The Virginia legislative vote is a victory for taxpayers.

Despite the WASHINGTON POST's comical Editorial this week suggesting that MWAA was 'on time and 'on budget' with the Silver Line...thinking people know otherwise. Even the POST's Metro reporters have written otherwise. It appears the POST's Editorial Board does not read their own newspaper.

Similarly Loudoun County's re-evalauation is a smart move for taxpayers as well. The price of this boondoggle may be too high for commuters to pay and while MWAA flaunts Virginia's Right To Work Laws then they have proven an unworthy partner in this whole process.

We often read here on this blog that expected tax revenues from new, and higher density, projects more than offsets concerns about the costs. Well, that is for the jurisdictions to decide. Simply because something sounds good on paper in one decade does not make it true in the next.

No doubt funding sources will be found in some form...but if not...this should be a lesson about construction for the sake of hubris over common sense...and political considerations over need.

by Pelham1861 on Apr 19, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

It's sheer insanity that they aren't building the Silver Line. London is expanding their tube, New York is building a new 2nd Ave. Line and we (Virginia) thinks it's growth has nothing to do with it's transportation links to DC.

by Thayer-D on Apr 19, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

To Thayer:

The Silver Line IS being built...just drive to Tyson's and take a look. There are funding issues that need to be resolved. This is part of the process.

by Pelham1861 on Apr 19, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

To clarify

they ARE building the silver line.

Phase one through Tysons and to Wiehle-Reston is under construction, and is excepted to be operation in December 2013, or shortly thereafter.

Fairfax County and MWAA have stated they intend to complete phase 2 to Dulles airport. The absence of additional state support will mean higher tolls on the Dulles Toll Road to pay for it than would otherwise have been needed.

Loudoun County still has the option to build it out to Ashburn, they have till July to decide - though I suspect this makes it less likely they will vote go forward.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

@ Pelham1861:There are funding issues that need to be resolved.

That is the most insincere euphemism I've seen in a long time. In 23 minutes you go from cheering for the killing of funding to calling that a funding issue. Wow. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 10:51 am • link • report

@Thayer-D: No, they'll build it. I'll even go so far as to suggest that it WILL end up going to Loudoun County. This is just so much election-year posturing. There'll be sabre-rattling, a compromise will be reached, and that will be that.

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Apr 19, 2012 11:01 am • link • report

to JASPER -

They didn't 'kill' funding. They stood up to MWAA's arrogance and cost over-runs. Very smart in my estimation.

This IS a funding issue. Virginia, Maryland & The District can decide if they do...or do not...want to fund any transportation project. Loudoun County has a whole new Board of Supervisors who requested more time to study the funding and construction documents for the Silver Line. That makes sense. No-one can 'promise' the taxpayers money if taxpayers decide some of these projects need a second look. Why would you hand MWAA a blank check based on their sorry performance so far?

by Pelham1861 on Apr 19, 2012 11:09 am • link • report

Josh Barro's atricle is just silly. His main example of how awful DC's zoning rules (the Giant case) comes from *the low-intensity zoning of that parcel*, not from any undue complexity of the regs.

by @20002ist on Apr 19, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

@20002ist

The reasoning in the article is a little silly, but the article serves as an example of why we need to do a comprehensive look at the zoning code to really decide what kind of activity we want in each part of the city.

What's silly about the Giant example in particular is that the parcel was zoned that low when there's a 9-story apartment building across the street and a four-story building kitty-corner to it. It's just ridiculous that a set people are so myopic that they prefer the amazingly ugly existing building to anything that might bring more people in.

The larger point is probably that the zoning in DC does not allow for intense enough uses (especially around Metro), so you have to go through the exemption process to build the kinds of things the city should want to have in those locations, which opens you up to the community input/childish nitpicking/screaming about design, which adds to time and cost.

by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

@MLD

There are two issues - one is the base level of the zone, and the other is about process.

For the Giant site, the base zone was not nearly dense enough. The point is that more uses and more density should be allowed by right.

On the note about process, the larger point Barro is making is that for developers to do the 'right' thing and build quality developments, they're rewarded by having to jump through extra hoops and spend more money on the process. If a PUD is the default process to build a good development, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the quality of the underlying code, is it?

So, both things matter - process and content.

by Alex B. on Apr 19, 2012 11:29 am • link • report

"Why would you hand MWAA a blank check based on their sorry performance so far?"

