I strongly suspect that any saving from reducing train frequency will be crossed out by reductions in revenue.

Late night trains: over the last year, Orange line trains have been busy late night into Arlington. With DC meters on cabs, it now makes more sense to take a cab home (and get their quickly) than wait 15 minutes for a train.

Daytime trains: again, same problem.

the 6AM to 7AM and Saturdays reductions may not have much impact.

How does running less trains save money? Electricity? Staffing?

by charlie on Feb 20, 2009 8:39 am • link • report

@charlie: Reducing the frequency of trains saves on recurring maintenance costs (people), electricity, and train operators (more people).

I don't have any data about how busy trains are at certain points in the system at different times, because WMATA claimed that releasing that data would place the system at a security risk or privacy risk for customers. I can't verify with data what you're saying about how busy the late night trains are but I would probably agree because that's what I've seen too.

WMATA did include a reduction in fare revenues based on cutting back trains. For buses, they assumed people would take a different, less frequent bus. For trains, they assumed about a $1.25M loss in revenue based on eliminating $8.75M in total costs.

I redid the calculation based on increasing only Metrorail fares, a dime increase would likely be more than enough to cover the $7M remaining shortfall (Metrorail passenger revenues are about $500M with an average fare around $2.20).

by Michael Perkins on Feb 20, 2009 8:59 am • link • report

The Virginia bus line cuts are particularly onerous. I can only speak to the 9A, 10A, and 28 lines, but all of these lines have a large Spanish-speaking ridership who are unlikely to find out about cuts until it becomes too late for them. And I've never seen the 28 lines when they weren't very full at all times of the day - even on the King St to NVCC segment.

I suppose Metro thinks that it can squash lines within Alexandria, but there's little to no likelihood that DASH is going to pick up the slack on these lines.

by Craig on Feb 20, 2009 9:18 am • link • report

Although politically difficult, I think raising fares should be part of the mix. Based on research that is at least 30 years old, the demand for transit is much more sensitive to changes in convienience or in this case service levels than price.

I think Charlie's point (above) about taking a cab instead of waiting indicates that the ancient research may still be true today.

by Tom on Feb 20, 2009 9:18 am • link • report

What services duplicate the C4, the C8, and the 10A? Despite what it says on the Maryland bus map, the C2 doesn't go west of Wheaton. And the 10E only runs during rush hours, so that's not a substitute for the 10A at the times of their proposed cuts.

by Johanna on Feb 20, 2009 9:21 am • link • report

As part of this change, WMATA assumed no loss of ridership and therefore no loss of revenue.

That's a bold assumption, WMATA. If that's how you've been operating before, it's a wonder that we even have a system that's as good as it is. Yeesh.

by Alex B. on Feb 20, 2009 9:24 am • link • report

And I'll agree with Charlie and Tom's point - during the worst of the delays and any time there's been weekend/evening trackwork, I've found myself just as apt to take a cab as to ride Metro. Even when the fare would be substantially greater with a cab, I prefer to avoid having to sit idle in tunnels under the District or Arlington, especially if Metro is likely to be full of the post-bar or tourist crowd.

by Craig on Feb 20, 2009 9:27 am • link • report

thanks.

stupid wet dream: somewhere in the stimulus package the feds give WMATA a "green" power plant to supply electricity -- a long term investment but one that would help with controlling cots.

by charlie on Feb 20, 2009 9:30 am • link • report

This is an unfortunate crunch, between a recession and yet increased ridership.

by Joel Lawson on Feb 20, 2009 9:36 am • link • report

Like Craig I can attest to the 28 line being busy at pretty much all times of the day. I say cut a line like the 3T or 28T which seems pretty empty on rush hour and let people use the Fairfax Connector 425 or 427 which runs much more frequently. Also cut the "bonus" rush hour service on the 28 and let those cuts go to midday service.

by Joshua on Feb 20, 2009 9:43 am • link • report

I really hope these changes don't happen. This is just one more example of how people who already aren't resource-rich are going to get hit hard by similar budget cuts. The resources in this case are living (or working) close to the Metro or downtown. The people who will no longer have access to lines like the 42 or 80 likely do not own cars, cannot afford cabs, and are not serviced by any other public transportation. Not to mention cutting back on bus frequency sucks when many of them already run infrequently. Shame on you, Metro staff.

by Nora on Feb 20, 2009 9:43 am • link • report

If they start running trains at 15 minute intervals at 6:30pm are they still planning to charge rush hour fares until 7pm?

by inlogan on Feb 20, 2009 9:51 am • link • report

As somebody with non-standard working hours, I can say that I will not be taking Metro if these new off-peak timetables are approved. It will be worth the money to drive.

by Adam L on Feb 20, 2009 9:53 am • link • report

Nice piece.

