Transit
Why a flat fare is a bad idea for Metro
At last week's WMATA board meeting, new Virginia member Jim Dyke suggested that the transit agency study a flat fare. While a flat fare would certainly be simpler to understand, it's not a good policy. It would not be more equitable. Nor would it be cheap.
Photo by 35mmMonkey on Flickr.
The idea of a flat fare for Metro comes up every so often, especially compared to the current, complicated fare structure that requires looking up fares in a huge table. This idea is to create a simpler system by charging everyone the same amount to ride, as is the case in many subway systems.
For someone used to paying $4.50 each way, a flat fare like Boston's $1.70 or New York's $2.25 looks attractively cheap. But the reality is that even if Metro were to adopt a flat fare, it would not be that cheap.
Michael Perkins ran the numbers and discovered that (assuming no loss in ridership) a flat fare would need to be at least $2.90 to be revenue-neutral.
Fare's fair
That's more than any other system with a flat fare, and is significantly higher than the $1.60 off-peak and $1.95 rush hour base fares. What the flat fare really means is that people making shorter trips (often those living in the urban core) will be subsidizing those making longer trips (often those living in the suburbs). And that's simply not equitable.
If you're traveling farther, you should expect to pay more. Can you imagine if all taxis regionwide had a flat fare? Would it be fair to charge the same for a trip by taxi from Woodbridge to Rockville as for a trip from Logan Circle to 12th and K? Of course not.
Everybody else is doing it
As is often the case when subway fares are being discussed, some suggest that WMATA should move to a flat fare because most other subway systems use them. And if all subway systems and regions were the same, perhaps that argument would make some sense. But there are significant differences between our Metro and other subway systems in America.
Part of it is a technology issue. A fare structure like Metro's only works in systems with exit faregates, where a rider swipes the fare media to exit as well as to enter. Only Metro, PATCO in Philadelphia and New Jersey, the San Francisco Bay Area's BART, and Atlanta's MARTA have this technology today. It would not be cheap for systems like those in New York and Chicago to install new equipment to make variable fares possible.
Other systems also have momentum behind the flat fare. It's very difficult to build the will to allow such a change, even if the infrastructure allows it. A few years ago, MARTA installed new gates, new fare vending machines, and even got a new name for the fare system. Even though a distance-based fare is now technologically possible, Atlanta continues to use a flat fare, not necessarily because they've decided it's better policy, but out of momentum.
Metro is commuter rail and urban subway
Technology and history aren't all that separate Metro from many other systems. There's also the structure of the cities and the transit systems themselves. The older subways in the United States generally don't travel as far as the modern heavy rail systems. When all trips are shorter, it's not quite as inequitable to charge the same rate for everyone.
Metro is a hybrid between an urban subway and a suburban commuter rail operation. And as such it makes a good deal of sense to have a fare structure that reflects that.
It's true that all trips on the New York City Subway cost the same. But people traveling the distances that Metro travels might not use the New York Subway. For example, Port Washington is a similar distance from Penn Station as Shady Grove is from Metro Center. But a trip to Port Washington doesn't use the subway, it uses the Long Island Rail Road, and the peak fare is $10.00. The maximum you could possibly pay to go from Metro Center to Shady Grove is only $5.45.
Many people group Metro in with subways in New York and Chicago and Boston simply because they're all subways. But it's important to consider scale. The subway systems in those regions are generally compact and don't reach many places with the kind of suburban settlement patterns at the end of Metrorail lines.
In those cities, separate commuter and regional rail systems, which don't use flat fares, mainly serve suburban areas rather than the urban subway.
Let's compare some Metro lines to similar lines in other cities:
If we compare the Metro Red line in comparison with Boston's Red Line to Alewife and the MBTA Fitchburg Line, we can get a sense of scale.
Alewife is about as far from Downtown Crossing as Friendship Heights is from Metro Center. In Boston you'd pay $1.70 for that trip. Here, the fare would be just $1.60 off-peak or $2.70 during rush hour.
Bethesda is roughly the same distance from Metro Center as Waverly is from North Station. And in this case, Metro's $2.15/$3.15 fare is cheaper than MBTA's $4.25.
We can see similar trends if we compare our Orange Line to Philadelphia's Lansdale/Doylestown Line.
I chose Philadelphia and Boston because their metropolitan regions are about the same size as DC's. (Washington is the 7th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the nation, while Philadelphia is 6th and Boston 10th.)
Traveling along the Broad Street (in Philadelphia) or Route 2 (in Boston) corridors, a traveler going the distance of outside-the-Beltway stops in DC would not take the subway, but would ride commuter rail.