Phase one looks to be coming in ontime, and less than 10% over budget. Am I missing something?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

@ Pelham1861:They didn't 'kill' funding.

Yes they did. And worse. They went back on previous promises that they would.

But that was not my point. My point was that there is a massive cognitive dissonance between cheering on defunding something and then calling that 'a funding issue'.

by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

I think the people of Loudon should be wildly angry about this. If phase 2 is still built (as it should be) it appears it will be funded to an even greater extent by toll road revenues. We keep hearing these predictions of $7 each way tolls, and it looks like that is going to come to fruition, or worse if Loudon pulls funding.

Thanks Colgan!

by Kyle W on Apr 19, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

FACT: The $300M budget issue was technically for DTR toll abatement. Not Silver Line funding. The Silver Line is fully funded; the question is how much DTR drivers will have to pay.

FACT: Loudoun's Board's re-approval is contingent on whether unions get favored in the contractor bidding process for Phase II (Loudoun wants a level playing field). They have not stated that their approval (at this juncture) has anything to do with the total cost or MWAA management.

Loudoun's approval also has nothing to do with whether the state passed the $300M for DTR toll abatement. If anything, the lack of toll abatement would increase the case for Loudoun's participation since residents are going to pay the higher tolls regardless, so they might as well get two stations out of it.

FACT: The Silver Line is one of the highest returning infrastructure projects in the country. For the combined cost of Phase I and II (projected at $5.7B), Virginians get $10B in property value increases and 100K new jobs in Tysons alone. It will get built because there's so much money to be made. The only question is who pays.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report

The last detailed news article I saw on status and expenditures for Phase 1 of the Silver Line was that it was back on schedule and was on budget. The project had consumed around 60% of the contingency fund due mainly to design changes and extra costs in the early utility relocation phase. But that is what the contingency fund is for. So where is the poor management and cost overrun Pelham1861 is claiming?

As for Phase 2, the Silver Line will get built at least to Dulles. if Loudoun drops out, it will cause a delay as the agreements have to revised and resigned, the design and bid packages have to be revised before being put out for bid. 6 months or a year delay perhaps? Fortunately the maintenance facility for the Silver Line is at Dulles airport, so it should be a relatively simple matter to revise the construction plans with a stub line heading towards the Greenway at the new end of the line. Then the 2 last stations would eventually get built in a future extension phase in another decade or two. At a greater cost. Or the Silver Line gets extended to downtown Leesburg someday. Anyone who has followed the construction of the DC Metro system over the decades has seen many delays in building the original planned system due to funding and politics. So it goes.

by AlanF on Apr 19, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

Capital Bikeshare might not make an operating profit, but that doesn't matter

It matters because A) it is possible for bikesharing systems to make money and B) where bikesharing makes money, it expands at a very rapid pace.

LA is about to implement a 4000 bikesharing system that is privately funded and I believe NYC's 10,000 bikesharing system will also not lose money. Imagine how many more bikeshares we'd have in the DC area if we could at least break even. My guess is that LA/NYC are able to do better financially because of advertising which I realize is difficult for CaBi given DDOT's longstanding advertising agreements but a way must be found.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 12:14 pm • link • report

As far as I know, SmarTraveller Plus (the miserable hack of a CIS package built by ACS and selected by Montgomery County) does not have a proper mobile app, only a mobile Web site which looks like it's stuck in the early 2000s and fails to make use of more modern features like geolocation.

So, yes, technically the site is available for iPhone and Android, but then again, so is every other (well-built) Web site out there.

by Kurt Raschke on Apr 19, 2012 12:38 pm • link • report

I really want to like Muriel Bowser, since I've heard good things about how great she is at constituent service and she seems not to be a crook, but she's making it so hard for me...

There was the mindless opposition to red-top parking meters, and now she's apparently opposed to monthly passes unless they offer a discount to those who drive on the weekends? At least she has no actual power over the latter, but still. Sometimes I wish she'd listen to those who actually know something about an issue before taking a strong stand on it.

by Gray on Apr 19, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

@falls church

while the LC board has said its about unions, in fact each member can vote based on whatever concerns them. I would be surprised if the costs and benefits arent in mind when they vote.