The bite of fewer trains could be EASILY mitigated if Metro could somehow find it in itself to run on a published timetable. Apart from major delays like yesterday, there's nothing so irksome about Metro than just missing a train and having to wait 15 or more minutes for the next one. What a luxury it would be to time your arrival at a station when you knew a train was coming.

That said, I don't think Metro is capable of this very basic notion practiced by many subways around the world.

by Unsuck DC Metro on Feb 20, 2009 10:04 am • link • report

I have an idea- why make layoffs to their massive bureaucracy? Or at the very least roll back the overly generous benefits package?

by SG on Feb 20, 2009 10:08 am • link • report

I like Jim Graham's proposals, particularly the parking fees and retail outlet suggestions. Considering that meter rates have been raised downtown (and maybe should be again), I wouldn't forsee a huge increase in driving downtown if parking fees were implemented in the 'burbs (especially on weekends). As for retail outlets, this is something I really think WMATA should investigate further. Being familiar with SEPTA in Philly and the T in Boston, I know that adding retail is certainly possible (particularly in spaces as cavernous as the ones run by WMATA), and could certainly help add revenue. The problem would be costs associated with getting any sort of amenity started. I can imagine the bureaucratic wrangling right now...

by JTS on Feb 20, 2009 10:08 am • link • report

Just my .02 on a single point to get it out there and "in print." I ride the 60. The 64 is really not an option for me at all. It goes nowhere near my house. It would be closer for me to walk to the metro than to walk to the stop for the 64. I totally oppose the idea of cutting the 60. If anything, the 60 doesn't run often enough - the last run of the day is 6:40pm. This means that any trip out in the evening requires me to drive to metro or take a cab. Even though it's a 1/2 mile from my house, the walk is not safe alone after that hour.

by the totten. on Feb 20, 2009 10:21 am • link • report

Defer funding WMATA's unfunded health insurance fund by $4M for an additional year.

i'd like to hear more about this. how is WMATA employees' health insurance currently funded?

by jenny on Feb 20, 2009 10:35 am • link • report

@ Jenny --without knowing more, I'd assume that is for retiree benefits that they know they will have to pay one day, but not yet.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am • link • report

I'm saddened to hear a reduction in service starting at 6:30 pm. Service during these "shoulder" periods is already insufficient. For example, there's an abrupt change from 6- to 12-minute headways even though ridership is still quite high after 7 pm. Now they're proposing to make it even worse. With an agency clamoring to have people spread out their commutes, it's illogical to make it even more difficult for them to do so.

by nashpaul on Feb 20, 2009 10:46 am • link • report

A majority if not all of the current problem is a result of over generous contracts with the employee unions. Pensions, health care, retirement packages etc. Why not try to solve the problem by addressing what is causing the problem? I'm not talking about a token give back as proposed, but rather fundamental changes in the contracts. That is the only way the problem is going to be fixed long term. Otherwise, we will simply have a gradual deterioration in service just as we've seen over the last 20 years. Those of you who have lived in the area for 20+ years probably remember the pride we all used to have in the metro system. That pride is long gone and everything about the system just gets alittle worse every year. Things will only change for the better if we address the fundamental financial issues that the system has as a result of overly generous union contracts. Otherwise, we are all just fighting a losing battle.

by pct on Feb 20, 2009 10:48 am • link • report

How many of the bus cuts have addition service nearby that would sort of take care of the problem.

If you discontinue the C8 route it would make people take you like 5 or 6 different bus to get you where your going if that route is discontinued.

Since they want to get rid of the C4 could we reroute the C2 through PG Plaza Station and extended it to Twinbrook

Getting rid of the 60 will cause people to drive there would be no bus service between Hawaii Ave and Riggs Rd on North Capitol there are many houses and apartments over there and there is no way you could walk to catch a 64 since a cemetery is blocking any way of getting there.

If they axed the L4 some people will be pissed off having to walk over the bridge

Doing anything to the W13,W14,P17& P19 will cause more people to drive pain and simple

Why not discontinue the N6 replace it with the N4; so that you have the N2,3 and 6

Can someone please tell me why the E6 isnt on the discontinue list we could either reroute a E2,3,4 or M4 up to Knollwood. via Western Ave.