Our residents of places like Vienna, Rockville, Greenbelt, Franconia-Springfield, and soon Tysons Corner pay less than many would pay on commuter rail in those cities. Plus, they enjoy frequent, all-day, 7-day-a-week service. That has enormous benefits to our region, making walkable places like Rockville Town Center feasible and giving the DC region much higher transit ridership per capita than Boston or Philadelphia.
But just because Boston and Philadelphia's much smaller urban subways charge a flat fare doesn't mean it's unfair that a ride from Vienna to Metro Center costs quite a bit more than a ride from Rosslyn.
 | Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board.    |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
by charlie on Apr 18, 2012 10:21 am • link • report
by MJ on Apr 18, 2012 10:28 am • link • report
by nativedc on Apr 18, 2012 10:39 am • link • report
Instead of having ridiculous permutations where one fare might be an extra nickel if you go one more station, you'd maintain the distance-based structure while vastly simplifying the cost to riders, making it easier to communicate.
So, let's say peak fares would be either:
1.75
2.25
2.75
3.25
3.75
4.25
4.75
5.25
5.75
Assuming fares increase roughly as proposed, this gives you 9 potential peak fares from any given station. It would be applying zone principles without creating actual zones. For each station, you could produce a map showing exactly which stations you can ride to for which price.
by Alex B. on Apr 18, 2012 10:51 am • link • report
If two tiers don't work, three might and would still be simpler than the distance based hodgepodge we have now.
by Dave J on Apr 18, 2012 10:53 am • link • report
The info on the metro maps should have price next to the destination station rather than in a separate table.
by MW on Apr 18, 2012 10:58 am • link • report
by grumpy on Apr 18, 2012 11:00 am • link • report
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9261/
by Matt Johnson on Apr 18, 2012 11:06 am • link • report
If you really want to be fair, lets set the cost based on the cost to operate trains at the given time divided by the number of riders. Obviously this won't work because the cost of a mid-day trip to get lunch in Chinatown would become prohibitive.
Everyone wants a "fair" system, but that just means "fair to me".
by SCS on Apr 18, 2012 11:11 am • link • report
by Phil LaCombe on Apr 18, 2012 11:17 am • link • report
by Kevin C on Apr 18, 2012 11:18 am • link • report
But they then introduce a whole host of other problems. In the case of a rounding system (round to the nearest 50 cents or whatever) you have the problem where people will drive en-masse one station closer in order to save a dollar a day if stations fall a certain way on the scale. So nobody will park at one station if another close one is that much cheaper.
by MLD on Apr 18, 2012 11:19 am • link • report
by Falls Church on Apr 18, 2012 11:20 am • link • report
In New York, typically those with the longest rides are the ones with the lowest economic resources. They are forced to live far away from the expensive city center, whereas the truly wealthy live in or very close to the center. It would be inequitable to switch from the flat fare, and it would have devastating impacts on those who rely on the subway for long commutes. It would be a very regressive fee.
In DC, residents in suburban communities tend to be wealthier than many of those living only a few metro stops from the city center. It's actually a more progressive fare structure to charge those suburban riders more than the inner-city residents. If Metro switched to a flat fare and raised the fares for the short rides to be revenue-neutral, that would be a regressive move.
It might seem simpler to have a flat fare, but it would be terrible social economic policy.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 18, 2012 11:21 am • link • report
by Phil LaCombe on Apr 18, 2012 11:29 am • link • report
by IsoTopor on Apr 18, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
by Juan Carlos Giménez on Apr 18, 2012 11:32 am • link • report
Hopefully tourists know where they're going when they purchase a farecard.
The list is 85 stations, in alphabetical order. Look up the station you're going to, and the fare is the only number listed.
The way the Metro board is going, there will still be two fares listed for each destination based on the time of day. Hopefully they list the cash fares and have a note that Smartrip is a dollar cheaper, rather than list the Smartrip fares and have a note that cash is a dollar more.
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 11:37 am • link • report
Aside from a handful of stops EOTR, where are the houses that are metro accessible in the city that are cheaper than what you find in the suburbs. I'd say you're not going to find a 2 bedroom condo or rowhouse that's metro accessible WOTR that's less than $400k.
Poor people in DC ride the bus (which does have a flat fare), not metro rail.
by Falls Church on Apr 18, 2012 11:37 am • link • report
There's a requirement in the compact that you need at least one vote from each jurisdiction. DC would NEVER vote for a flat fare.
