Posts about Fares

When asked about specifics of the repair timeline, CEO Richard Sarles has only said, "It'll be done when it's done." That answer certainly avoids setting any expectations that the agency might fail to meet, but it doesn't address a much deeper and critical question:

Will we ever get out of the proverbial woods?

WMATA knows how much its current employees are paid and can estimate the rate at which their compensation will increase. It knows or can project how much their pensions and benefits will cost. It's not impossible to estimate how fuel and electricity will change over time. Also, we can approximate how much it will cost to maintain equipment and keep it in a state of good repair.

In many industries with physical machinery, there are best practices in asset lifecycle management. For any part, one can predict how many of them have to be replaced per year, how many years each lasts on average, and how much each costs.

With this information, it should be possible to project WMATA's costs into the future. For a particular year, the estimates may be off in any direction for any of the variables, but over time, we should be able to make realistic estimates.

Divide the time by the cost and you get a dollar figure per year. Maybe one year will be higher if many things happen to break at the same time, but if the overall projection is on target, other years ought to cost less to balance it out.

What good is this? It's important because WMATA can't keep telling riders, year after year, that costs have increased unexpectedly. In 2009, it was because the pension contributions had gone up due to the stock market decline. Then fuel prices were rising. Health care costs were spiraling. Ridership was off because of the downturn. The arbitrator granted bigger raises than expected. And so on.

At some point, if costs keep exceeding projections, then something is wrong with the projections.

We're coming out of a bad economic time. Before, in good economic times, the budgets balanced more easily, fare increases weren't so large, Metro could put less into their pension funds, and local governments didn't have to keep paying more. But when they did that, they just pushed the problem off to the future.

Local governments will have to increase their contributions each year. Fares will have to rise over time. But how much, in the long run?

Riders deserve to see a long range plan that says, in effect, the following:

• Until 20XX, Metro will be in "catch-up mode." After that, they'll be in "keep it working" mode.
  
• During catch-up mode, Metro needs $x million in capital funds per year, increasing at a rate of x% per year. After that, they'll need $y million in keep it working mode (less than in catch-up mode).
  
• If we can still afford the catch-up mode funding once Metro reaches a state of good repair, then we can start using the surplus to pay for some projects to deal with the high passenger loads that there will be by this time, like adding physical walkways between Metro Center and Gallery Place, new entrances at busy stations like Foggy Bottom, or new lines or tracks in the core.
  
• If Metro doesn't get enough money in catch-up mode, then that mode will have to last longer. If it doesn't get enough in keep it working mode, then it may have to go back into catch-up mode.
  
• In keep it working mode, to maintain the existing service, given wages, pensions, fuel, health care, and so on, Metro will have to increase its budget by z% each year. A certain percentage of that can come from riders, while jurisdictions should plan on increasing their Metro contributions by the remaining amount necessary to reach the z% per year.
  
• In good years, Metro will use the extra money to top up its rainy day fund; in bad years, it'll spend money from that fund.

Many businesses do this type of planning as a matter of course. Households and financial advisers do the same to plan for retirement. Riders and local leaders should ask for the same from WMATA, an entity which provides a fundamental service that residents and visitors depend on every day, and which also benefits the region in enormous ways that we often take for granted.

From talking to some WMATA employees, my understanding is that many but not all top leaders want to be able to project like this. Some of the information about asset lifecycles they have, while some they hope to collect. It's less clear how much consensus there is over how deeply to share the information with the public.

Such a comprehensive analysis also takes time and cooperation from all departments. It will take pressure from Sarles, the board, jurisdictional officials, riders, the press, and other stakeholders to make this happen.

It would be worth it, though. A well-defined plan like this will build credibility with the public and help ensure WMATA gets the necessary funding to repair its system and maintain high-quality service for the long term.

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.

Now that the revenue outlook has improved, the riders should get a break on the fare increases they are facing. Transit riders have paid a significant share of the increases in transportation costs for twenty years during which fares have steadily risen without a single increase in the gas tax.

Fixing Metro will be impossible without adequate resources. Riders stepped up to the plate in 2010 to pay a substantial fare increase. The fairest approach now is for the member jurisdictions to maintain the funding commitment already planned in the 2013 Metro budget. We call on local governments, the District of Columbia, and the states of Maryland and Virginia to focus on reinvesting in and restoring what was once, and can be again, one of the world's top transit systems.

The members of the Transit First Coalition are the Action Committee for Transit, Alexandria Transit Riders Alliance, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation, Audubon Naturalist Society, CASA de Maryland, Clean Water Action, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Crofton First, DC Night Riders, Greater Greater Washington, MCGEO—UFCW Local 1994, Prince George's Advocates for Community-based Transit, Progressive Maryland, Save Maryland Area Rail Transit, and Transit Riders United of Greenbelt.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth has a page for you to email your WMATA board members and local officials to ask them to use money to reduce fare increases as much as possible.

The graph above shows the peak fares for Metrorail trips of different distances since the system's opening in 1976, including the "peak-of-the-peak" surcharge added in 2010. It also shows gas prices, and lists both fares and gas prices adjusted for inflation.