Heres my list for what they could get rid of

All Y buses except for the Y9 just run more Y9's and reroute it into Lesiure World and Norbeck Park and Ride.

89M same as 89 but goes to the Park and rid lot

R5 same route as R2

E6 we could reroute any other E bus to the route

W3 same route as W2

N6 basically same as N4

B8 same route as B9

E4 same as E3 but shorter

J3 same as J1 and J2

F1 or F2 discontinue one keep the other

M2 just extend the damn M6 to Naylor Rd

M8 or M9 there the same route one going clockwise and the other counterclockwise

Raise the bus fare to 1.40 for smartrip and cash

by Kk on Feb 20, 2009 10:49 am • link • report

raise bus fares to 2 bucks for cash, as previously planned!

by Tom A on Feb 20, 2009 11:43 am • link • report

@Jenny, I think WMATA is funding these benefits on a current basis as opposed to building up a reserve to pay for them in the future.

@JTS, it's a good proposal for FY2011, but for 2010 it has to be operating and producing revenue by July to help.

@Unsuck DC Metro: I've found they actually stick to the schedule for trains pretty well. I have a train schedule posted above my computer here at work and I know exactly which train to catch so that I can get to my connecting bus on time. 90+ % of the time it's right on the money. Perhaps you should be using the online "next train" service available here. During the CSOS committee meetings, WMATA typically reports 93-95% on-time metrorail percentages (though I do have a beef with how they measure it!)

@inlogan: I've made this case before to WMATA but I don't believe they will budge. The decisions about when to collect rush hour fares and when to run rush hour headways appear to be completely disconnected. And in this case that would result in a huge revenue loss, so they'll not likely do it.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 20, 2009 11:46 am • link • report

I remember a few weeks ago when massive service cuts were announced by "staff", the consensus was that "staff" are prohibited from talking about things like raising fares, and can only suggest things like cuts. Is this another situation where the staff can't recommend the things that make the most sense, and we all have to wait for the board members to swoop in like heroes and save Metro service?

by Eric on Feb 20, 2009 1:55 pm • link • report

I would propose referring to the increase in "headways" for Metrobus routes as what it really is -- reduced frequency and therefore a cut in bus service. I'm surprised to see that several crowded bus routes (14th & 16th buses in DC, the 16s in VA) are on the list -- these are buses that sometimes pass by stops with people waiting because they are too full to pick up any more passengers. While the targeted increase in headways appears to be small (approx 5 min), I think that the increased wait time combined with increased crowding are going to make for some very unhappy bus riders.

by DC_Chica on Feb 20, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report

Assume $5M more revenue from the elimination of bus transfers due to the reduction in fraud

Hang on - 5 Million?! At 50-cents a transfer, that means that roughly 10 million rides would have had to have been fradulent before that are no longer. That's over 7% of all bus rides?

by Just161 on Feb 20, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report

@Just161 - The abuse is more likely of free bus-to-bus transfer slips.

by Josh Barro on Feb 20, 2009 2:44 pm • link • report

@Kk

I can only speak to the N routes:

The N3 is a rush hour only route from Friendship Hieghts to Federal Triangle. The N6 is a weekend and evening route that takes place of the N2 and N4. So if you axe the N6 and just run the N4 instead, you would just shave off some distance on the N6's (and also N2's) Idaho/Cathedral/New Mexico leg, so the savings would be minimal. Meanwile, eliminating the N3 will mean people will now have to transfer to Metro at Faragut West to get to Federal Triangle. Essentailly, the N3 is the easiest to get rid of.

by Steven on Feb 20, 2009 3:02 pm • link • report

Just161: It's actually people getting a free ride based on a fraudulent bus-to-bus transfer. So they're saving $1.25.

Also, there are people that won't get a Smartrip card, so they'll end up paying twice. It's not all fraud.

WMATA claims that MBTA, a similar size system, eliminated paper transfers and gained $15M for the year. WMATA originally figured $5M, and the board's committee asked them to reduce conservatism and assume $10M instead.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 20, 2009 3:17 pm • link • report

After hours cuts will definitely push me more towards cabs and walking, and fare increases will encourage more driving. These are not good times to be a public transit rider.

by eriks on Feb 20, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report

I would like to protest this nonsense of making a difference between paying by cash and smarttrip. I use smarttrip for ease, and because my employer puts money in it.

