Greater Greater Washington

Posts about Fares

Transit


Events roundup: Fare hikes and transit updates

Fares may rise on Virginia rail, and changes are coming to the Blue Line corridor in Prince George's County and the GW Parkway. Learn about federal transit funding and make sure to save the date for the Greater Greater Washington birthday party!


Photo by Jim Larrison on Flickr

Virginia railway fare hike: The Virginia Railroad Express, Virginia's only commuter railroad, plans to raise its fares. If you didn't have a chance to weigh in last week, you have three more chances this week:

  • Tuesday, February 24, 7-8 pm at the Burke Centre Conservancy, 9837 Burke Pond Lane
  • Wednesday, February 25, 12-1 pm at the Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington
  • Thursday, February 25, 7-8 pm at Manassas City Hall, 9027 Center Street in Manassas
After the jump: Blue line corridor, GGW birthday bash, the GW Parkway and more.

Blue Line corridor: Do you live along the Blue Line in Maryland? Prince George's County is planning to improve pedestrian safety, foster transit-oriented development, and more along its Blue Line corridor. Join the planning department for an update on the project this Thursday, February 26, 6:30-8:30 pm at the Omega Room of St Margaret's Catholic Church at 410 Addison Road South in Seat Pleasant.

GGW birthday bash: Greater Greater Washington is turning seven and we want you to help us celebrate! Join us for cake and merriment on Wednesday, March 11, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at Lost and Found at 1240 9th Street NW. See you there!

GW Parkway transit assessment: Do you frequently drive, bike, or walk on the George Washington Parkway? The National Park Service is studying ways to make Memorial Circle, the circle beween Arlington Cemetery and the Memorial Bridge, safer for people driving, walking, and biking. NPS is holding an open house to present rough proposed sketches of the area on Tuesday, March 3, from 5 to 8 pm at 1100 Ohio Drive SW. Public comment will be open online until March 10.

Federal transit funding: Nathaniel Loewentheil, Senior Policy Advisor at the White House National Economic Council, will discuss components of the Obama administration's Build America Investment Initiative at a talk on Tuesday, March 3. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) will host Lowentheil at 1666 K Street NW. A wine a cheese reception starts at 5 pm and the presentation and discussion will go from 5:30 to 6:30 pm. RSVP to cowens@apta.com.

Do you know of an upcoming event that may be interesting, relevant, or important to Greater Greater Washington readers that should go on our events calendar? Send it to us at events@ggwash.org.

Budget


Death spiral or budget chicken? WMATA floats drastic cuts

Waits for a Metro train could get longer or trains could not run at all after midnight on weekends, if the WMATA Board adopts a budget proposal released yesterday. Fares would also rise by 10¢. Many bus lines could also come less often or stop running earlier, and Metro buses to the airports would stop completely.


Photo by cranneyanthony on Flickr.

Is this for real? It's likely that fares might rise, but doing so could just drive more riders away from Metro, giving it a bigger budget gap next year and starting a "death spiral." Or, local governments could come up with the money WMATA needs, but until and unless that happens, riders will be caught in the middle of a high-stakes game of "budget chicken."

WMATA's costs have increased four percent while ridership is down, a change WMATA attributes mostly to cuts in federal transit benefits that force more federal workers to pay out of pocket for transit or switch to driving.

What WMATA might cut, and why

The agency therefore says it needs $140 million more from DC, Maryland, and Virginia ($919 million versus $779 million) to keep service running. If they don't get it, then fare hikes and/or service cuts are the only option, and yesterday, WMATA officials released a proposal for how that might work.

They are proposing a 10¢ hike in both bus and rail fares (and, once again, a double increase for bus and rail riders).

For rail service, there are two options. In one, trains would only come every eight minutes (up from six today, at least when Metro keeps to its schedule) during rush hour, except the Blue Line which is already less frequent and wouldn't change. Off-peak weekdays and Saturdays there would be 15 minutes instead of 12 between trains, and on Sundays trains would come every 20 minutes instead of 15 (when not further disrupted by track work).