In 2010, Metrorail trips of 14 miles and above all cost the same maximum fare. Under the new proposal, Metro riders will have to pay more for miles 15 and 16, as they did before 2008. The net result is that trips longer than 14 miles will see a fairly substantial fare increase, while fares for all other distances will decline.

Although raising the maximum distance cap from 14 to 16 miles will probably prove unpopular among longer distance Metrorail commuters, opening the Silver Line to Dulles may require Metro to reevaluate the maximum distance cap again in the future.

Fares appear to follow a clear trend of increasing in times of economic hardship and decreasing when the economy is stronger. Today's historically high fares should come as little surprise given the severity of the current economic slump. Metrorail riders feeling the pain of these prices may have to wait for a stronger economic recovery to take hold before they can expect any lasting relief.

Sources for this article included WMATA: History of Fare Increases, Metrorail 1976-2010 (PDF); WMATA: Proposed FY2013 Fare Adjustments, Proposed FY2013 Capital Improvement
Program, and Federal FY2012 Grant Applications (PDF); U.S. Energy Information Administration: Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average, 1976-1990 (PDF); and U.S. Energy Information Administration: Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, 1990-2012.

Almost alone among transit agencies in the United States, you have no dedicated revenue sources, and you are subordinate to, and dependent upon, multiple jurisdictions across state lines. In recent years, the situation has been complicated further by the increased role in governance by the federal government and by the state of Virginia, neither of which contribute to the formula by which the daily operations of the system are funded.

The system is aging, its maintenance needs are growing—and still, the region looks for you to expand service. So, I appreciate the difficult choice the Board will have to make, and recognize that a fare increase may be unavoidable this year.

No one wants to raise fares. I used to say that raising fares is the next-to-the-last thing the transit agency should do. What's worse is cutting service or maintenance. That you must not do.

As one who has sat where you sit, and who will have to vote on your final budget as part of his jurisdiction's part in the approval process, here are my recommendations:

1. Don't put it all on the riders; don't let governments off the hook. Ask compact jurisdictions to accept some of the responsibility to meet the need. Press for greater support from the state: Now that they have imposed themselves on the governance of WMATA, displacing local representation, they should be expected to help Metro close its budget gap.

The same can be said for the feds. They vote on the budget. They depend heavily on the system on a daily basis for the delivery of their work force, no less than they depend on the delivery of electricity and water to their buildings. The system is substantially designed around the needs of the operations of the federal government. They should be contributing to the operating costs of the agency as a routine matter. The WMATA Board should press for inclusion of the federal government in the funding formula.

2. In structuring a fare increase, I urge you to consider the following:

1. Don't make it too big; consider possible effect on choice riders (especially in view of adverse federal benefit changes). It obviously won't help anything if we push riders back into their cars.

2. Consider effects on those least able to pay. As you well appreciate, there are many people in this county, and throughout the region, for whom transit is not a choice, but a necessity. For them, a fare increase is simply a reduction in the limited disposable income with which to pay their costs of housing, food, clothing, and medical care.

3. Don't punish the folks who take the shortest trips. Those who accept higher housing costs to live near their work, and to live a transit-oriented lifestyle, are providing a benefit to everyone in the region. Increasingly, they find it difficult to get on to trains that enter their stations already full, and they seldom get to sit down. Theirs is the least-subsidized ride. They should not bear a disproportionate share of the cost.

And finally,

4. Do something for the riders. They bear a larger portion of operating cost here than in perhaps any metropolitan area in the country. They're still going to be asked to put up with delays and service interruptions, even though they'll pay more. Press Metro management to find ways—even small things—to make life a little better for your regular customers.

   One good possibility that has been suggested is improving passes.
   

   1. We need a good monthly pass; not just a 28-day that is simply four times the 7-day pass.
      
   2. It's got to be useful for people who ride in the core of the system—that is, short-trip riders.
      
   3. It's got to be on SmarTrip.
      
   4. It should be a "flexible pass", one that lets riders choose their typical level of fare (which depends on their typical trip length) and select a pass that's works at that level. (Seattle, London and Minneapolis have done this; it is ideal for a system like Metro in which fares are distance-based.)

I thank you for considering these suggestions, and for your service to Metro and the region.

Crime against SYEP youth: The pay days for students participating in the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) are well-known around the community, which has led to youth being targeted for robbery outside of Metro stations like Deanwood and Minnesota Avenue.

In response to this problem, the students said they would like to see an increased police presence. They also noted that police have a tendency to clump together and talk to each other rather than fully patrol the stations, so the students suggested that police spread out to cover a larger area.

Subsidized fares: SYEP paychecks will be cut by $2 per hour this summer. Therefore, the students recommended having WMATA or the District subsidize transit fares for SYEP participants. At the very least, the presenters asked for subsidized fares during the first two weeks of the program while participants wait for their first paycheck.

Councilmembers Tommy Wells (ward 6) and Muriel Bowser (ward 4, the Council's representative on the WMATA Board) asked DDOT and WMATA about the cost of a subsidy and what its fiscal impact would be, noting that youth who go to summer school already get a similar transit subsidy.