I would tend to agree that the DTR tolls are mostly a given whether they get the stations or not (a shorter line should mean somewhat lower cost though, hence somewhat lower absolute toll contribution - since some in Loudoun see zero benefit from the stations,even a small incremental change to the toll could matter) so they might as well get the stations. However Im not sure all their constituents get that - in fact my strong impression is that many of their constituents dont. Thats going to weigh on the Board, even if the board understands whats going on.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 1:19 pm • link • report

My guess is that LA/NYC are able to do better financially because of advertising

But that isn't really making money off of bikesharing. Or it is only in part. Ads on the bikes - that's a result of bike-sharing. But ads on the stations, that isn't. There is nothing stopping DC (except their agreement with Clear Channel I suppose) from just erecting small advertising billboards all over the city and selling the ads. Bikesharing doesn't uniquely make that possible.

So it's a bit circuitous to call that "bikesharing profit."

And as I point out, making bikesharing profitable probably means some combination of fewer stations and higher fees, both of which will result in fewer members and fewer trips (but lower operating costs and higher revenue, leading to a profit).

In a sense, part of DC's system does make a profit (stations on the Mall for instance) and other parts are subsidized by that profit. Which is the right way to do it.

by David C on Apr 19, 2012 1:20 pm • link • report

"It matters because A) it is possible for bikesharing systems to make money and B) where bikesharing makes money, it expands at a very rapid pace."

If bikesharing does have substantial externalities, than a system that is making money is very likely underexpanded, and has many potential opportunities for expansion. So the notion that earning a profit is not a goal for bikesharing, and systems that make money expand, are not necessarily in contradiction.

basically you should expand till you are losing an amount of money equal to the net positive externalities

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 1:23 pm • link • report

BBut that isn't really making money off of bikesharing. Or it is only in part. Ads on the bikes - that's a result of bike-sharing. But ads on the stations, that isn't. There is nothing stopping DC (except their agreement with Clear Channel I suppose) from just erecting small advertising billboards all over the city and selling the ads. Bikesharing doesn't uniquely make that possible.

So it's a bit circuitous to call that "bikesharing profit."

First, it sounds like we agree that ads on bikes is "making money" off bikesharing and there's nothing circuitous about calling that bikesharing profit. That's how many websites on the internet work -- the website is free for users and they make money from selling ads.

Second, I'd say that ads on stations ARE a result of bikesharing. Without bikesharing, there are no stations and without stations there are no station billboards. Yes, DC could allow the erection of small billboards on places other than stations, but in practicality that wouldn't work nearly as well because A) random billboards would be much more of an eyesore than simply putting ads on stations, B) where exactly would these random billboards go such that they weren't in the way of anything yet very visible?, and C) bikeshare users are a highly coveted demographic by advertisers, hence station ads have a higher value than random billboard ads.

basically you should expand till you are losing an amount of money equal to the net positive externalities

True in theory. In practice, you expand until the public money for expansion runs out (which is a much before the ideal level of expansion or the level of expansion you'd likely achieve if bikeshare was profitable like in LA/NYC).

DC basically invented modern US bikesharing. Let's not lose the lead to places like NYC/LA because they have a superior way of financing bikesharing.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 1:43 pm • link • report

To JASPER -

I will try once more. My opening comment was that the Virginia Legislative Vote was a victory for taxpayers and it is. Anything which opens discussions about future funding and adherence to Virginia laws is a 'good thing' in my estimation.

The funding issues WILL take care of themselves if, in fact, this project is worth the $$$. I see we have more projections on here about jobs at Tyson's...but we all know job projections and traffic estimates are merely that. None of us can see the future or know if an economic downturn might derail more than Metro.

There will be a lot of claims made about this money Virginia did not approve yesterday. What's amusing is that before the vote it was all hand wringing about the project going under without the funds. Today we are told all the money is really there anyway and this was to help Dulles Toll Road commuters. Funny how things change overnight...which is why voters abhor this type of funding deception.

The project is NOT on schedule...its more than a year behind at this juncture and over budget.

by Pelham1861 on Apr 19, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report

Bowser supports passes. She wants one that offers some sort of a discount so that it's not a complete failure.

Right now the rail pass is used by less than 0.5% of riders. Once the current 10% discount is eliminated, I would expect the pass to become even less popular.