However, I strongly object to the disqualification of cash as a method of payment.

Cash is legal tender. Cash is what the government puts out as money. It is the purest and most tangible form of money available to the public.

It is a bad thing that the public is forced more and more to keep its money in 15 different stashes. For metro, it needs to be on a smarttrip. Starbucks prefers their card. My employer likes me to put my money on my employee-ID. Pre-tax health money goes on a separate pass. How many different kinds of payment methods do I need to carry around? This is what cash was invented for!

Yes, I know cash can be cumbersome, and there are plenty of reasons where it's unpractical. But cash is legal tender, and nobody should be allowed to charge you more for paying in cash.

Amen and have a good weekend.

by Jasper on Feb 20, 2009 10:25 pm • link • report

@Jasper: It's an understandable point. However:

Cash transactions slow down boarding on vehicles, especially on bus. For the Metrobus system, cash is not abstracted into a more rapidly verified form like a magnetic strip card as they do in NYC, or a token as they do in Philadelphia, or a prepaid receipt as they do in Portland (for streetcar, at least), payment is at boarding, lengthening boarding times especially at popular stops. Slow buses inconvenience riders, as well as increase system operating and capital costs for the same headway, because more vehicles are required to service the line at a lower speed.

Cash is more expensive to process. The recent FAO committee meeting discussed the reduction in system costs based on more transactions happening via credit and debit cards. The less cash WMATA has to handle, the fewer "revenue processing technicians" they have to pay to sort stacks of bills, the fewer security guards they have to pay to guard the cash being transported through the system, the fewer farecard machine runs they have to make to collect the cash, etc. Even the "money train" could make fewer runs if people use less cash. There are processing fees for credit and debit cards (higher for credit, if you want to save WMATA money, use a debit card), but overall it appears that the costs of handling cash are worse, according to statements at the meetings I've heard.

Because handling cash is more expensive for WMATA, it makes sense for WMATA to bear the cost of developing cashless systems (rather than amortize the cost of administering Smartrip onto its users, WMATA paid those out of operating and sells the cards for near cost).

Because conducting cash transactions on bus slows down bus speeds and inconveniences the rest of the riders on the bus as well as the people at downstream stops that are waiting for buses, (and long dwell times at stops contribute to bus bunching), it makes sense to encourage faster forms of payment like Smartrip especially on bus. A small cash discount also has the effect of repaying you for your cost of purchasing a Smartrip card.

We're not disqualifying cash as a method of payment. If you have cash and want to ride a bus, WMATA will happily take your money. However, to reflect the increased costs that up until 2007 WMATA just ate and the other bus riders just lived with, they're going to charge a premium (less than 10%).

If you look at bus costs alone, with conservative assumptions a cash transaction wastes 4 cents of everyone's time. Assume 10 riders with an assumed value of personal time of $6 per hour, a bus with operating cost of $80 per hour (source: Examiner article about replacing Metrobus with regional operated bus), a time savings of one second for cash opposed to Smartrip (it's really closer to two seconds based on the WMATA video on the topic). 1 second of everyone's time is worth 4 cents.

With more reasonable assumptions (25 passengers, bus costs of $100 per hour and 2 seconds of delay, same assumed passenger wage rate), time costs increase to 14 cents, which is close and a little bit over the current 10 cent discount for Smartrip, and this doesn't factor in the costs of processing cash.

Regarding those other little bins of money, each of those must offer you some sort of benefit or you wouldn't use them.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 21, 2009 1:08 am • link • report

Very disappointed.

Does anyone know what this means? "Shorten the 42 bus between McPherson and Metro Center,"

by Jazzy on Feb 21, 2009 8:05 am • link • report

"Cash transactions slow down boarding on vehicles, especially on bus."

This bothers me too, Jasper (Michael wrote the sentence above)

It really bothers me.

Michael, you were around 10 years ago, right? At that time the machines they had processed cash transactions super quick. They even took pennies. So the cash transaction takes time line can be flipped to: the new machines are really inefficient at processing cash transactions and need to be improved.

Try to think of EVERYONE who lives in Washington, DC, not just people like you and me who comment on blogs.

Sorry for the snark - I'm just royally P*#&ed at this.

I never ride the subway, but to claim my employer benefits, can I do it on your super efficient smart card bus reader machines? No. I must "waste" my time and go down into a subway station.

by Jazzy on Feb 21, 2009 8:10 am • link • report

Cutting back service is a stupid idea that's honestly intended to pad the salaries of Metro bureaucrats.