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 11:39 am • link • report
That post noted that "for some trips, the fare is a great deal cheaper...for example from the far edge of a zone, through the central core, and out to the far edge of a zone are much cheaper." Yet, that seems to belie the fact that many trips (not just a small amount, as the post implies) currently come from far stations into the central core and back (your own post in 2009 showed this). Since it's impossible to make a system equitable for all riders, the question becomes what is equitable for the greatest number of riders. The zone concept definitely deserves greater attention, and more in-depth analysis taking into account some of the ways that real world systems (e.g., London, Barcelona, etc) currently solve some of the pitfalls of having a hybrid commuter-urban system.
by Scoot on Apr 18, 2012 11:41 am • link • report
I've always thought that one of metro's biggest problems is its identity crisis: metro is very confused about whether it is a subway or a commuter rail.
by Sam on Apr 18, 2012 11:45 am • link • report
How about a systen in which fares are assessed based upon the distance traveled? That would be equitable for all riders, wouldn't it? As a bonus, it should be fairly easy for WMATA to implement such a system . . .
by dcd on Apr 18, 2012 11:47 am • link • report
The non-peak times were not frequent, but they were regular and reliable and affordable, which was more than sufficient, and are well-used. They're also much faster to further-out destinations than the El (or Metro here). It would be really nice to have something like that here.
by Joe on Apr 18, 2012 11:52 am • link • report
I do think they should round numbers and consider it crazy that there's a 35c difference between Cong Heights and Anacostia.
by HogWash on Apr 18, 2012 11:55 am • link • report
by Vik on Apr 18, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report
This strikes me as a problem routinely raised by outsiders who don't actually use the system, but who do look at the fare charts to see how much it costs. Because if you actually use the system, you just put a bunch of money on a smarttrip and refill it when it gets empty.
by DRF on Apr 18, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report
Yeah, agreed, but that's not even how the system works now. The people who travel from farther out of the system actually pay less per mile than people who travel within the core, or from stations near the core into the core.
Shady Grove to Metro Center - approx. distance 23 miles, cost 5.00 (21 cents per mile)
Woodley Park to Metro Center - approx. 3 miles, cost 1.95 (65 cents per mile)
Farragut North to Metro Center - approx. 1 mile , cost 1.95 (195 cents per mile)
In addition, the system assesses fares based partly on when you use the system (peak fares), and not necessarily only for your distance traveled.
But I agree completely with DRF. As Smartrip and monthly passes become more commonplace, the fare structure itself diminishes in importance because people will rarely have to even look at the fare chart. It is however important for the fares to at least be, well, fair -- and also important for tourists and occasional riders to be able to use the system easily so that they have a good impression of WMATA and of public transit generally.
by Scoot on Apr 18, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
I know of many, many Metro accessible 2-bedroom condos, and a few houses, within the District proper, WOTR, that are below $400K. Heck, in my neighborhood, you can get *3* bedrooms (house) for over $100K less than that (that's a full reno...if you'd like to DIY or live in a place that is "nice but not luxurious" you can knock another $100-$150K off the full reno price). In another Metro-accessible neighborhood, a friend just bought a 4-bedroom house for less than $300K. Try this: http://www.redfin.com/homes-for-sale#!disp_mode=M&market=dc&max_price=400000&num_beds=2®ion_id=12839®ion_type=6&v=8. Sure, they're becoming more scarce, but they exist.
Not to mention all of the affordable units (both rentals and owner-occupieds) and rent-controlled units. My friend in Eastern Market has some people living in her (rent-controlled) building paying astoundingly low rents, and happens to live right around the corner from the Townhomes on Capitol Hill (best info I could find: http://www.apartments.com/rent/Washington-DC/Townhomes-on-Capitol-Hill/102585.12), down the street from Capper/Carrollsburg (now Capitol Quarter: http://www.jdland.com/dc/capper.cfm?tab=no2&tab1filter=phase2), and down the other street from Potomac Gardens.
Sure, the city has changed and affordable housing is becoming more scarce, but outside of non-Metro-accessible areas (except by car) far out in the 'burbs and parts of PG county (also largely non-Metro-accessible except by car), the largest concentration of lower-income people is still in the District proper, much of it WOTR. Unless the suburbs start providing large-scale public housing, extremely low-cost housing, and subsidized affordable housing, AND introduce rent control, this trend will continue, although the middle may get pushed out unless we start to develop undeveloped land into market-rate housing in earnest.
by Ms. D on Apr 18, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
People didn't really talk that much about fare system complexity before we did peak of the peak and surcharges for paper farecards.
Why don't we just go back to distance-based fares, with smartrip getting a discount if you travel off-peak?