The second option is to end rail service at midnight on Fridays and Saturdays instead of at 3 am. That's the same closing time Metro had until 1999, when it started getting later as our urban areas started seeing more late-night activity. The agency floated the same possible cut in 2011.

As for the buses, the B30 to BWI, 5A to Dulles, and 13Y to National Airport would end completely, and there would be a plethora of other, smaller cuts (the 30th page of the PDF, numbered page 63).

Event organizers who want to open Metro early would have to pay $50,000 an hour instead of the current $29,500, and the TransitLink card that offers rides on Metro along with MARC, VRE, or Maryland MTA commuter buses would go away.

There are a few seemingly sensible changes to parking fees: the Minnesota Avenue garage costs $1 less than other garages, but more people are parking there, so it no longer makes sense to offer a discount at that one garage. Parkimg becomes free after midnight Monday to Thursday and 3 am Friday, but some parkers wait until after that time to leave and get free parking.

Our contributors react

How should riders feel about this? We posed the question to our contributors.

Kelli Raboy said,

The proposed rail service cuts are definitely the biggest punch to the gut. 25 minute headways (weeknights and weekend evenings/nights) would make any trips requiring transfers more or less impossible. And I can't imagine how much worse crowding would get with increased headways during peak (from 6 to 8 minutes).

The option for rail service cuts is presented as 1) increase headways overall OR 2) cut all weekend late night service (12pm to 3am); I'm pretty sure all the jurisdictions would pick option 2.

I think the proposed bus service cuts could also have a big impact, but it's (obviously) harder to see on a regional scale. They also snuck in a proposal to defer the Priority Corridor Networks program for buses, which is the main means for improvements like transit signal priority and bus-only lanes.

Matt Johnson added, writing on his phone on his way home last night, "Incidentally, I'm currently waiting 16 minutes for a Green Line train. And this is before the service cuts."

Gray Kimbrough pointed out that the service cuts actually don't save that much money:

What I find most shocking is how little those proposed rail service changes would actually save. In particular, cutting all weekend rail service after midnight would have projected gross savings of $8 million, which would fall to a net savings of $4 million after reduced revenue.

Increasing headways at all times by from 2 minutes (peak service) to 5 minutes (most other times) would have a projected yearly gross savings of $24 million. Offsetting this by the projected revenue loss of $11 million, it would only save $13 million.

So I guess my main takeaway from this is how little it would cost to reduce most headways and provide better service if we actually had the political will and rail cars to do so.

All of the changes that harm riders (the fare hike and all of the service cuts) would save DC, Maryland, and Virginia governments a total of $46 million, out of $140 million total WMATA wants to add to the jurisdictions' bill.

Death spiral of budget chicken?

Kelli Raboy added, "This is my first round of the WMATA budget game of chicken so I'm not sure how nervous I should actually be about all these proposed changes, but as someone who relies on Metro, it's pretty tough to see on paper." Nick Keenan agreed, saying, "I had to wonder if this was indeed 'budget chicken.'"

WMATA officials know that riders will hate this and protest loudly. And they should. Service cuts like these threaten to send Metro into a "death spiral" where lower service and higher costs drive people away from transit, further decreasing ridership and creating new budget problems.

Each year, the agency does manage to squeeze down its budget a little bit, and so there is indeed a game of "budget chicken" where the jurisdictions might hold out to pressure WMATA to save a little money here and there elsewhere before either going for a fare hike, service cuts, or ponying up more for the bulk of it. Unfortunately, riders are caught in the crossfire.

This is also a more public process than most budget issues. Staffing and other costs rise inside the DC budget and other local jurisdictions' budget, but outside of a recession, so do tax revenues. Maybe there's a surplus or a gap, but the money coming in often balances out the money going out and you don't see the higher costs in the same way you do for Metro.

In the long run, the region ought to dedicate some sort of funding stream to Metro which can predictably grow about as fast as Metro costs. However, to get public support for this, WMATA is also going to have to more directly confront its constantly-rising costs and the things that frustrate riders, like surly employees, eternally broken escalators and elevators, and constant track work without trustworthy information about if and when the rebuilding will end.

