Transit
Metro doesn't need just any "monthly pass"
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 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. 
Michael Perkins blogs here and at Infosnack about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia. 
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
by Anuli on Jan 23, 2012 10:38 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 10:55 am • link • report
Now, Washington's mass transit system is a far cry from New York's, but the ideal remains - when people have the idea that they can get anywhere in town for 'free' [once it's paid for], they will, and everyone benefits - businesses, customers, etc. It's not like one person riding a train 100 times is costing the system more than the person who rides it once. The train's going to run either way.
by Andrew on Jan 23, 2012 10:56 am • link • report
by GMM on Jan 23, 2012 10:58 am • link • report
by charlie on Jan 23, 2012 11:01 am • link • report
@GMM: the bus issue is complicated because WMATA charges separate fares for rail and bus. Eventually I would like to see a system where the monthly pass price could be applied to your bus and rail fares equally.
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 11:06 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 11:07 am • link • report
I think you need more than a consistent stream of revenue. That's not much of a benefit, really - it's neutral at best - i.e. not a negative.
The argument should be made that passes will increase off-peak ridership, and increasing off-peak ridership is a means to encouraging more transit-oriented lifestyles and therefore building a broader coalition of support from said riders in their various political jurisdictions.
by Alex B. on Jan 23, 2012 11:13 am • link • report
The point about the board members, however, is new to me.
by charlie on Jan 23, 2012 11:14 am • link • report
by egk on Jan 23, 2012 11:22 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 11:24 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 11:26 am • link • report
by JimT on Jan 23, 2012 11:29 am • link • report
And as far as I've heard (the GF is a fed, so secord order information here) there is nothing about removing the peak of peak calcluation from the benefit.
The $1 she saved will get spent. Illegal, I know. And perhaps not spent in WMATA (circulator, for instance)
by charlie on Jan 23, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 11:33 am • link • report
Basically, I would pay the monthly fare for a trip from station A (eg: Dupont Circle) to station B (Silver Spring). I could then enter or exit at any station between the two for 'free.' If I entered or exited at other stations I would go to the 'exit fare' machines and pay the difference (I think SmartTrip cards could do this automatically now).
With Metro, maybe you would have to designate a route if there are multiple ways to get from station A to station B.
In Japan, I know there were a number of trips I would take just beyond my commuting zone because the price was only marginally more. Using the example above, if I wanted to go out in Adams Morgan and started in Silver Spring I would only need to pay for the Dupont Circle to Woodley Park part of the trip because the pass would cover the Silver Spring-Dupont Circle portion. It would be up to Metro to decide if they view Dupont Circle to Woodley Park as separate (about $1.85) or an extension of the trip where I would only need to pay the marginal difference (~ $0.25).
by Rob P. III on Jan 23, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report
Interesting RE: $.25. Has anyone done the math? Charging a set fee, let's say $1 and the 25 cents for each stop passed?
by cmc on Jan 23, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report
The way my proposed pass would work is that you would only need to pay the marginal difference, rather than a new trip.
Also, the passes would be tied to particular fare values, rather than to specific stations or segments.
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Jan 23, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report
Metro doesn't actually get the money from a federal worker until it's actually spent on something, like a pass or a transit trip.
If it's spent on a pass, then Metro gets the revenue right away, regardless of whether you take the trips or not.
If you're on pay-per-trip, then any trips you don't end up taking either reduce the amount of federal subsidy you use, or they reduce the amount of your out of pocket spending on transit. If you don't end up using all the federal subsidy, then it gets returned to your agency.
So unless you do something weird like take additional transit trips for the sole purpose of using up leftover federal subsidy, Metro gets revenue that it wouldn't otherwise get if they have people using passes rather than paying for each ride.
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 1:12 pm • link • report
But compare that against revenue forgone from off-peak travel that's now free thanks to the pass and I'll bet it's a wash.
That's why I think selling this from the revenue perspective is the wrong tactic.
Instead, it's about better utilization of existing capacity and about building ridership and the constituency for quality transit services. It's about repairing Metro's reputation with riders.
by Alex B. on Jan 23, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report
by Vincent on Jan 23, 2012 1:26 pm • link • report
The kind of pass that would be simple and appealing to the largest number of riders would require a radical change in the base fare structure (e.g., getting rid of the time of day stuff and explicating the implicit fare zones that exist) and offering a people a real bargain (i.e., less than they would ordinarily pay).
by Rich on Jan 23, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report
There is a loss from people who didn't show up at all -- although those with the federal benefit will still probablu use their $5 or so in the rest of month during an "extra trip". Crazy, I know.
Now, yes, during a serious snow event that shuts down WMATA for a week, it does add up, and then the benefits may be recalibrated. THat is a very rare instance. ANd not to bag too much on WMATA, but the amount actually lost today is probably far less than our friendly MTP coin stealers made out daily.
Alex's arguments are interesting but not sure if they fly -- very long term. I'd also see the argumetn that WMATA should do something for customers and make it easier/cheaper for them to use the system - although cutting non-rush hour fares is easier -- warning, pet issue, and I don't want to go all Doug Willinger on that.
