct 12, 2011 12:44 pm
Having been both a dispatcher and scheduler, I can say that this statement is far too simplistic for the real world.
From a dispatching perspective, if "following the rules," when a 'blue' bus doesn't happen to be available for service at the time of pull-out, the only alternative is to not send anything out of the yard on that block. There may be 5 'red' buses sitting there idle to send but what does one do? As a customer, I'd much rather have a 'red' bus show up on my Express bus than no bus at all.
From a scheduling perspective, a number of the Express trips often run one trip towards/away from the CBD and then return to the yard. The agency can often save resources by "interlining" these trips to other local service trips beginning or ending in the same area to make them more efficient. Again, as a customer, I'd much rather have my trip be more efficient so as to avoid the budget axe in lean times than to have it be inefficient with just as much (or more) time out-of-service as in-service.
While the thought of "branded" buses sounds nice in theory, they come with the caveats of making an agency having to decide to operate in a far more rigid and inefficient style than they may have to otherwise.
by Adam on Oct 12, 2011 12:54 pm
This makes sense if WMATA was a private utility, and was trying to make a profit. However, it is not. This implies that you favor privatization...
I don't favor privatization and I don't expect WMATA to make a profit. However, I do expect WMATA to try to provide the maximum amount of service for a given level of government funding. Doing this requires WMATA to employ the most efficient possible pricing structure so they can maximize revenue, thereby stretching their government funding across as many rides as possible.
by Falls Church on Oct 12, 2011 1:01 pm
There's a serious tradeoff, however, between efficient pricing and ease of use. The more complex you make the fare system, the harder it is for riders to decipher (which is one of the key failings of PotP).
There's also an inherent contradiction in your statement: you want the maximum level of service for the funding dollar. What's that mean? Serving the most people (i.e. maximizing ridership)? Shorter headways? Faster service? I would argue that it could be many things, but it is not maximizing fare revenue.
by Alex B. on Oct 12, 2011 1:12 pm
Well by that thinking, WMATA could triple the fares: the added revenue could provide much better service than what it currently is, while keeping government funding constant. No?
by goldfish on Oct 12, 2011 1:16 pm
by Omar on Oct 12, 2011 1:29 pm
by City Girl on Oct 12, 2011 1:44 pm
No, check that...metrorail doesn't have a revenue problem. Metrobus does. The farebox recovery on the buses is and always has been far less as a percentage of costs than has been metro rail and it needs to stop.
Multi-hour long transfer periods that let people ride a bus somewhere, get off for a couple hours and ride it back for the price of one fare is ludicrous.
And the median income of metrobus riders being ~65K yr, while "lower" than the rail rider income of ~100K a year, isn't exactly a poor demographic. Bus riders make more than the median DC income, they can afford to pay their bus fares.
by freely on Oct 12, 2011 1:50 pm
The software for the subsidy has now changed so that if one has not used their allotment by the end of the month, that money is reverted back to the govt. So there are no longer rollovers, meaning yes theoretically I can still use my subsidy for personal use, but since I can't roll over unused money anymore, I will now essentially have to pay for personal use.
by Esherrie on Oct 12, 2011 1:53 pm
by Randall M. on Oct 12, 2011 1:59 pm
I do think the fact that federal workerks dont have $700 anynore -- or aren't reselling it -- is having a small effect on the WMATA budget. But good luck chasing that ghost down. It would admit to stealing federal property. But much like transfers, broken fareboxes, illegal back of the bus boarding and what not it all exists. How big is the question.
by charlie on Oct 12, 2011 2:11 pm
by Kaleel on Oct 12, 2011 2:16 pm
Similarly, I don't mind simplifying the fare structure for paper farecards at the expense of a bit of fairness. Prices still need to be competitive, but they do need to make sense to tourists.
My suggestion:
Paper farecards should only have two fares: One "local" fare for any trip that originates and ends in the same state, and a second fare for any trips that travel more than one station past the border (so, a trip from DC to Pentagon, Rosslyn, or Silver Spring will still be 'local'; I'd also add a special exemption for Arlington Cemetery).