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 12:38 pm • link • report
What? Yes they did.
by Alex B. on Apr 18, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report
by Phil on Apr 18, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report
While its true that there is very little affordable housing within walking distance of metro in the suburbs, in fact much is accessible to metro by bus or bicycle. I am at least somewhat familiar with South Arlington, west Alexandria (including southern towers, the beauregard corridor, and landmark) the Annandale section of Fairfax - all are known for old, inexpensive, walk up apartment complexes with large numbers of low income people (heavily immigrants) and all have bus access to metrorail, often fairly heavily used.
Whiles I have little doubt that most suburban metro riders are middle class or affluent, and for that to change would require a full suburban collapse (TM - Oboe), I wanted to set the record straight
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 18, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report
The flat fare vs. zoned/peak hour fare debate generates a lot of interesting and unanticipated side effects. In Toronto, which still has a single fare (token!) system for the entire subway-bus-streetcar network, cycling took off as a way of traveling short distances in the core much faster than the streetcars that operate in mixed traffic and without having to fork out the $3 flat fare.
Meanwhile, I know DC carowners who have done the math and calculated their reverse commute to the suburban office (with free parking) is cheaper than taking Metro in the peak hours.
Of course the other aspect not discussed in the post is the flat fare bus system which is a boon for the city; the bus goes more places in the region, travels along active mixed-use corridors, and is easier to improve strategically (ie the new K9 express route on New Hampshire Ave through PG, MoCo, Takoma Park and DC).
by eozberk on Apr 18, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report
There are other systems with flat rates and you can go far distances and pay hardly anything. People are going to hypothesize ways in which something similar could work in our system. There's also some interaction between gas prices and fares in the outer areas of the system that impact ridership and revenues. When we begin talking about $6+ fares one-way, some people are going to start thinking about systems where the burden is shifted more towards shorter distance trips.
The flat-rate isn't right for us. Our system is a bit too comprehensive while simultaneously serving a high number of people, by percentage, from far distances for fair and reasonable flat-rate to work. A tier-system based on number of stops would be better.
by Vik on Apr 18, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report
Phil et al. -- the reason that NYC doesn't go to distance based fares is the last time they calculated the cost to convert the system, it was estimated to be $1 billion in new fare equipment and fare gates. It's likely higher now.
But yes, DC would get screwed by a flat fare, because it'd be higher than what lots of people currently pay for in-city travel, and yes, many people in the suburbs would get lower fares.
by Richard Layman on Apr 18, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report
Also worth pointing out:
- Metrobus's flat fares are actually lower than in most other big cities
- Almost all new metro systems built use distance based pricing; Beijing is the only exception I know of
- Nobody seems to complain about variable pricing for hotels, airlines, even restaurants (dinner vs. lunch)
- The "it's confusing" argument would be obviated by using more intuitive TVMs, as used in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Japan (where I could even figure it out without English labels), etc.
by Payton on Apr 18, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
To sort of echo Layman here, once you build and operate the system at peak providing the off-peak service they do costs very little due to work hour rules, the economics of finding people to work 3-4 hours during peak periods only, etc.
Add the fact that if the system didn't run off-peak it would be much less useful and fewer people would probably ride it at peak (land use would not be as intense as a transit-dependent lifestyle would be much less attractive).
So yes, if you look at $/trip by time period, peak is "subsidizing" off-peak, but the entire picture is much more complicated than that.
by MLD on Apr 18, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report
There are affordable housing programs in the suburbs. Montgomery County had one of the first moderately priced dwelling unit (MPDU) programs in the 1970's, and Arlington and Fairfax have similar arrangements as well. I agree that there's a need for a more equitable distribution of housing prices across the region (especially close to suburban job centers like Tysons or Bethesda), but it's not like DC has been shouldering the entire burden of low-cost housing.
@Matt
Anyway, this is a great post! I don't have an opinion on the fare structure, but I really appreciated your comparison of Metro lines to Regional Rail lines in Boston or Philadelphia, where I live now. I sometimes think about taking the R5 (I don't know anyone who calls it the Lansdale/Doylestown line) to Elkins Park for some tasty Korean Food, but thought it was too far. Now I know it's basically West Falls Church.
by dan reed! on Apr 18, 2012 2:33 pm • link • report
As someone mentioned, everyone I know who rides metro just puts money on their smart card and doesn't pay attention to the exact fare. Making it more simple wouldn't affect their lives at all.
by nathaniel on Apr 18, 2012 2:35 pm • link • report
As someone mentioned, everyone I know who rides metro just puts money on their smart card and doesn't pay attention to the exact fare. Making it more simple wouldn't affect their lives at all.
