At first I thought I was reading the time of this post incorrectly, but then I realized that is IS after noon already. I arrived at work 90 minutes late due to red line delays today. I wish they had just said "There was an explosion on the tracks cause by the brakes, and no trains will be moving through that area for an hour. I would have found a bus to take. But no after 15 or 20 minutes they announced single tracking. So... I spent a total of 75 minutes waiting at a variety of metro stations, before finally giving up at Union station and taking the circulator downtown. They were ZERO tracking at least until 10am.

So yeah, not surprised ridership is way down. If this keeps up, many people will just move back to their cars, (apparently many already have) and metro will predominantly be ridden by the lower classes.

by Tom A. on Oct 6, 2009 12:26 pm • link • report

I think Metro needs a $500K study to determine why ridership is down. The consultant will conclude that the seat colors on Metro trains are the primary cause.

by SJE on Oct 6, 2009 12:50 pm • link • report

I think Metro needs a $500K study to determine why ridership is down. The consultant will conclude that the seat colors on Metro trains are the primary cause.

by SJE on Oct 6, 2009 12:51 pm • link • report

Michael correctly notes that revenues are down but I would also note that expenses were also above budget--at least partially due to overtime costs for bus and rail in the aftermath of the June 22 accident--mostly for month of July. In August, things stabilized a bit with rail revenues and expenses meeting budget projections while bus (probably driven more by high unemployment in the District) continued to lag projections although by much less than occurred in July. Metroaccess costs continue to increase in both months.

by kreeggo on Oct 6, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report

The time for riders to revolt and demand change is now. Metro is very battered and an inquisitive public full of rage going after their backwards, non-transparent selves which is paying for not doing maintenance in 1985 will be the only catalyst for change.

If public rage could kill companies before (see the Long Island Lighting Company post-Hurricane Gloria), it could be what kills Metro and what leads to Metro reform. Who is with me in starting a rider revolt?

(of course none of you are...)

by Jason on Oct 6, 2009 1:03 pm • link • report

there's also been a small but significant increase in bicycling, whichy eats directly into transit ridership. Bike share systems like Smartbike tend to have a multiplier effect on bicycle use, but it's also a national trend of increased cycling.

keep in mind that while gas prices are low, they are going back up gradually... as we speak! Plus, the unemployment rate may still be going up, but it's going to turn around in the DC area first - the losses have already slowed significantly.

by Lee Watkins on Oct 6, 2009 1:10 pm • link • report

I am with you Jason. Just tell me where to sign/ where to be, and you'll have my full support.

I think another issue, which is sort of chicken / egg, is the egregious headways on Metro these days depressing ridership. Three years ago, whether Metro will ever admit to this or not, the heaways were about 25% less on offpeak and weekends. And I'd say that's a conservative estimate. 18 minute headways on busy weekends is absurd. Even the MARTA in Atlanta is far, far more frequent. It's a bad system overall because of how it was planned and implemented, but with none of the chronic service issues of Metro.

by SG on Oct 6, 2009 1:16 pm • link • report

Okay, how about Metro just admits it: "We offer the worst service in the country for the highest fares per distance traveled in the country and are simply amazed that even though we're the monopoly provider of mass transit*, people are choosing the frustration of driving over us."

Don't kid yourself, Metro. Go ahead and blame everything else. It's your own damn fault.

*: Mass transit, when available, and not usually.

by VRN on Oct 6, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report

SG--do you have a cite on actual headways? I've noticed that weekend trains are more crowded now than in the past, but I'd love to see a good breakdown of the numbers.

by Dan Miller on Oct 6, 2009 1:21 pm • link • report

Okay, how about Metro just admits it: "We offer the worst service in the country for the highest fares per distance traveled in the country and are simply amazed that even though we're the monopoly provider of mass transit*, people are choosing the frustration of driving over us."

If you really think this, you've never had to rely on MARTA, BART or the T, or use the NYC Subway after 11PM.

by цarьchitect on Oct 6, 2009 1:26 pm • link • report

Count one who (mostly) ditched Metro for a bike. It's about 45 minutes regardless of how I go (counting walking to/from the station) and I prefer being outside and getting exercise over being shoved into some dude's armpit while getting run over by a stroller full of a screaming toddler.