Youth advisory council: After last year's summit, WMATA was interested in establishing a youth advisory council to discuss activity on buses. Unfortunately, there had not been follow-up from the local councilmember, Yvette Alexander, to move this forward. At this year's summit, WMATA reaffirmed their interest in a youth advisory council.

Aging in place: One resident noted that the very young and the very old have unique needs when it comes to transportation, and asked how WMATA can help residents age in place, and how it can better accommodate strollers on buses.

Deaf riders: Other participants said that Ward 7 has an increasing population of the hearing impaired and deaf, and that transit employees should be trained to both recognize deaf customers and help them use the system.

Pedestrian safety: Organizer Neha Bhatt discussed pedestrian safety concerns at Benning Road's intersections with Minnesota Avenue and East Capitol Street. She had organized a recent walking tour with Ward 3 councilmember Mary Cheh, chair of the committee overseeing transportation, to look at problem intersections.

Capital Bikeshare: WABA executive director Shane Farthing raised the idea of subsidizing bike sharing for residents east of the river, and suggested changing Capital Bikeshare rules to allow younger members. Currently, one must be at least 16 years old to use Capital Bikeshare.

There was also an open house where community members could find information from DDOT, WMATA, Capital Bikeshare, and WABA, as well as discuss ideas with representatives from these groups.

The summit's two-hour timeframe turned out to be somewhat too short, so presentations and discussion were rushed at the end. The organizers are hoping to reformat for next year to avoid this issue.

Overall, residents came away with a widespread belief that working to pick the low-hanging fruit is a smart way to move forward and begin to bring positive change to Ward 7.

Under Metro's proposal, riders could choose from two differently-priced 28-day passes, good for trips up to $3.25 or unlimited. Any trip of the pass value or less would be free. If customers use a pass for a more expensive trip than the cap, they'll pay the difference.

Passes need to be on SmarTrip

Metro's pass proposal calls for using paper farecards, at least initially, for the monthly pass. But that will depress use of the passes, as it does with the two existing weekly passes.

The weekly rail fast pass and short trip pass are not popular, in part because paper farecards are inconvenient and relatively fragile. The short trip pass is especially inconvenient since it requires Metro customers to carry exact change for every ride that is more than $3.25. With a Smartrip card, this extra fare could be automatically deducted from stored value.

The risk of damaging the card combined with the need to carry a bunch of coins for more expensive trips tilts the field away from using passes. And the calculus is even worse for a pass that needs to last a full month rather than a week. If the new passes are paper-only, customers likely won't buy enough of them to make the new passes worthwhile.

Add a 3rd tier for the shortest trips

While a choose-your-own-value pass is ideal, Metro believes it's too technically complex to implement. But they could improve upon their proposal by adding a third tier for shorter trips.

The two existing passes are good for trips up to $3.25 and up to maximum fare. This offers a good deal for customers that regularly take medium and long-distance trips, but is not a very good deal for customers that live closer in and rarely take a trip that long.

The new pass should be good for trips costing up to $2.10. Any additional fare would automatically come out of the stored value in the customer's Smartrip account. Metro should encourage customers to buy higher-tier passes by adjusting their prices. The higher-tier passes should be slightly cheaper in comparison.

Price 28-day passes differently than weekly passes

Under the current proposal, the "monthly pass" would actually be a 4-week pass, and it would cost exactly 4-times the amount of the weekly pass.

Mathematically that may make sense, but it doesn't make sense from a customer service perspective. Considering the added risk of losing or damaging a farecard, or of not using it on vacation or sick days, customers would have little incentive to purchase a monthly pass instead of 4 weekly passes.

The monthly version would be a greater risk, and would offer no corresponding greater deal to compensate. So why buy it?

If WMATA wants customers to pay more up front, there will have to be some added incentive to do so. One option might be to make the 4-week pass a true monthly pass, which would essentially make the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of each month free to pass holders. Another option might be to reduce the cost of the 4-week pass, to be slightly less than 4-times the cost of a weekly pass.

Based on these ideas, Here's table showing suggested passes and prices:

WMATA deserves praise for considering more flexible payment options, but needs to more carefully consider its pricing structure. If monthly passes don't offer a stronger incentive, customers will probably not use them. That should not be taken as a sign that monthly passes aren't needed, only that the math isn't working for customers.

Previously, Metro offered a few discounts for frequent riders: a 10% bonus fare for people who bought farecards of $20 or more, a weekly bus pass that cost about 8.5 trips, and the rail fast pass.

The 10% bonus fare was eliminated in 2003. The weekly bus pass discount was eliminated in 2010. Metro now charges 10 times the Smartrip fare for a pass.

For a regular commuter taking 10 trips per week which are long enough to hit the maximum fare, the rail fast pass currently offers about a 10% discount compared to 10 individual trips, as well as free trips after that. This proposal will eliminate the 10% discount and almost certainly drive customers away from using the rail fast pass.

More to follow after the Thursday board meeting.