Actually, now that I think about it, the entire structure of WMATA fare pricing is designed to prevent people from observing the REAL sabbath. Fight for the truth, people.
by charlie on Jan 23, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report
It's also dependent on WMATA shifting gears from trying to balance their budget from cycle to cycle and to think about why they exist in the first place. Admittedly, that requires some help from their constituent governments, but also from their riders.
by Alex B. on Jan 23, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report
If you want support, look at where Unsuck clearly pricks public anger -- lazy/incompetent frontline employees and WMATA's continuing lack of credible communciation. You've aleady got a large, captive audience of transit users but mostly they sit around and bitch about WMATA.
by charlie on Jan 23, 2012 2:21 pm • link • report
Why is that weird? If one has leftover federal subsidy, then given the choice between driving and riding metro for free, they may very well choose metro. But, if they didn't have leftover subsidy, they might drive.
I like the idea of a pass but don't see it as revenue neutral. If that's the case, what's the fare increase you'll implement to make up the lost revenue and what's the impact of that?
by Falls Church on Jan 23, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report
Of course, any reform of Metro must be structural and not a pledge drive. If DC and MD laughed at such attempts, that's because the attempts were worthy of a chuckle or two. But that's an entirely different issue...
As far as Unsuck's stories go, there's no doubt that Metro needs to improve customer service and experience - but that's not independent of the price you pay for said service.
The larger point is that if you want passes for Metro, you don't sell the idea to Metro staff, you sell it to those who put pressure on Metro staff - Board members, the riding public at large, etc.
by Alex B. on Jan 23, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report
Really? Having ridden both systems I got the impression that the Metro had more tourist ridership.
by Steven Yates on Jan 23, 2012 2:44 pm • link • report
by Dave Murphy on Jan 23, 2012 2:53 pm • link • report
by MetroEscalator on Jan 23, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report
If you were to remove the MARC montly pass portion and sold an unlimited Metrorail and Metrobus pass at, say $180 per month, that would break the system. People who currently pay $5.25 + $1.00 to commute, each way, would buy them and save roughly $70.00 per month that they're currently paying for their commute.
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report
by Over the River on Jan 23, 2012 6:11 pm • link • report
by dcseain on Jan 23, 2012 7:07 pm • link • report
by kk on Jan 23, 2012 9:03 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 10:29 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 23, 2012 10:31 pm • link • report
by movement on Jan 23, 2012 10:47 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 24, 2012 8:44 am • link • report
You get "points" added to your SmarTrip Card based on your usage. Those points are accumulated for... says a 45-day period before they expire. They would have no cash value and cannot be transferred to other cards. They are purely a perk from using your SmarTrip Card. When you run out of funds, the points kick in and trip fares are then deducted at whatever value is assigned to the points.
This type of program is surely to ease revenue loss for Metro over a straight-up low-cost monthly pass. Although, I admit is might be a challenge to implement.
by John @ RI Ave on Jan 24, 2012 9:33 am • link • report
My monthly total is never $130 because often I will leave home or work later and not suffer the peak of the peak charges. Sometimes I might get a ride home, stop for happy hour and walk home etc.
Your proposal for a $120 pass would cost me much more per month because of the $3.00 trip limit.
Only way the majority of people will consider these passes is if they think they will save money.
Is it fair to say my monthly cost is about average for the 9-5er? If so these passes should be about $130 flat. Sure they will lose revenue from some, but overall, with people like me they come out ahead.
by druw on Jan 24, 2012 9:56 am • link • report
by Andrew on Jan 24, 2012 10:32 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jan 24, 2012 10:35 am • link • report
The passes as of 2003 were a $25 weekly pass and a $100 28-day pass.
by Michael Perkins on Jan 24, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report
by TeganAnn on Jan 26, 2012 9:39 am • link • report
by AL on Jan 26, 2012 11:02 pm • link • report
MBTA has had a lot of problems raising their fares and with their budget in general. Some people in the industry think they have been cooking the books on their budgets to make it look like things are OK when they are not.
Consequently, they are looking at a 30-40% across the board fare increase in the near future, see the information booklet here: http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/?id=23567
That $59 pass is about to become a $78-$80 pass.
Also, Metro goes out much further than the T. Metro's reach to the outer stations is more like MBTA's Commuter Rail, where fares are comparable to Metro. E.g. Brockton, MA is about the same distance to the center city as Shady Grove, and the fare from there is $5.75.
by MLD on Jan 27, 2012 8:28 am • link • report
That is all true, and I wasn't trying to say the MBTA is much better without its own problems. I grew up in Montgomery County, and I was just struck by the differences when I moved to Boston. About the distances though, I know Metro lines go out much further, but it also feels Boston is just denser in general (so that 1 mi here != 1 mi elsewhere) but I could be wrong.
Also, an $80 monthly pass is still much cheaper than some of the numbers being proposed above ($130). Currently, buying 4 weekly Fastpasses would be $47*4 = $188 for a month!
MBTA does have massive funding problems though; something to do with debt taken on from the Big Dig project? In addition to proposed fare increases (which I would be willing to swallow) they are also proposing service cuts, including not running the commuter rail on weekends. Rough times ahead!
by AL on Jan 27, 2012 11:22 am • link • report
When we ask "why is it good for Metro" we're really asking "why is it good for tax payers" because tax payers are Metro.
by David C on Jan 27, 2012 11:44 am • link • report
Add a Comment