Once you add in the fact that the bike is free (vs. $6/day on Metro) and doesn't leave me at the mercy of a transit system that, more often than not in recent months, does pretty much anything BUT what's advertised.....the bike's a no-brainer.

by Catherine on Oct 6, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

I commute from G'town to Silver Spring. Its FASTER by bike (~45min down the CCT) than by Metro, even without all the delays.

by SJE on Oct 6, 2009 2:39 pm • link • report

@SG Have you tried to get on one of MARTA's stations at an end point on weekends? I once waited 25 minutes on a bright, sunny, Saturday afternoon for a train at Airport when in that time there should be a Yellow Line/Doraville or a Red Line/North Springs train every 10 minutes. How about the 15 minutes I spent waiting on a yet-to-leave train at North Springs?

The late night service patterns with Marta also are odd. I can understand the Bankhead situation, but there should at least be some trains going from Airport to North Springs rather than force the transfer at Lindburgh Center.

I will give MARTA's slightly later closing time (plus the monthly passes/Google equation that 95% of good sized TA's do but WMATA is scared of), but not much else.

(I have family up in Forsyth County [Atlanta's Loudoun!], I'm quite familiar with MARTA from having taken it to/from the Airport and, ugh, Braves games.)

by Jason on Oct 6, 2009 3:06 pm • link • report

Now that gas prices are down, people are moving back into their cars.

All along, people wanted to drive because its a fact that people prefer driving to sitting with freaks and weirdos on the subway.

Now that the prices are low enough, people's true preferences are revealed.

Have a good time subsidizing a sinking ship, transit fans!

by MPC on Oct 6, 2009 3:22 pm • link • report

The biking thing is truly extraordinary. I can't believe that it takes me, a moderate cyclist, less time (like, 10 minutes less) to bike the 11 stops to work than it does to take metro (and over three miles of that ride are uphill!). I would be completely with Jason on a rider's revolt if I still considered myself a rider.

Metro is really going off the deep end. It took some of my coworkers an extra 60 minutes to get to work today because of that fire. 60 minutes!

I wouldn't be surprised to see another temporary uptick in biking/driving now that congress is passing continuance resolutions for some major agencies (including DoD). Continuance resolution funding means that only payroll and overhead (and a few other small things) are covered. Say goodbye to the transit benefit until funding is restored.

by JTS on Oct 6, 2009 3:50 pm • link • report

I'd like to go on record as someone who would rather sit back, relax, and read a magazine among my fellow humans than deal with the stress of driving. (Freaks and weirdos? What an ignorant statement.) There are no facts here--only personal preferences.

A fare increase would not be uncalled for. The base fare seems rather low, and lower fares don't compensate for bare-bones service. I too have noticed the pitiful headways during off-peak (and even rush-hour) periods. I would like to see an increase in both fares and service.

I can't help but think that an increase in driving will be short-lived. We've been through this before, and gas prices will increase again.

by Matthias on Oct 6, 2009 3:55 pm • link • report

I continue to favor a substantial fare increase. I believe that Metro is currently underpriced compared to value, and that user fees are both the most stable and most just way to fund a transit system. It's unrealistic to expect 100% of Metro's budget to come from fares, but it the farebox return ratio could be a lot higher than it is today.

While there are equity concerns regarding transit pricing, it's more appropriate to provide need-based transit assistance to low income people than to hold down pricing for everyone. Most Metro users can afford to pay more than they do today. This is why we have the food stamp program instead of broad-based food subsidies (well, some foods are broadly subsidized, but they shouldn't be). Of course, it would be possible to dedicate part of the revenue from a fare increased to greater transit subsidy for low-income people, making Metro's funding structure more progressive while raising additional revenue.

I also think that there are steps that WMATA should take on the cost-control side, including taking a tougher line on employee compensation in contract negotiations, though that's a longer-term issue that can't be fixed for contracts already in place. Some services could also be made more efficient, for example through consolidation of bus routes and bus stops. But the insistence on maintaining low, low fares for all (and holding fare growth below expense growth) is the key driver behind Metro's perpetual budget crisis.

by Josh B on Oct 6, 2009 5:38 pm • link • report

Putting aside any comments about "freaks" etc. The reality is that a majority of people would rather drive then take Metro. With gas prices down, driving becomes, for many, a more preferred option. Remember several points, 1) DC parking rates are very low compared to other cities, and many buildings (federal buildings etc) offer free parking; 2) DC has no toll to enter the city from any direction (for example tolls into NYC average about $8 per day); and 3) traffic in DC (the city), even at its worst, is actually very manageable. Certain roads (66, Beltway, etc) are horrible, but there are many manageable commutes.