I think that this would be a reasonably fair proposal, and would be pretty easy for tourists to figure out. Also, most tourists seem to buy day passes anyway.
by andrew on Oct 12, 2011 2:23 pm
by andrew on Oct 12, 2011 2:25 pm
By maximum level level of service I mean greatest utility, which is admittedly complicated to measure and define (it could include benefits/goals such as better land use, a built environment that promotes fitness, more societal equity/justice). For simplicity, if you want to choose a single measure of "service/utility" to maximize, you could go with maximizing ridership. Things like "shorter headways" are just a tool in the goal of maxing ridership.
Maximizing revenue promotes maximizing ridership in the following way. Let's say WMATA gets $100 in gov't funding and takes a loss of $1/ride. WMATA can then provide 100 rides. Now let's say through revenue maximization, WMATA is now losing only 10 cents per ride. Now they can provide 1000 rides (assuming there's sufficient demand for 1000 rides at the new revenue maximizing price).
Well by that thinking, WMATA could triple the fares: the added revenue could provide much better service than what it currently is, while keeping government funding constant.
You can't triple fares because at some point, increasing fares decreases ridership, decreasing (instead of increasing) revenue.
There's a serious tradeoff, however, between efficient pricing and ease of use.
Yes, at some point if ease of use falls below a threshold, ridership will suffer. We haven't hit that point yet, and I don't think we're that close to that point yet.
by Falls Church on Oct 12, 2011 2:50 pm
But you could keep the escalators working...
by goldfish on Oct 12, 2011 3:04 pm
Also interesting are cases where the number of stops is ambiguous: Rosslyn-L'Enfant either by Orange or by Blue/Yellow (in practice they take about the same amount of time). Of course the system can't have any way to know which route you took, but even if you presumed the minimum number of stops, then would it make sense for Rosslyn-L'Enfant to be cheaper than McPherson Square-L'Enfant?
by thm on Oct 12, 2011 3:06 pm
I'm not sure if there's such a thing and think what we did have, went away with the paper transfers. Even then, the transfers only allowed its users "free" bus rides for up to two hours w/in the metro system.
As a daily bus rider for the past 9 years, I can't really recall a time where I could board a bus after not being in the system for any multi-hour period.
MAybe you're referring to the old all-day bus pass or something?
by HogWash on Oct 12, 2011 3:37 pm
SmartTrip Cards allow a free bus ride two hours after paying for any bus ride. In practice, that means I can ride to the stores, shop, and ride back home for a single bus fare.
You can check that using the WMATA trip calculator - it gives the SmartTrip fare as $1.50 for every two bus rides.
by AdaminAlexandria on Oct 12, 2011 3:51 pm
Thanks Adam. But I think you were moreso making my point (metro only allowed users 2 hours of time) than freely's (metro allows multihour-long transfers).
by HogWash on Oct 12, 2011 4:04 pm
Ride the circulator, and it gives you three hours. In fact, it seems to reset the entire clock. As long as you ride one every two hours you can ride the bus forever. I don't suggest it, however.
by charlie on Oct 12, 2011 4:07 pm
In an ideal world Metrobus would require that the transfer only be allowed on another route than the original, which would prevent round trips. But that just makes things more complex again.
Not to mention a sizeable number of frequent bus riders use weekly passes.
by CBGB on Oct 12, 2011 4:27 pm
Charlie on the MWATA! Would he ever return? No, he never returned.
by dcd on Oct 12, 2011 4:30 pm
Is there any reason that reloads couldn't be done on the bus away from the driver AFTER getting on? Sure you'd have to have enough fare on the card to get on, but it seems like a little SmartTrip vending machine onboard many buses could speed the reload process (as many will know - this kind of thing is common in some European cities).
And while we're add it, could they please add ticket vending machines for one trip express bus tickets at the 5A and G30 stops? That would ease life so much for the drivers of these express buses to the airports and speed loading.
by egk on Oct 12, 2011 5:20 pm
Could the system still allow for me to pay the price I would otherwise pay to ride the bus? More likely, I suspect that someone would make the argument that since I'm getting a "discount" for buying an unlimited pass, I should just pay the higher bus fare.
by Gray on Oct 12, 2011 5:21 pm
If you a SmarTrip card, you can reload it at the MTA fare machines at Door 17 ("BWI Stop 2" for the B30). If you don't already have one, you're stuck paying the cash fare.
by Matt Johnson on Oct 12, 2011 5:24 pm
Rail Fare = R (Example $3)
Bus Fare = B (Example $1.50)
Transfer Discount = D (Example $0.50)
If you plan on having your pass cover your everyday commute trip, then you would want a pass that's good for trips up to R + B - D. In the example, this would be 3.00 + 1.50 - 0.50 = $4.00 per trip. The monthly pass costs 40 times the per-trip value, so you'd pay $160 per month.