Good thing DC doesn't get many tourists, then.
I disagree with the assertion that the current structure can't be simplified. I think it can while still maintaining distance-based fares.
I also disagree with the assertion that because riders with SmarTrips aren't usually inconvenienced by this, that means it's not a problem.
by Alex B. on Apr 18, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report
If you care about what your exact fare is, there's still going to be an 86x86 matrix of fares, times two or more if you're going to maintain peak/offpeak/paper/disabled pricing.
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 3:09 pm • link • report
On this one map, you can notice things like NYC taking up about as much space as the four smaller cities, Philadelphia's reliance on regional rail, and how trains were routed into the various downtowns.
by Payton on Apr 18, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report
Also, since Metro wouldn't be able to decrease revenue, the adjustments would all be made in the up direction.
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report
by Jim T on Apr 18, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report
For tourists, the important thing is to market well the simple fare instruments aimed at tourists, like the new day pass. "Not from these here parts? Skip the confusing fare chart and grab one o' these!"
by Lucre on Apr 18, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report
As much as I agree with Alex B.'s idea to round the fares off, it still would not simplify the charts.
by SMB on Apr 18, 2012 4:05 pm • link • report
Not true. Huntington.
by Froggie on Apr 18, 2012 4:33 pm • link • report
Unfortunately, very true. I've long said this is the greatest need on the metro area. I grew up in NY suburbs, which have terrific suburban rail systems, with stations typically in the town centers, serving huge numbers of commuters with a variety of express and local trains. MARC and VRE are bad jokes compared to most suburban rail systems in this country.
If there were decent rail service in from Frederich and Clarksville, that would do much more to cure the back-ups on I-270 than any road project. Even good express train service from Shady Grove would make a big dent. There was a candidate for Congress a few years ago in Frederick, who was making that a big part of her campaign, but failed to spark a conversation about it.
I'm sure the same would be true with respect to traffic on I-95 and 395 from the south, if VRE was a better, faster service, with greater reach.
If there was only one policy I could change, it would be to make huge investments to upgrade commuter rail.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 18, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report
If you care about what your exact fare is, there's still going to be an 86x86 matrix of fares, times two or more if you're going to maintain peak/offpeak/paper/disabled pricing.
But you don't need to rely on the matrix. You'd be able to graphically depict it far more easily. You'd be able to see, visually, from the station I'm at now, how much it would cost to go to station X.
Putting the data in visual form would also make the fare increases over distance more intuitive. You'd see that as you go further, the cost goes up. You don't get that looking at a table of stations in alphabetical order.
I think if we went with that system, people would complain that travel from [insert your home station here] to [insert desired destination] is $4.75, but to [insert one station closer] is only $4.25, and what's up with that?
I don't. The concept of fare zones is simple enough. This would effectively be a zone system, just zones that are relative to each station rather than the system as a whole.
Also, since Metro wouldn't be able to decrease revenue, the adjustments would all be made in the up direction.
Huh? Without doing a in-depth analysis, you could just as easily round half of them down and half of them up. If the old fare was 2.45, new fare is 2.25. Old fare, 2.55, new fare 2.75. If it was 2.50, then round up, I guess. Perhaps you'd want to adjust some trip combinations that are particularly popular or something.
Would there be uncertainty? Sure, but not so much that you'd have to round all of the fares up. Some trips would be less, some would be more.
by Alex B. on Apr 18, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report
I think you are overestimating people's ability to read a zone map. I think they are easy but I thought the same about the old taxi map, something people apparently had lots of trouble with. The big trouble with them if your are a tourist is you still have to find where you are on the map and where you are going. I think a lot of people know what line they are suppose to take but not necessarily where that is on the map.
by Nathaniel on Apr 18, 2012 6:17 pm • link • report
I wonder, what made the DC metro develop differently from Boston or Philadelphia? Are the populations in the Boston and Philadelphia metro areas more densely clustered around their downtowns, while DC's is more spread out into the suburbs? (What do those distributions look like as a function of distance from downtown?) Also, while you explained that the DC metro is like both subway + commuter rail, do the other cities' commuter rails go further? Is that the equivalent of MARC trains, or is MARC even further far-flung?
Having lived in both DC and Boston areas, I personally think both have their pros and cons. I will say, I don't miss having to tap out of a metro station. But again, I live much "closer-in" now. ;)
by AL on Apr 18, 2012 7:17 pm • link • report
On net, the rounding would have to be skewed so that the average increases.
by Michael Perkins on Apr 18, 2012 9:14 pm • link • report
by Ms. D on Apr 18, 2012 9:28 pm • link • report
Charging per distance would be fine if the primary issue were just money - but it's not: it's about getting people, especially long-distance commuters - to ride transit. The current system - with its lack of free transfers from bus to rail, etc. - discourages long-distance commuters.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 18, 2012 10:13 pm • link • report
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 18, 2012 10:16 pm • link • report
@AL: "I wonder, what made the DC metro develop differently from Boston or Philadelphia?"