A pass that is only used by 0.5% of riders doesn't further the policy goals of having a pass available. Something's gotta change.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 19, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

there's nothing circuitous about calling that bikesharing profit.

True, I was referring only to the station ad revenue, which I've been led to understand will be larger.

but in practicality that wouldn't work nearly as well ...

I'm not sure why random billboards would be more of an eyesore and I guess you'd put these random billboards in the exact same locations as the bikeshare stations and be the exact size and shape as the billboard portion of it. It is possible that revenue from the bikeshare stations would be higher than just the billboards. So subtract the difference and that is also "bikeshare revenue."

Let's not lose the lead to places like NYC/LA because they have a superior way of financing bikesharing.

We're going to lose to them because they are much bigger and much denser.

by David C on Apr 19, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

It is possible that revenue from the bikeshare stations would be higher than just the billboards. So subtract the difference and that is also "bikeshare revenue."

Not only would the revenue from bikeshare billboards be higher, the cost of contructing the billboard would be lower. In the case of stations, the cost would be nearly zero since something already exists upon which you could stick an ad. In the case of random billboards, you first have to design this special type of random billboard that goes on the sidewalk in the same place as a station and then construct it.

I guess you'd put these random billboards in the exact same locations as the bikeshare stations

However, it's not possible to put these random billboards in the exact same place as stations...because the stations are already there. If you put the billboards in new places, you'd be taking up valuable room on the sidewalk. Putting ads on existing stations takes up no space and space in downtown DC is obviously very valuable.

We're going to lose to them because they are much bigger and much denser.

But, we are nimbler and smarter. It's not a foregone conclusion.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

In the case of stations, the cost would be nearly zero since something already exists upon which you could stick an ad.

Only because the billboard part was added in - at added cost. It isn't like a bus shelter that has to have a wall. That part is totally extraneous. They could have built a hotdog cart onto the side of it too, but that wouldn't make hotdog sales revenue CaBi revenue.

However, it's not possible to put these random billboards in the exact same place as stations...because the stations are already there.

OK. So in my hypothetical, there is either bike sharing or billboard ads. If that seems false to you, then we have bikesharing stations without the billboard part and then 1 millimeter away a billboard. The billboard part still takes up space.

It's not a foregone conclusion.

Actually, it is. We can not support - and probably don't need - a system as large as the ones NYC and LA will end up with. Nimbleness does us nothing really (and I'm not sure how you define that or determine that we are more so) and I don't know if we're any smarter. NYC DOT has some smart leadership.

by David C on Apr 19, 2012 2:21 pm • link • report

The project is NOT on schedule...its more than a year behind at this juncture and over budget.

Source please.

Here's what I've seen written about the Silver Line being on schedule:

The first phase is expected to be completed in August 2013, but it wouldn’t open for passengers until December 2013 or early 2014.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/process-to-start-second-part-of-dulles-rail-line-delayed/2012/04/18/gIQAvVUfRT_story.html

And, this is what I've seen as showing that it is only 6% over budget ($2.65B vs. the original $2.5B)

The original $2.5B (see slide 3):
http://www.metwashairports.com/file/4-Financial_Update.pdf

The $150M over budget projection:
Meanwhile, MWAA officials said the first phase of the project, which runs through Tysons Corner to Reston, will likely finish $150 million over budget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/process-to-start-second-part-of-dulles-rail-line-delayed/2012/04/18/gIQAvVUfRT_story.html

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report

Only because the billboard part was added in - at added cost.

Ok, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I thought the advertising could be put on the existing station, like on the sides and back of the structure with the keypad (it's currently just blank grey) or on the fronts of the docks (also blank grey). Sounds like you're talking about building an adjunct billboard to the station. Not sure what NYC/LA are doing.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

I thought the advertising could be put on the existing station, like on the sides and back of the structure with the keypad

On one end of each station is a 6-7 foot high billboard. It currently has CaBi info on one side and a CaBi ad or nothing on the other. That part was added in specifically for ad revenue. Ads on the keypad or other parts of the station I'll give you as "bikeshare revenue".

by David C on Apr 19, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report

I suspect what we are seeing is a version of NIMBY, this time in the transit area.

My thought is this: What will Louden County board of supervisors say if, in return for cutting off work on the Silver Line, both Fairfax and Arlington decided that no more highway expansions would be allowed through their counties. This would shut down any other solution for reducing congestion getting to/from the workplaces closer to DC.