That is not a recipe for getting people out of their cars and onto the trains.

by metronic on Oct 6, 2009 6:42 pm • link • report

I have the luxury of living and working near two different VRE stations, so lately I have given up riding Metro to work in the morning and will probably do so on evenings when I'm not attending events downtown.

I read a comment somewhere about how disturbing the lurching is anymore now that the Metro trains are under manual control. And I have to concur that it doesn't inspire confidence that all the drivers really know how to drive the trains.

But what truly gives me angst is the "dead stop" in the middle of a tunnel with no announcement of the reason. We sit; we wait; the car gets warmer; sometimes the lights go out. Frankly, it's awful, especially with mild claustrophobia.

Accordingly, I don't mind paying almost twice as much for VRE. It's clean, reasonably quiet, and mostly on time. They're excellent with their announcements when there are problems. I'd be thrilled if Metro were run half as well.

by Craig on Oct 6, 2009 7:33 pm • link • report

Sell the whole thing. Get out of the train business.

by JAY on Oct 6, 2009 8:32 pm • link • report

After nearly missing the start of an important BZA hearing this morning because of the latest Red Line snafu, I once again sympathize with those who have given up on Metro.

For a transit system to be successful, it must be both safe and efficient. I'm not certain about the former, but I'm damned sure Metro is not the latter.

by Mike Silverstein on Oct 6, 2009 8:51 pm • link • report

Josh B is in favor of a fare increase because, he asserts, "the majority of riders could afford it." Perhaps so, but the majority of riders can choose to not take Metro at all. For commuters who park at the metro stations, for example, you must consider the cost of parking at the metro station, plus the fare. Metro is not much cheaper than driving and parking in DC (which also gets a tax credit).

Then you must add the cost of time: most of the people who "could afford" a fare increase probably cannot afford the terrible delays that have plagued metro the last few months. Frankly, its worth the $14 parking to save the extra hour it costs me to take the Metro: thats time I don't get to see my family. Its also worth $14 to keep my appointments, and not lose my job because of some stupid delay.

I say all this as someone who deliberately chose a house so as to be walking distance (1 mile) from a Metro station (Silver Spring, FYI). I don't take Metro any more, but ride my bike or drive.

Unless Metro service improves, Metro will continue to lose riders.

by SJE on Oct 6, 2009 9:42 pm • link • report

I'm a freak and weirdo, and I want better transit.

by Gavin Baker on Oct 6, 2009 10:47 pm • link • report

After I read through all the comments I had forgotten what this article was about and had to check. I'll start with my on-topic comment:

I'm surprised to hear ridership has declined. Metro seems packed all the time I ride, weekday rush hours (usually 9am-10am) and the few times I've ventured onto Metro on the weekend it's been packed to the gills with gawking suburbanites and their endless double wide baby carriages.
But, if ridership actually is lower, I can believe it given all the trouble and mismanagement that Metro has displayed this year. Frankly I work from home if it's raining, I'll do it this winter if H1N1 is bad, or if it's too cold, and I work from home if the sms alerts look like Metro is just having a crappy morning.
I got the alerts this morning and discounted them thinking, as usual, that they were overblown. Yeah well, I should have stayed home today too.

Now my off topic comment:
Talking about raising fares to increase revenue and other ways to try to find revenue to save by restructuring service, I've become interested in ideas I've seen for bus transit. Like eliminating left turns, spacing stops 1/4 mile or 4 blocks apart (whichever is farther), and then really interesting ideas like traffic light bus priority (so the light switches to green as the bus approaches so it doesn't have to stop), and true express busses between locations. I'm not sure what I think about bus only lanes since it restricts use, but if the bus frequency was high enough then it would make good sense.

by James on Oct 6, 2009 11:59 pm • link • report

Josh B's comments are right on the money- Metro needs to raise fares, and especially the cash Metrobus fare. There should probably be a peak-of-the-peak fare increase also, but sadly it might not yet be possible due to SmarTrip software limitations(but that's another story).

On the cost control issue, union employee compensation needs to be brought under control, but who knows what that actually means?! Light must be shined on this issue, but the WMATA BOD is gutless; maybe the RAC will take on the issue, but the public- folks like those in this forum, need to show that they are interested.

Anyone who thinks that the current low(and getting lower) gas prices will be permanent hasn't been paying attention. This is just a cycle, and gas prices will surely rise again, bringing knee-jerk folks back from their cars and onto Metro bus and rail. However, that will not be the saving grace for Metro's budget woes. Again, fares will have to rise, but more importantly, the contributing jurisdictions must pony up with significantly increased subsidies.