Is it my imagination or do I see hundreds of man hours being spent to service broken escalators, escalators that could just be turned off? There are numerous stops that have short escalators. It doesn't have to be the long ones like Dupont Circle, but the shorter ones. It's like a job security blanket for a lot of Metro staff.

Also, let's recruit some nice Travelers Aid society retired ladies to staff the kiosks like at the airport. I swear your going to get better service than the current bloated and overpaid staff.

Metro keeps going downhill at a time when it's needed more, not less. I call that bad management and poor regional political leadership and foresight. Let's boot these people out of office! Let the workers unite!

TJ

by TJ on Feb 22, 2009 1:03 am • link • report

I notice that drivers on the X2 often have to let people on for free using the back door. The front is just too packed on those buses, and in order to actually move the bus, it makes since for him or her to use the back door as well.

It DOESN'T add revenue though.

by Tom A on Feb 23, 2009 3:28 pm • link • report

::wince::

Cutting the C4 to a Wheaton-Twinbrook route is really shortsighted. I haven't ridden it that much in the past few years, but it used to be part of my commute, and there seemed to be an awful lot of other people using it to cross eastcounty-westcounty. If we trimmed the route, all of those people would need to transfer at Wheaton, which is problematic; the C4 isn't the most frequent bus. (Every 20min at-peak, every 30 off-peak.)

It's true that the C2 duplicates its route between Wheaton and Langley Park, but IIRC there was enough demand to justify the duplication.

by Betsy-the-muffin on Feb 24, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report

I don't think ANY cuts are acceptable! They need to find some other solution; hell I'd pay slightly more in fare if they keep the trains running with REASONABLE headways (and 12-15 minutes is the bare miniumum a headway should be!)--If these people on the board rode Metro more often they'd see that service cuts aren't the answer... They could cut in the area of cars they run however, why not run 4-car trains all weekend, that's a lot less energy needed ($$$), and during very slow times, why not just run two car trains? That would use only 1/3 of the power and save on car/track ware issues.

by Matt on Feb 26, 2009 9:14 am • link • report

For the past two days I have boarded the 50 lines on 14th Street, and attempted to swipe my SmartCard unsuccessfully only to be told to board anyway. I then watched everyone else that boarded trying to use SmartCards to be given a free pass as well. This is not the fist time this has occurred and I am sure this is costing metro 1000's daily in uncollected fees.

Is this a common occurrence? If so what is the frequency, I hate to see all the discussion about cuts in service, when I see such innefficiency in equipment operations.

Scott Pomeroy

by Scott Pomeroy on Mar 3, 2009 6:22 pm • link • report

One thing that confounds me is why politicians are so short sighted...when will they learn that slashing budgets DOES NOT SOLVE MONEY PROBLEMS! oh sure for right now it might help a little bit, but in the long run, it will hurt ridership and cost even more to re-implement the cut services when they realize they've halved the riders because of the cuts. Instead, WMATA must focus on INCREASING REVENUE, in the grand scheme of things this will be far more beneficial than simply cutting the budget. Budget cuts should at least be reasonable, and some of these Metro has proposed are NOT reasonable. Maybe running 4-car trains would cut back on power usage, but still provide decent headways. Instead of laying off mechanics (43 at last count) who are needed to keep the already poorly maintained trains running, they should be cutting budgets to the board members and some of the other fat cats in the Jackson-Grahm building who are not needed for operational needs (administrators, "assistants", etc.) Other options might include working a little harder to get dedicated funding (get some lobbyists or powerful allies)--and what about this stimulus money Metro claims to be getting? Why not make a case to divert those funds to the budget hole? I refuse to think that WMATA is doing all they can do to avoid cutting service, I see through that guise, cutting service is quick and easy and doesn't require much effort on their part... but WMATA, you will find in the end that you are shooting yourselves in the foot by cutting service; which will, in the end, run off people who can drive and heavily frustrate those of us who can't and are forced to use your continually degrading system! What a shame too because I'm one of your biggest defenders when people go ranting unobjectively, but even I can't support WMATA through poorly planned cuts like these.

by matt on Mar 4, 2009 10:20 am • link • report

I have started a Facebook page related to the DASH and Metrobus cuts in Alexandria (and Arlington, on the 10A). Please consider joining my group.

by Kim Kaplan on Apr 8, 2009 7:33 pm • link • report