A lot of change has to also come from the executives and legislatures of DC, Maryland, and Virginia. As a multi-state agency, WMATA is just doing the bidding of its constituent governments, but because it's not under a single chief executive, no elected official really takes responsibility.

If DC Public Schools proposed big cuts or needed more money, Muriel Bowser would have to address the problem, for example. She should take responsibility for addressing Metro's short-term and long-term problems too. So should Terry McAuliffe in Virginia and Larry Hogan in Maryland.

Ben Ross wrote, "Anger should be directed at the overlords in Annapolis, the District building, and the Virginia counties whose emissaries comprise the WMATA board, not at WMATA." The WMATA Board can only ask for more money or make cuts; the governments of the region can fix the real structural issues here.

Having a transit system scraping along year after year on the verge of ruin is not good for the people of our region. Our leaders need to get WMATA onto a sustainable footing at the same time the agency admits to its problems, fixes them, and gets long-term costs under control. So far, there's no sign that's about to happen, and instead, we face the threat of a death spiral and a game of budget chicken.

Transit


Metro savvy: There's a free ride in them thar trash cans

Finding discarded farecards that still have money on them: It's one of the oldest tricks in any late night Metro rider's handbook, and for me, it's been a go-to Metro secret since my undergrad days. I estimate that I've foraged over a thousand dollars worth of fares over the last decade.


Photos by the author.

A friend and I once collected about $100 in discarded paper farecards every day while clipboard canvassing at the Smithsonian Metro station. An average of $100 per year bump to my SmarTrip just for picking up scraps out of the trash? Not bad.

Don't believe me? Neither did a co-worker when I told him about my little trick of the trade. But as we walked into a station earlier this week, I showed him how it's done.

A how-to guide

Start by giving a slight glance into the trashcan, like you're looking for the day's newspaper. If you spot a farecard resting on top, quickly grab it. To excavate fully, lightly shake the edge of the trash bag to jostle any remaining cards. If liquid appears at any point during either step, immediately cease, since wet farecards are no good.

In this particular case, the bag on the trashcan we approached had just been changed, which is always helpful for spying clean farecards. While we didn't see any on the surface, I told my co-worker to watch and learn before cautiously pinching the left side of the bag and giving it a gentle tug.

"No luck," he said, not seeing anything.

"Spoke too soon," I said as I snatched a farecard that had been crumpled into a small ball.

"No way," he deadpanned.

I proceeded to flatten the balled-up card by placing it against the fare machine and running the edge of my SmarTrip over it a few times. I then tapped my SmarTrip, pressed "Add Value," and slid my find into the machine.

"Slink!" $0.55 value added. I tapped my SmarTrip and turned to my friend as we headed toward the faregates.

"The Metro Jedi Force is now with you, my son."

A dying art

Next year, this trick of the trade will come to a sad but largely unknown and unceremonious end. The elimination of the paper farecard will make it a bit harder for people to throw their money away, meaning that some of Metro's savviest riders will no longer get their trips subsidized by the trash.

For now, though, those paper farecards are still out there, waiting to be found and traded in.

Later, I received an email from my co-worker with the subject line, "WOW!"

Along with a picture of himself holding three cards, each with values of $1.30, he wrote, "$3.90 pulled out of the SS Metro trash can and added to my SmarTrip card. Thank you teacher."

If you keep your eyes open, you too could add a few free bucks to your SmarTrip card.

Transit


Streetcar "simulated service" could begin on H Street in October

The streetcars have been running on H Street for testing and training. Soon, "simulated service" will start, where the operators will drive trains up and down the street just as if they're really carrying passengers. When the line opens, possibly by the end of 2014, fares might be free.


Photo by DC Streetcar on Flickr.

Streetcar program manager Thomas Perry from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) briefed Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6C's transportation and public space committee last week about progress toward opening the long-awaited streetcar starter segment from Oklahoma Avenue to Union Station.

Streetcars will operate up to every 10 minutes from 5 am to midnight, seven days a week, without passengers during this phase, also called "pre-revenue service." Operator training along the 2.4-mile line began in August and should wrap up in the "next several weeks," Perry said.