Consider that the T opened its first subway in 1897 and that Metro opened in 1976, and that in 1930 Boston had 60% more residents than Washington -- but that in 2012, the DC metro is 25% more populous than the Boston metro. A much greater share of the Washington region was built as auto-oriented sprawl, and Metro was intended to cater to that reality by extending far into the suburbs.
by Payton on Apr 18, 2012 11:20 pm • link • report
But I think any cost-neutral simplification would be an improvement. I am an infrequent rider, and when I do use it I am keeping track of small children; I don't have the time or energy to precisely load the four two-way fare cards to the exact amount. Rounding the fares to the nearest quarter would make it easier to do the business at the beginning of the trip.
by goldfish on Apr 19, 2012 8:16 am • link • report
Two questions:
1] Is it fair for suburban riders to pay more in fares if they live in jurisdictions that have contributed more tax dollars to the Metro system than those closer in?
2] How are Boston & Philadelphia's subway systems paid for? (i.e. state legislature or localities)
Thank you!
by Pelham1861 on Apr 19, 2012 8:49 am • link • report
Yes, rounding to a quarter would be acceptable, too. I chose 50 cents to try and minimize the total number of possible fares, but rounding to the nearest 25 cents would also work.
by Alex B. on Apr 19, 2012 9:13 am • link • report
1. I would say yes, they are traveling further so they should pay more in fares. AND the people who drive into the city from those areas are the non-riders who benefit most from Metro (fewer cars along their route), so they should pay into the cost as well.
2. If you go to this page http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm#profiles1 you can search in that top box for any transit agency (or city) and see the funding mix. WMATA gets more revenue from fares than Boston or Philly. It also gets more local funding and less state funding, partially because I think DC is counted as "local" and not "state" and partially because WMATA gets funding from localities like Arlington/Alexandria/Falls Church, etc.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 9:13 am • link • report
While peak periods raise lots of revenue with the peak and POP fares they are also the most expensive service to operate. Off-peak service costs WMATA and other transit systems very little because the employees get paid for 8 hours of work. Since 70% of the operating cost of a typical rail transity system is labor, running midday service with employees you had to have for rush hour has little extra cost. Your arguement is a bit stronger for late nights.
Since labor is such a large portion of WMATA's costs, one way they could save money tomorrow is by running slightly fewer rush hour trains but make them all 8 cars in length. This results in the same number of seats and cars during rush hours but fewer expensive train operators.
by steve strauss on Apr 19, 2012 9:15 am • link • report
by Steve Strauss on Apr 19, 2012 9:22 am • link • report
by Dustin on Apr 19, 2012 9:55 am • link • report
by goldfish on Apr 19, 2012 10:08 am • link • report
And I live a ten minute walk from the Bethesda metro.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 19, 2012 10:49 am • link • report
CTA still has a flat fare within city limits AND various multi day/monthly passes. As to Metro being a "hybrid" subway/commuter RR--nonsense. The problem is the arbitrary set of borders in a metropolitan area. When the Queens Boulevard trunk of the NYC Subway was built, much of the area was undeveloped, now it is dense--sound familiar? MARC to Rockville is a commuter service, Metro to Rockville is the subway.
A further note, if NYC tried to institute exit swipe/tagging, the back up at major stations would strangle the system. Too bad Metro doesn't yet have the volume to make the riders revolt against exit tagging.
by david vartanoff on Apr 19, 2012 5:05 pm • link • report
by Gus on Apr 19, 2012 8:52 pm • link • report
Sure, the MTR and Beijing subway are newer than Metro, but this technology seems like a common sense solution in a system with destination-based fares. Just charge "peak" fares to anyone buying a fare card (as opposed to riders with Smarttrip here, Octopus card in HK, etc.), problem solved. We could even put a surcharge on those fares to pay for the new machines, without hitting commuters too hard.
by Ms. D on Apr 19, 2012 9:51 pm • link • report
The longest lines in Boston used to actually charge more, but that was done away in favor of a flat rate around the time of the last fare increase (2004?)
by alex on Apr 20, 2012 12:21 am • link • report
From a cost perspective, it certainly cost more to service the suburbs, but those people may the most sensitive to prices so, all else being equal, it may make sense to give them a relative discount compared to pure cost pricing.