I suspect, but I will wait to see for sure, that Louden county will be the first to demand that other counties open up more highway space for their residents to travel on.

In other words, if Louden does respond critically, then NIMBY has taken hold. No transit in my back yard, but others must change to accomodate us.

by JonathanB on Apr 19, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report

It currently has CaBi info on one side and a CaBi ad or nothing on the other.

Ah, so the billboard structure is in fact a sunk cost. While I'd agree that building more of the CaBi billboards would require a different analysis, we should replace the "CaBi ad or nothing" with revenue generating advertising.

I'd also argue that the billboard structure is a necessary part of the station because on one side you have the CaBi map and other important info. If you need to construct the structure anyway for that reason, why not generate some revenue with the unused side of the structure?

We can not support - and probably don't need - a system as large as the ones NYC and LA will end up with.

Bigger isn't better. Our system could still be better if we both copy best practices from other jurisdictions while simultaneously pushing innovation. Ways we could be better than NYC without being bigger -- better re-balancing of bikes across stations, greater ratio of residents to bikes, fewer bikeshare accidents per mile ridden. But being better requires money, hence the reason to sell advertising.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

McDonnell's just your typical train-hating Republican Gov. in the mold of Walker, Scott, Christie, Kasich, etc. This was intended as a huge middle finger to NoVa for the sin of not voting GOP. Remember McCain's election year line about "Real Virginia" vs. NoVa?

by Lawrence on Apr 19, 2012 2:58 pm • link • report

Ah, so the billboard structure is in fact a sunk cost.

Well yes. But it didn't have to be so. Or it could have been something else like a hotdog cart or porno theater. My point is that attaching another business onto the side of CaBi doesn't REALLY make it part of the CaBi business or revenue.

I absolutely agree that CaBi should sell ads, and so does everyone else, it just isn't legally possible yet because we sold all of our street furniture ad rights for new bus stop shelters and penny-whistles.

Did you mean to say "greater ratio of residents to bikes"? That sounds backwards.

Of course, I think CaBi should try to be better too and try to bring in revenue to do so. But that has nothing to do with turning a profit. I think CaBi will be better if it doesn't turn a profit and puts more money into service and lower prices.

by David C on Apr 19, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins: As quoted in the article, she was saying that any pass would have to be cheaper than the cost of 10 weekly commute trips. I disagree.

Currently the passes are underutilized because they are only reasonably priced for a small segment of long-distance travelers and they are hard to use. We apparently can't fix the hard-to-use aspect for years, but we can bring the cost down to about what commuting trips cost (or even a bit more) and attract a lot of riders to the passes. They would in fact be cheaper for anyone who also rides outside of the commute, but Bowser says that these riders are less important than those who drive at all times outside of work.

I thought that this is consistent with your own proposal.

by Gray on Apr 19, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report

"FACT: The Silver Line is one of the highest returning infrastructure projects in the country"

Generally, a 'projection' is not a 'FACT'

by Kolohe on Apr 19, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report

@Gray: I'm not sure we're reading her right.

From what I've heard in the audio, she's saying that if you price it at 40 times the cost of a one-way trip, it doesn't make sense, and you're going to have to bring the cost down to attract people.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 19, 2012 4:25 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins: That's how I was interpreting her statement, and that's what I disagree with. A monthly pass for 40 times your one-way commute is a bargain unless you only use transit to get to and from work. Those people already have price stability, so I'm not too concerned about pricing passes low enough to attract them.

I'm just not seeing why Muriel Bowser sees this as a significant problem.

by Gray on Apr 19, 2012 5:02 pm • link • report

Tell which restaurant, mortgage company, utility company, etc, will let me pay my bill in "externalities." Until then, I think a public project's inability to break even "matters."

by dcdriver on Apr 19, 2012 5:09 pm • link • report

The idea would be to give people a little bit of a discount so that people who currently only use transit for work might be encouraged to get a pass, and then they might take off-peak trips once they have the pass.

A pass that you can't buy with smartbenefits is pretty useless though. I wonder what % of active smartrip cards (used 25+ times a month) get smartbenefits of one kind or another? I bet it is very high.

by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 5:14 pm • link • report

@MLD: I could see that idea for a discount, but I think that would make it not feasible in the eyes of WMATA. And Bowser seems to be arguing something stronger: that a pass would be effectively useless unless it gave a discount to those who only use transit to and from work.