Simulated service is the last planned phase of testing before the line can open to the public. Passenger service could begin before the end of the year, but officials are not making any promises. Perry says that pre-revenue service will take 30 days, after which the agency can seek safety approval to open the line to passengers.

The line might not cost anything to ride at first

DDOT officials are pondering whether or not to make the streetcar be free initially, Perry also said. While the benefits and drawbacks of free transit service have been thoroughly discussed here, the possibility would be an exciting enticement to H Street residents and visitors to try the new service when it does open.

Will special streetcar signal phases cause a safety problem?

While DDOT is dealing with the controversy over proposed rules that would ban bikes between the streetcar tracks, officials are also focused on promoting bike and pedestrian safety along the corridor.

Concerns have been raised about four intersections along the corridor—H and 3rd Streets; the "Starburst" intersection whrere H Street crosses Bladensburg Rd and becomes Benning Road; Benning Road and 24th Street; and Benning Road and Oklahoma Ave.

At each of these intersections, the streetcar has its own signal cycle separate from those for cars and pedestrians. Some worry that cyclists and pedestrians will cross the street when they see that traffic has stopped for an opposing red signal, not realizing that the streetcar is going to then start moving.

Officials recommend that cyclists and pedestrians always wait for a green signal and not preemptively try to cross H Street. They have posted staff at the intersections to educate pedestrians and passing out fliers outlining the dangers with safety tips.

A striped crosswalk and pedestrian signal at the streetcar terminus atop the Hopscotch Bridge will come within the next couple of weeks, says Perry. This was another spot of concern for the committee members.

On the proposed ban to bikes within the streetcar tracks, Perry said anyone concerned should submit comments on the proposed rules by September 27.

Transit


A $1.50 fare isn't holding back the Tide

Norfolk's Tide Light Rail opened in 2011, and has exceeded its initial ridership projections. But the Virginian-Pilot newspaper recently called for Hampton Roads Transit to slash Tide fares to increase ridership. Are fares holding back ridership, or are other factors at play here?


Photo by VDOT.

Local media jumped on the news trying to
figure out
whether the arguments in Norfolk for free fares apply in the DC area for projects like the Columbia Pike Streetcar.

Do free fares encourage new ridership?

Simply put, yes. The editorial notes that for a 10% decrease in fares, ridership generally increases about 3%. The real question is whether the additional subsidy required to operate a free (or cheap) transit service is worth the cost.

But for all of its problems, it's probably not the fares that are keeping people from riding the Tide.

The Virginian-Pilot argues that the Tide's problem is low demand, and points to falling ridership on the line. This ignores that ridership has fallen on the area's bus routes as well, and in Hampton Roads a bus fare is the same as the fare on the Tide. Maybe the whole system should be free. That would probably increase transit ridership.

Other cities either have (or have experimented with) free fares but there's not a lot of evidence that the prospect of a free ride leads to a big increase in ridership. Besides, there may be better ways to increase ridership.

What does the Tide actually need?

The editorial does make some suggestions that would also benefit the Tide. The first is an acknowledgement that the system needs to grow. Norfolk wants to expand the system within its own borders to the Naval Base and the Airport. Meanwhile Virginia Beach wants to take advantage of the existing railroad right of way and extend the line all the way to the Atlantic waterfront.

This would automatically put the system closer to a great number of people and jobs, and could even have state-wide benefits with the ability to take Amtrak to Norfolk and then light rail to the beach.

The editorial also notes that the Tide was meant to jumpstart a wave of transit-oriented development (TOD) that hasn't happened yet. In the DC area we know how long it can take TOD to arrive even for an extensive system like Metro. The Pilot does seem to get that TOD will increase ridership. But instead of arguing for zoning and policy changes, it assumes the free fare itself will be enough to generate the TOD.

Development centered around transit will very likely increase ridership, though those land use changes will take decades. And people will not decide just to locate next to a transit line because it's free or cheap. They'll only move there if they find the line useful. If it doesn't go where they're going, they won't ride it, even if it is free.

That's why it's important for Hampton Roads Transit to build a larger transit network and why it's important for the local governments to encourage development (the places people want to go) near transit.