For example, suburb people who drive to the station are more likely to just give up metro altogether and drive to work whereas people in the urban core are less likely to do so and may not even have a car. (They can bike possibly.) This may sound heartless, but it's ECON 101.
by Anony on Apr 20, 2012 7:54 am • link • report
Charge based upon jurisdiction. This keeps it relatively simple as there are only 6 of them: DC, PG, MONT, FFX, ARL, ALEX.
This means there would be 36 possible fares. This may not be "that" fair, but it could be a reasonable compromise.
by Anony on Apr 20, 2012 7:59 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Apr 20, 2012 8:50 am • link • report
by Neutrino on Apr 20, 2012 9:14 am • link • report
For a commuter, the cost of parking is part of the overall trip cost. To lower this cost, I am lucky enough to live near a Ride-On bus stop that gets me to Shady Grove. But this is again, a very limited option, since the buses do not have the same operating hours as Metro does.
I think part of the problem is that Metro ventures into predominantly car-dependant areas, where there are insufficient bus systems to make the entire system easier to use.
I agree with Fischy (Ed F.), the suburbs lack a decent commuter rail.
While visiting friends in Toronto, I was amazed how I could stay with them in the suburbs and take either a limited stop bus or train into the downtown area (similar distance as Shady Grove to Metro Center), and be there in half an hour for ~5 dollars. Didn't have to pay to park, if I used the local buses - they ran until 12am on weeknights - far more useful than the Ride-On in MoCo.
Unfortunately, the public transit systems we have in place do not work well together - other than attempting to unify the payment method accepted.
by R S on Apr 20, 2012 2:18 pm • link • report
This does lead to some interested inequities though. It costs $1.70 to travel from Braintree to downtown, a distance of about 10 miles as the bird flies, while it costs $4.25 to travel from the Roslindale commuter rail station downtown, at a distance of less than 6 miles.
by alex on Apr 20, 2012 4:36 pm • link • report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU
by Bill C on Apr 21, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report
I always thought the best solution was a big map shaped interface on the wall. At each station on the "map" is a button. Push the button and it calculates the fare to that station at that time and displays it on a small digital display. Simple. No muss. Easy to update when fares change.
by David C on Apr 21, 2012 8:38 pm • link • report
Whats the longest possible ride In New York, Chicago, Boston etc for each system present then compare those to the Washington Metro by distance then fare. I'm quite sure there are parts of the NY Subway where the trip would be longer than the Wash Metro since NYC is larger.
What is the smallest length between stations on a commuter rail how much is it compared to subways and the Washington Metro.
Why is there no mention of Metrobus or any of the local bus systems
by kk on Apr 22, 2012 5:24 pm • link • report
Places such as Tottenville on Staten Island, Far Rockaway in Queens, Little Neck in Queens and City Island in the Bronx are quite far from Manhattan are very far from each other.
They all have some type of access to the Subway and i'm willing to bet that if you measured the distance between Vienna, Rockville, Greenbelt, Franconia-Springfield from Farragut North, Foggy Bottom, Union Station, L'Enfant Plaza and Capitol South it would be about the same as Tottenville , Far Rockaway, Little Neck and City Island are to Time Square
by kk on Apr 22, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report
Fare's fair
That's more than any other system with a flat fare"
Nonsense. Toronto (where the picture with the token machine is from) has a flat fare of $3.00. Not only that, but I'm guessing it will hit $3.25 in the next year.
by ChrisC on Apr 24, 2012 10:41 pm • link • report
And the spiffy new subway trains that don't have a smelly/moldy carpet.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 24, 2012 10:56 pm • link • report
Yes, the exchange rate is even now but prices are still higher in Canada.
by MLD on Apr 25, 2012 8:28 am • link • report
No ride on TTC has ever cost me more than $3. And, again, that includes free transfers.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 9:28 am • link • report
A TTC subway ride from Finch to Union Station covers some 9 miles.
A Metro ride from Shady Grove to Metro Center covers some 18 miles.
Apples and oranges.
by Alex B. on Apr 25, 2012 9:41 am • link • report
The 501 Queen St. streetcar is 15.4 miles long. And you can transfer to rail, etc. for free.
I ride from Bethesda to Capitol South and it costs me over $4 one way. If I had to take a bus, that total doubles.
The point is to get people out of cars. People that ride transit a favor for those who do not ride transit.