Your smartrip card would then be valid for the first $4.00 of any trip or combined trip you take. If you took a slightly longer trip, the additional fare would be deducted from stored value.
Example: You have a $4.00 monthly pass. You take a $5.00 rail trip. The pass would cover the first $4.00, and you'd have to pay $1.00 out of stored value.
Since off-peak trips are cheaper than peak trips in general, practically any situation would result in free off-peak trips for anyone with a pass.
by Michael Perkins on Oct 12, 2011 6:42 pm
by Gray on Oct 12, 2011 7:16 pm
Were either of you around when they used to have In and Out Transfer
IN Transfer would be given if going into town
Out Transfer would be given if going out of town
They worked good except for two problems
1 Circular routes (I remember b***hing to WMATA about about 15 years ago)no matter where you got on or off the transfer was always wrong.
2 When buses broke down they would give everybody transfers to catch the next bus
--------------------------------
@ Adam
There is a way around that which is not practiced here in many places around the world the bus lines would go from garage to garage. The garages would be spaced out around the cities or counties evenly allowing all routes to be drawn from one garage to another. That cant be done here due to the placement of garages here (14th Street, Bradbury Hghts North Bethesda etc)
1 It helps the drivers by allowing places to have bathroom breaks
2 Bus can always be swapped at the end of the line if a problem occurs
3 Doesn't have to travel from Garage to Beginning of line or End of line to Garage.
---------------------------
Zones + Passes
Fare
1 flat fares in each Jurisdiction DC, MD and VA plus outside surcharge
2 Flat fee but allow jurisdictions to subsidize it
Reloading Smartrip cards
1 Add machines at the busy stops throughout the area. Seeming as how many jurisdictions around the area are adding streetcars where they would have to add fare machines on street level why not test it out at a few busy bus stops.
2 Add more places to reload 7 Eleven, Rite Aid, All public buildings (Courthouse, City Hall, Municipal Centers), All area Malls especially the ones that are served by bus or next to a metro station.
Express Buses
1 Fare increase fine if service is express so that means no increase to S9, 79 and X9
What happen to the plan about stops every 1/4 or 1/2 mile as was the case when Metro Extra started. Many of these bus stops are well closer than that as you can see the bus stops from each other.
by kk on Oct 13, 2011 12:31 am
by beatbox on Oct 13, 2011 9:12 am
by bett on Oct 13, 2011 9:14 am
Really? You don't pick your job? Or your doctor? Some Big Brother assigns that to you? You also pick where you live. My wife changed jobs primarily to reduce her commute and she can't be alone in that. I've changed dentist and eye doctors to pick ones in my neighborhood (now I have the same dentist as JDLand - not to namedrop). Don't act like it's out of your control.
by David C on Oct 14, 2011 1:40 pm
In any case I didn't literally mean doctors and dentists appointments (although to be sure I would pick the best doctor every time, not the closest one), I just meant that most of the systems proposed here suggest we organize life around Metro's schedule and needs. In most big cities where I have lived, it was the opposite. The transit was there to serve the commuters, with easy on and off for a fair price.
by City Girl on Oct 14, 2011 4:55 pm
Even if you don't shift your travel time, other people will. Which means you're less likely to miss a train due to lack of space. It means you ride more trains that keep to the schedule. It means that once you're on a train, you're more likely to get a seat and less likely to be packed in. That's how the major transit system is accommodating you.
As for trying to fill seats at off-peak time and for reverse commutes, it's also about getting people out of cars. Which accommodates people who can't choose to get out of their cars. That may not help you, but it does improve the transportation system. Taxpayers are paying for those seats to move whether they're full or not. It makes sense to try and get someone in them.
by David C on Oct 15, 2011 9:14 am
Add a Comment