The city of Norfolk's goal (building TOD and reducing traffic) is notably different from Hampton Roads Transit's, whose goal is to make sure it can provide service without running into any large budget problems. If Norfolk ends up agreeing with the newspaper and makes the Tide free, maybe the city can pay the difference so the additional subsidy requirement won't harm other transit services in the region.

It's good that the Virginian-Pilot wants the Tide to be successful and recognizes that transit is an effective way to reduce or mitigate the effects of traffic congestion and how it can be a tool that allows lifestyle and urban form changes. But just focusing on fares is a narrow solution that will have less impact than a more balanced approach.

The same can be said for transit in the DC region. Free fares may be a good thing to consider, but we should be considering many factors when discussing how to increase ridership.

Projects like the Columbia Pike Streetcar will have ridership whether or not the cost to ride is free. The proposed line will connect dense, diverse neighborhoods along the Pike to the Pentagon and the Metro system. It will also likely encourage more development in the corridor over time, which will have a positive impact on ridership. Making fares cheaper may increase ridership, but transit-oriented development and service improvements (faster trips, more frequent trains) will make the line more useful, and that will have a much larger impact on ridership.

Transit


Metro will eliminate paper farecards in 2015

After four decades of use, the days are numbered for Metro's paper farecards. WMATA will begin to phase them out in late 2015. By 2016, the only way to pay for a Metrorail ride will be with SmarTrip.


Photo by David Notivol on Flickr.

The announcement that Metro will go paperless is no surprise. The agency stopped using paper bus transfers in 2009. Metro recently lowered the cost of SmarTrips cards to $2 and added a $1 surcharge on all trips paid using paper farecards, making SmarTrip less expensive for most riders.

Even more recently, Metro has allowed passes to be used on SmarTrip, and added SmarTrip dispensers in every rail station. With those pieces now in place and more changes coming, it's time for the paper farecards to go.

Why eliminate paper?

Metro is eager to phase out paper farecards because they create a lot of wear and tear on the system. The faregates use 1960s technology to process the paper cards. They have rubber bands and pulleys that are maintenance-intensive, and thus expensive to keep in operation.

Once paper farecards are fully phased out in early 2016, Metro won't have to conduct that time-consuming and expensive maintenance. The faregates won't be replaced immediately, but the farecard systems will be deactivated.

What will change?

Despite recent incentives pushing riders to use SmarTrip, Metro's machines still dispense two million farecards each month. Perhaps one explanation for riders' stubborn continued reliance on farecards is that they're easier to buy.

For a tourist first entering the system, buying a SmarTrip card means spending exactly $10 for a card at one machine (for $8 in value). If they only want to go one or two stops, there's no way to spend less. If they want to buy a day pass or add additional value, they have to use a different machine.

That won't be a problem after December 2015. Starting next October, Metro will replace the guts of the blue fare machines in stations. Right now they only dispense farecards. But starting in December 2015 they'll also dispense SmarTrip cards.

WMATA won't upgrade the older brown fare machines. The brown machines won't dispense farecards anymore, but passengers will still be able to use them to reload SmarTrip cards. Metro will keep the SmarTrip dispensers that are currently in stations, too.

By 2020, Metro will also have replaced all of its faregates through a separate effort. Along with that will come a second-generation SmarTrip. At that point, we'll be using an entirely new fare payment system.

But the fare machines won't require another retrofit, as they'll be able to dispense the new cards as well.

Budget


Topic of the week: Is the Metro fare hike fair?

The WMATA Board yesterday approved a fare increase, which will be effective July 1. Are the fare hikes fair?


Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr.

Metrorail fares will increase 3%, on average, and most Metrobus routes will now cost $1.75, no matter if you pay with cash or SmarTrip. Today, the buses cost $1.60 with SmarTrip, $1.80 cash. Parking rates at Metro lots will go up 10¢, except at some Prince George's County lots, which will cost 60¢ more.

Are the fare increases too great? Did WMATA make the right call with the specifics of the fare hike? Our contributors weigh in below. What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments.