Not likely, you say? Well, it will take political will, that's all. One more time- folks like those on this site that recognize the value of public transportation to ALL OF US must step up, must insist of our elected officials that more money be dedicated to transit, or else, there'll just be more of the same. In my opinion...

by KevinM on Oct 7, 2009 7:00 am • link • report

You guys are financial geniuses.

You really think the way to counter declining ridership is by raising fare?!?

by MPC on Oct 7, 2009 9:33 am • link • report

@MPC: You sound anti-transit to begin with, anyways Metro's fares are artificially low (especially on the bus side) compared to other cities and could stand to be raised. Baltimore pays $1.60 for a fraction of the service we get and most of the other major TA's are above the $2 threshold for base fare.

I would hold steady on the peak hour fares to throw commuters a bone and hike the off-peak fares and the bus fare. $1.50/$1.75 for Metrobus and a $1.50/$2.00/$2.50 offpeak Metro fare structure would be reasonable.

by Jason on Oct 7, 2009 9:44 am • link • report

@ all the price increasers: And how often do you personally get hit by any of the price increases you suggest?

by Jasper on Oct 7, 2009 9:48 am • link • report

Raising fares is better than reducing service. If you raise fares, people can still choose to take the service. If the service isn't there, they don't have much choice.

by BeyondDC on Oct 7, 2009 9:55 am • link • report

MPC, you're missing the point. They wouldn't be raising fares to counter declining ridership, they'd be raising fares to close a budget gap. They'd be preserving service in order to preserve ridership.

by Alex B. on Oct 7, 2009 10:11 am • link • report

@Jasper: I would see a 15-cent increase in off-peak Metro fare and a 25-cent increase in Metrobus fare to not be that bad. I buy a weekly bus pass and usually use the Metro nights and weekends so unless the bus passes were hiked accordingly it would be of limited increase to me. I'm atypical though.

My former home TA (a medium sized agency) hiked all fares 50% earlier this month after having kept their cash fare low for years. My co-home TA prior to that has seen their fare jump $1.00 in 3 years in an area with poor transit and limited service. What I propose is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

I know that it would go against the intent of Metro when it was built, but I wonder how a flat fared $2.00 fare for all Metro services (with free transfers) would work out. Would ridership increase to the breaking point on the rail end or would the revenues fall even more?

by Jason on Oct 7, 2009 10:38 am • link • report

The last thing we need is more pompous bikers riding around.

by Zac on Oct 7, 2009 11:12 am • link • report

It's easy to upper-middle class urban professionals to chirp about the benefits of raising transit fares. What recession?

Ask the folks in Southeast how they'd like fare increases. Oh yes, I forgot, they're outside the realm of urbanist planning. I recall a GGW dinner party at Alpert's place last year, and if I recall correctly, the breakdown of the attendees mirrored the breakdown of race in DC.

by MPC on Oct 7, 2009 11:47 am • link • report

@Jason, you'd likely see revenues decline. Most metro revenue comes from rail, which has about a $2.50 average fare. The price discrimination metro uses by charging more on-peak and distance based is an effective means of increasing revenue without affecting ridership.

@MPC: I don't love higher fares, but I dislike losing service. If the local jurisdictions are going to hold subsidy constant (actually declining in real terms), then something else has got to give.

Once the 2010 budget is finally released (going on two months late now) I'll work on an update of my budget analysis.

I also need to get an update of the bus performance metrics for FY 2009 and the per-line on-time performance records.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 7, 2009 12:05 pm • link • report

Given that for most people in the lower middle class who ride the bus has had NO real wage growth in the past 10 years (if you factor in inflation and health care costs, they saw a DECLINE in purchase power), it boggles the mind that many of you are suggesting a 50% fare increase as though it'd wouldn't hurt. Yes it would hurt, it would hurt a lot for many.

So no, Metro fares haven't kept pace with inflation, but neither have the wages of many people who take Metrobus!

by Wes on Oct 7, 2009 12:41 pm • link • report

@MPC: Are there any other cities that have a fare subsidy for areas of high poverty a la the one in place in much of Southeast? I don't see such a bone being tossed to their siblings-in-arms in the South Bronx, or Mattapan, or the South Side of Chicago, why should we keep it going for them? In the case of case 1 and 3, those people pay 3x to ride the bus in their neighborhood than the poor person in Southeast.