I can understand trying a discount like that, but I can also see a very reasonable argument to make for a pass that's the same price as daily commutes, but provides free nights/weekends. Yes, it doesn't benefit those who are otherwise car-dependent, but...so what?

Regardless, I definitely agree about a pass that can't be bought with smartbenefits. Pretty useless proposal.

by Gray on Apr 19, 2012 5:28 pm • link • report

@gray:

Most people don't take 40 commute trips in 4 weeks. Sick days, leave, and travel get in the way. At least, most aren't willing to put up $230 on the chance that they'll take more than 40 trips in the next four weeks.

It's been a while since I've done the survey, but I think most transit agencies sell their monthly passes (a little better than 28 days) for less than 40 trips unless there are unusual circumstances like no free transfers (LA, Miami) or exceptionally good transit conditions (NYC). This recognizes that the fares are a little higher but the passes are a little cheaper.

Passes are good to encourage people to take free trips in addition to the normal commute.

I'm grateful for the support we are getting from Bowser for passes. I'm confused why the biggest advocates for discounted long-distance passes are Bowser, Hynes and Porter rather than Barnes, Hudgins and Dyke, but I'll take what we can get.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 19, 2012 10:07 pm • link • report

Tell which restaurant, mortgage company, utility company, etc, will let me pay my bill in "externalities."

You're not a government. A government typically ends up paying for those external costs, but elsewhere in its budget; therefore, it can indeed pay its bills through savings in externalities. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

@David C: if Clear Channel's contract is anything like the average street furniture contract, it's a monopoly on public-ROW outdoor ad spaces. Apparently, it's not exactly like those, since hasn't DDOT already decided to put ads on some parts of CaBi?

by Payton on Apr 19, 2012 10:08 pm • link • report

Payton, that is exactly what Clear Channel has. But DDOT has been trying to negotiate with them on it for years. That there are no ads yet is proof that those negotiations have not finished.

by David C on Apr 19, 2012 10:13 pm • link • report

Tell which restaurant, mortgage company, utility company, etc, will let me pay my bill in "externalities." Until then, I think a public project's inability to break even "matters."

Please tell us which of the roads you drove on today "broke even."

by dcd on Apr 20, 2012 8:32 am • link • report

Please tell us which of the roads you drove on today "broke even."

Or even better, which National Park. Like CaBi they charge user fees, but like CaBi, they're subsidized. I think people get confused because CaBi operates like a business. It isn't a business though. It's public infrastructure.

by David C on Apr 20, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

@Michael Perkins: "Most people don't take 40 commute trips in 4 weeks. Sick days, leave, and travel get in the way. At least, most aren't willing to put up $230 on the chance that they'll take more than 40 trips in the next four weeks."

Then they shouldn't be getting a monthly pass. I'd just like to give them the option. If they value the stability of a monthly pass and the ability to get free/discounted off-peak travel, they can buy it; if not, they can keep paying the way they do now. If they only take transit to and from work, they already have stable monthly costs, so it's not like they would gain stability from a monthly pass.

"It's been a while since I've done the survey, but I think most transit agencies sell their monthly passes (a little better than 28 days) for less than 40 trips unless there are unusual circumstances like no free transfers (LA, Miami) or exceptionally good transit conditions (NYC)."

Aren't both conditions met here? Certainly there are no free transfers between metro and bus, and these people are already riding the metro without being given a discount.

I agree with you that we need smarter monthly passes. I would like to see them based on the maximum normal commute, and priced accordingly. I just think it's a nonstarter to insist that they be priced at a discount based on that commute, and I don't think it's all that productive anyway.

Again: why should we care about people who only commute by transit to and from work, and are determined not to change their behavior by driving less at other times? They already have stable monthly commuting expenses, so a pass wouldn't give them anything except a discount. If you want to argue that metro fares should be lower, that's one thing, but I don't see how this is involved in the discussion of monthly passes.

by Gray on Apr 20, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

"Please tell us which of the roads you drove on today "broke even."

Dulles Toll Road.

by charlie on Apr 20, 2012 9:36 am • link • report

"Please tell us which of the roads you drove on today "broke even."

"Dulles Toll Road."