You get more and pay less in Toronto.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 9:49 am • link • report
The overall length of the line isn't my point - the 501 line extends a long distance on either side of Downtown Toronto. From Long Branch to Downtown is about 10 miles. If you're going to argue that the 501 is 15 miles long, then you'd also have to acknowledge that the Red Line is 32 miles long - but that's largely irrelevant, since very few people would ride it end to end.
No. On TTC you can ride greater distances for less.
Sometimes. But other times, you can't - because WMATA's system has a broader reach.
But the larger point is this: so what?
by Alex B. on Apr 25, 2012 10:06 am • link • report
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 10:15 am • link • report
My larger point is: so what? There's nothing inherently wrong with distance-based fares. I'd be all for reducing transfer penalties as much as possible, but that doesn't seem to be at the core of your argument - which appears to be base price.
By the way: That 501 streetcar? From Long Branch to Union in Toronto via the adjacent GO train? $4.60.
by Alex B. on Apr 25, 2012 10:22 am • link • report
I ride from Bethesda to Capitol South and it costs me over $4 one way.
Why does it cost that much; the fare is only $3.80 between those stations during peak-of-the-peak.
And if you had to take a bus in addition it would add $1.
And yes, if you lived in Toronto you could take that same distance trip on the 501. And it would take TWICE AS LONG (over an hour) because it's a streetcar. Or you could take the GO train, which is faster, but it costs around the same as a Metro ride (~$4 with a monthly pass).
by MLD on Apr 25, 2012 10:25 am • link • report
Did today. There's a huge savings before 3:00pm.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 10:31 am • link • report
Right now, Montgomery County DOT is weighing plans to spend huge sums to widen I-270. It has just spent a fortune of money on the Inter-County-Connector.
This money would be better spent - by Maryland - to give long-distance commuters fare relief. We don't want them in their cars. We want them off the streets, out of our parking lots and not cutting through our neighborhoods. And it takes price pressure off gas prices for those who must drive.
Money should not be the primary determinant of Metro plans. It should be getting people out of cars because everybody benefits when fewer people drive.
People in the District would benefit by having fewer people driving into the District and parking there.
I ride both WMATA and TTC regularly and TTC is a better deal. So's Manhattan. What do they know that we don't? They don't have three competing municipalities that want the others to contribute more. THAT's the difference.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 10:34 am • link • report
No, the difference is that WMATA isn't the equivalent of TTC, but rather a hybrid of TTC and the GO Train.
I'm not sure I trust your own math on your fares. As MLD mentions, the cost for Bethesda-Capitol South is:
$3.60 regular
$3.80 peak of peak
$2.15 off-peak
by Alex B. on Apr 25, 2012 10:42 am • link • report
[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] I didn't say anything about the cost per ride if you buy many rides. There is a volume discount on nearly every system in the world.
What I said was that the flat fare for a single ride is $3.00.
by ChrisC on Apr 25, 2012 5:09 pm • link • report
No to your no. THE FLAT FARE IS $3.00. Period. End of story.
And I ride the TTC almost every day. I know that there is a volume discount (just like any system). I myself use a monthly Metropass. That doesn't change the fact that the flat fare is $3.00.
by ChrisC on Apr 25, 2012 5:12 pm • link • report
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
To be clear, the analysis of the other systems was limited to the United States. There are plenty of great things to learn from our counterparts north of the border, but the comparisons in this post are referring to systems here.
Thank you for your insight with respect to the TTC. And thanks for contributing to the discussion.
by Matt Johnson on Apr 25, 2012 5:24 pm • link • report
But the current system is also horribly confusing to people from out of town: how the cards are used, how fares work, when they work. This past week I've helped several people who were trying to add fare at Capitol South and the machine told them to see the attendant. In one case I could get more fare on their card, in another I was unable to help them and sent them to the attendant. I never had to see an attendant in Moscow, Toronto or NYC. It's VERY confusing from out of towners.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 25, 2012 5:30 pm • link • report
Sucks to be poor.
2)But if you're a suburbanite who wants to save money, You can take a bus from Potomac (T2) and transfer at Friendship for your ride downtown. $1.50 fare. Being affluent gives you options.
by Adam on Apr 26, 2012 3:12 pm • link • report
That's a lot.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 27, 2012 8:43 am • link • report
Here's a great post that summarizes the paradox of Metro: http://nqrw.tumblr.com/post/17881756025/washington-dc-not-all-metros-are-created-equal
by Phil LaCombe on Apr 27, 2012 8:51 am • link • report
I place a lot of the blame on Maryland, for putting too much money into the ICC instead of funding transit.
by Capt. Hilts on Apr 27, 2012 8:55 am • link • report
by Phil LaCombe on Apr 27, 2012 9:01 am • link • report
Add a Comment