Sometimes harsh economic realities trump altruism. Never have I seen a city that has let its poor dictate fare policy for all. Of course, this is also the city that practices price discrimination on its rails, ended monthly and multimodal passes, and wants to spend $500,000 to find out how to take something that's free.

DC would be so much better if it had competent transit. RTA please!?

by Jason on Oct 7, 2009 12:58 pm • link • report

I can support raising fares if they also improve service. While more $ should, in theory, improve service, there are things they can do now that do not cost money. Giving Google access to transit data. Streamlining the review and hiring/firing process. End the work rules that allow the most experienced bus drivers to drive the easiest routes, which leave the newbies driving the busiest, and most difficult routes. Give honest announcements that do not sugar-coat the situation (i.e. "there is a fire at station X, and the line will be closed down for some time. You may want to think about alternatives" instead of "due to an accident, there may be delays").

All this does not cost a single $. Will it happen: probably not, with the current management, and union contracts.

by SJE on Oct 7, 2009 1:11 pm • link • report

@SJE: As I said earlier, it is the time for riders to start question everything WMATA does and to start asking for change. They're battered as an agency and if the public starts speaking and letting their disgust be known, change will have to happen. If companies and even governments can be brought down, WMATA is nothing!

Why there wasn't a Stonewall-esque reaction to Catoe being reupped (yes, the two are apples and oranges, but the pent up rage is in common and I apologize for any LGTBQ readers for the analogy) amazes me.

by Jason on Oct 7, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report

What's missing at Metro is actually two simple things.

First, keeping their word OR if they can't then IMMEDIATELY letting people know what to expect instead. So if construction is planned for Saturday morning, and trains are skipping Van Dorn Station, my Friday night travel plan from WMATA's website shouldn't tell me the train will stop at Van Dorn when it's actually scheduled not to.

Second, customer service. Metro wants to "look good" with its website. Give up looking good. Give me Google Maps data that is USEFUL and easy to access.

by Henry Jones on Oct 8, 2009 12:38 am • link • report

A third thing missing at Metro.

Being "unreasonable".

WMATA, give up having "reasons" you can't provide frequent, reliable service. Give up having reasons the doors might get stuck. Give up having reasons construction/maintenance can't be done at night. Give up having reasons for not putting data up on Google.

WMATA, YOUR REASONS ARE NOT AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR SIMPLY GETTING THE JOB DONE AND HAVING YOUR SYSTEM WORK.

by Henry Jones on Oct 8, 2009 12:43 am • link • report

Metro is like that wayward brother who always has a problem with money. He needs the cash for his rent, and you want to help, but you know it probably will be wasted like last time, and the time before. You are not going to give him any money: it just delays him facing reality.

But then he turns his life around and starts to act responsibly, not making excuses for himself, and getting his act together. NOW, if he asks for money, would you give it to him: of course!

So Metro: start by getting your sh*t together first before asking for more money.

by SJE on Oct 8, 2009 12:04 pm • link • report

To Jasper and any others that suggest that I am for raising prices that will not affect me- I'll have you know that I am a blue collar, paycheck-to-paycheck living metrorider. I regularly ride the rail and the bus, and any price increase would definitely affect me. having said that, I can easily recognize, as you obviously do not, that if Metro doesn't raise revenues through both fare/fee increases AND substantially increased jurisdictional subsidies there will necessarily be the need for service cuts. Service cuts will mean more people taking to the roads, which I am sure nobody wants.

MPC- not everyone who recognizes the benefits of raising transit fares is an "upper-middle class urban professional", as you put it with what I suspect is some degree of disdain. The recession is killing me at my lower-middle class economic level, but I can see that Metro needs more money or service will be cut. Plain and simple. Ain't a whole lot to that, so you ought to be able to understand...

by KevinM on Oct 8, 2009 4:04 pm • link • report

@Henry Jones: I couldnÂ’t agree with you more. There is nothing worse than any agency that tries to save face by deceiving, telling half truths, or simply saying nothing. Along these lines, Metro promised us the first wave of SmarTrip upgrades in September. September is over and we have not heard a single word from Metro on this. Why? Why canÂ’t Metro simply admit that the schedule has slipped a little and give us an updated timetable? Does Metro really think that we have forgotten what they promised us?

by James on Oct 8, 2009 6:26 pm • link • report

Get rid of the lousy managers who have HOV violations/arrest, reckless driving charges, speeding violations, Motor Torts, currently.

How do you expect employees to not violate the law when their managers have horendous criminal records themselves.

I say hire reputable managers and start over.

Donna

by Donna on Oct 20, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report