Michael Perkins: WMATA missed another opportunity to make their parking pricing make sense. They raise the rates universally by only 10¢, and put an additional 50¢ on most lots in Prince George's County, even though there's already a large east/west divide in ridership, and the PG County lots are less crowded than other parking lots.

For the 2016 fare update, WMATA staff should do their homework and get ready to implement something similar to BART. BART staff are allowed to periodically review and adjust the parking rates in their parking lots based on demand.

For the cash fare on bus business, I think WMATA made the right call. The cash discount was causing a lot of people to load one trip's worth on a SmarTrip card and then use it immediately just to get the SmarTrip discount.

Dan Malouff: Just to keep up with inflation since WMATA's last fare hike in 2012, fares should rise between 2-3%. The Metrobus hike is a lot, but the Metrorail hike of 3% is not much more than inflation. But even buses are matching inflation over the long term. A DC Metrobus fare in 1975 was 40¢. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $1.75 today.

Ben Ross: I find it very disappointing that WMATA has paid for lesser fare increases by cutting funding for bus priority corridors. It is very hard to take long-range plans for expensive "bus rapid transit" seriously if the area isn't willing to make modest investments in making its buses move more rapidly now.

Malcolm Johnstone: People are being priced out of using the subway and, now, the bus. Metro is too expensive—nowhere else in North America can you pay $10 round trip just for subway ride.

Malcolm Kenton: WMATA still needs to institute some form of daily, weekly and monthly pass that covers both bus and Metrorail. Nearly every other big city transit agency that operates both bus and rail offers passes that cover both. If a 7-day "short trip" rail pass is $36 and a 7-day bus pass is $17.50, perhaps a 7-day "short-trip" rail pass that also includes unlimited bus travel could be $50.00. Similarly, a 28-day rail-plus-bus pass could be $260.00.

It's interesting to note that the deal remains in place that allows those with current weekly or monthly MARC train tickets to ride local buses in both the DC and Baltimore regions, as well as the Baltimore subway and light rail, at no additional cost. At $175.00, a MARC monthly ticket between Baltimore and DC is a great bargain for those who also travel extensively within either metro area: the only other form of transit it doesn't cover is Metrorail.

Can WMATA's rationale for these hikes be tied directly to any change in federal funding, or to a change in any particular jurisdiction's share of funding? Or simply to declining ridership and/or increasing costs?

Michael Perkins: Even better than that, the MTA sells a zone 1 bus pass that's good on all WMATA services as well as service in Baltimore. The Transit Link Card is just a hair under $200 and is good for everything. It covers rail and bus. Unlimited everything, including zone one MTA commuter bus and all the MTA service in Baltimore too. I don't know that there are any restrictions. Someone should try it.

The thing is on autopilot. I don't think Metro staff or the board really look at it so it just goes up with inflation every year, even though the peak long distance rail fare has outpaced inflation for a decade.

Metro has some of the highest fares in North America. I think only the London Tube has higher fares in the world. On the other hand, the trains are bursting with people. The London Tube also has reasonable passes, unlike Metro, and a congestion charge.

Myles Smith: I was surprised how close Metrorail was to the actual per-rider cost, with taxpayers subsidizing the fares by only about 20%, was it? Metrobus was more heavily subsidized, something like 60% by taxpayers. And any discussion of it should compare these subsidies to those of public streets for private vehicles (a 100% subsidy).

Jim Titus: We should not have to revisit every policy question related to equitable burden sharing, simply to make annual adjustments to account for inflation. And for the most part, they didn't.

Transit


Comparing Metrobus and Metrorail farebox recovery is apples and oranges

Metro is planning to raise bus, rail, and paratransit fares this year, and last week Michael Perkins talked about the transfer discount. In the comments, some talked about the difference between bus and rail farebox recovery. But those numbers aren't really comparable.


Photo by velobry on Flickr.

"Farebox recovery" is the amount of operating expenses that fares cover. For example, if a system costs $1 million to operate every year and takes in $500,000 dollars in fares, it would have a farebox recovery of 50%. A profitable system would have a number above 100%.