That's one out of 25. I guess the rest just built themselves.

by JonathanB on Apr 20, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

@gray: It sounds like we disagree about what commute we should base this on.

You seem to want to base the pass on commuting 40 trips per four weeks, which is fine as long as you want less than 1% of people to use passes.

I would like the passes to be based on more typical commute, which is less than 40 per four weeks.

The situations that are typical for transit agencies that price their passes above 40 aren't met here. The passes wouldn't be good on bus, so the paid transfer issue isn't met, and the "exceptionally good transit" they have in NYC isn't present here. NYC also has a particular issue with fraudulent use of passes, so they have to push their multiplier up in order to deal with that.

Nevertheless, even with a multiplier of 50, NYC has a very large portion of their trips taken on passes.

We currently have a multiplier of essentially 36 for long-distance trips, and hardly anyone uses them.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 20, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

@Michael Perkins:

"We currently have a multiplier of essentially 36 for long-distance trips, and hardly anyone uses them."

I don't see how this is relevant. The current pass only makes sense for very heavy or long-distance users. New passes should take commute length into account, as you suggest.

If the passes peg total monthly costs at 40 X daily one-way commute, then I disagree that less than 1% of people will use them. In particular, large numbers of SmartBenefits users would switch from putting that amount into fares to putting it into a pass (assuming WMATA can be bothered to figure out how to make it compatible with SmartBenefits).

Yes, it's not a particularly good deal for everyone, but that's true of any pass. But given the opportunity to spend slightly more than they might spend on commuting to and from work each month but use Metro as much as they want, I believe that many people would choose the pass.

by Gray on Apr 20, 2012 12:44 pm • link • report

I was on board with a multiplier of 40 until Metro changed the deal from monthly to 28 days.

The evidence is that long distance passes offered for less than 9 trips per week aren't very popular. Based on that, I'm concluding that long distance passes offered at 40 trips every 4 weeks will also not be popular.

Since the only pass that's on the table is the maximum distance pass, I don't think it is relevant at this time to talk about passes for other distances.

If we aren't going to have passes that are at least moderately popular among people that usually take the associated trip, I don't see the point in having the passes.

The idea is to make a pass that's a no brainer. Make it like a cell phone bill, just have people pay it automatically every month.

The way you make it an automatic no brainer is to put a little discount in.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 20, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report

I think we are really arguing two different philosophies with regards to passes.

In theory, you could set the multiplier wherever you want, though I've only seen monthly multipliers in the range of 25-60. It's possible to get the same amoint of revenue either way. Higher base fare with lower multiple collects the same as lower base and higher multiple (there's a cutoff where essentially no one buys a pass, though).

by Michael Perkins on Apr 20, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins: "I was on board with a multiplier of 40 until Metro changed the deal from monthly to 28 days."

I can't believe they actually want it to be 28 days, not monthly. Surely that was just done for simplicity's sake, right? I mean, I would assume that that technicality alone makes it incompatible with SmartBenefits. And also stupid.

"Since the only pass that's on the table is the maximum distance pass, I don't think it is relevant at this time to talk about passes for other distances."

That wasn't the kind of pass Bowser was talking about, which is why I commented in the first place and followed up with other comments.

To quote the article:

For the District's short- to mid-range commuters, a cheaper monthly pass isn't possible now because the computers aren't equipped to handle the nuances of more than one type of monthly pass.

"In a few years we hope to have that capability," Sarles said.

D.C. Councilwoman Muriel Bowser said even if that were possible, riders are looking for a deal when they buy a monthly pass rather than just something that is equal to their commute.

"If I have a monthly pass where I get to pay for all my commuting trips upfront, it's like, well big whoop," she said. "[There are] a lot of people who use their car on the weekends so that doesn't benefit them."

by Gray on Apr 20, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

@Gray: I don't know the reason, I'm just told that 28 days is technically feasible and "monthly" isn't. Go figure.

In any case, 28 days means it has to be less than 40 for me.

Metro has taken any other passes off the table, so that's what I'm interested in discussing.

You say $230 for an unlimited pass if the max fare is $5.75. I say $210.

I think Bowser's point is that unless you make it worth their while, they're going to not buy the pass, and they'll continue to use the car on weekends. If you make the pass a good deal, they might buy a pass and then not use the car as much, which is what we want.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 20, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report