In the WMATA system, Metrorail has a farebox recovery ratio of 67.5%. Metrobus has a farebox recovery of 24.3%. Both on Michael's post and on Twitter, readers asked whether rail passengers were subsidizing bus passengers. Why should rail passengers pay 67% of the cost of riding, but bus passengers pay only 24%? Unfortunately, that's not the whole story.

Not every rail rider pays 67% of the cost of his or her trip. Not every bus rider pays only 24%. The farebox recovery varies from route to route. At any rate, the Metrorail and Metrobus farebox recovery rates aren't directly comparable because each service has different goals and measures success differently.

Ridership versus coverage

Jarrett Walker, author of the book Human Transit, divides transit service into two broad categories: ridership service and coverage service.

These two types of service come from the conflicting goals transit providers face. On the one hand, they're supposed to cover all of their service area. On the other hand, they're supposed to have as many riders as possible for as little subsidy.

Generally, agencies solve these competing goals by providing both types of service. In the WMATA service area, there are clear examples of ridership service. The overcrowded 16th Street Line is a perfect example. The busy H Street Line is another.

While some lines are clearly ridership lines, much of the Metrobus network (and especially the jurisdiction-operated bus services) are coverage lines. These are lines that are never going to compete with car trips, but they serve areas that WMATA and local governments feel should be covered. If the agency was only concerned with profitability, these areas wouldn't have any service.

Lower-performing coverage routes include the 2T in Virginia and the R3 in Maryland, each with about 14.8% recovery. But even in the District, some lines are coverage lines. The 64 is a borderline case. It runs down 11th Street NW between frequent service lines on Georgia Avenue and 14th Street, and is within walking distance of both. But for those who aren't willing to walk further, it's a coverage service, though it has a decent farebox recovery of 37.9%.

Apples and oranges

And this is where the problem with comparing rail and bus comes in. In this region, and in most regions, most rail service is ridership service. This is for several reasons. At least in modern systems, Federal Transit Administration rules only allow rail lines to be built if they'll have good ridership. And transit agencies themselves don't make large capital investments in rail unless they're going to have good ridership.

Buses, on the other hand, fall into both ridership and coverage categories in almost every region. So when we compare rail, which is almost entirely composed of ridership lines, to bus, which is a mixture, we are comparing apples to oranges.

Farebox recovery is not a good metric for coverage lines, because their goal is not to generate ridership, but rather to provide service to areas the agency thinks need to be served, regardless of productivity.

Since the Metro rail lines are all ridership lines, they have a very high farebox recovery ratio. Some bus lines in DC have good farebox recovery. But much of the network has worse farebox recovery because by design it's supposed to.

Several of WMATA's bus lines cover more than half their cost through fares, including the X2 bus on H Street and the 70 bus on Georgia Avenue. One bus line, the 5A to Dulles Airport, actually has a farebox recovery ratio better than the rail average.

What does this say about WMATA bus fares?

Really, this doesn't say anything about WMATA's bus fares.

The farebox recovery ratio measures how much rider fares cover the cost of service, and that's it. In the WMATA budgeting process, the agency figures out the cost of providing the service, and then they determine how much money they'll get from the jurisdictions. The remainder has to come from fares. Essentially, the agency (and the funding jurisdictions) determines what the farebox recovery ratio is going to be.

On individual lines, farebox recovery gives us a sense of the productivity of the route. But just because a route is performing poorly in farebox recovery doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or that the fare is too low. Sure, if it's below a certain threshold, the agency can look to determine how to make it more productive or whether to keep it. And WMATA does do this. But they track a whole set of performance measures, not just farebox recovery.

Some people say that we should strive to make the bus and rail farebox recovery ratios the same, or at least closer to each other. But that's not a goal that works. At least not as long as we have coverage-type services in one set, but not in the other. If anything, we shouldn't try to make bus have a higher farebox recovery ratio; we should try to make rail have a lower one.

Nationwide, heavy rail systems like Metro have an average cost recovery of 47.2%, much lower than WMATA's 67.5%. On the other hand, the US agencies that operate both heavy rail and bus systems have an average bus farebox recovery of 28.0%, barely higher than WMATA's 24.3%.

Over the past few years, Metro has kept bus fares lower as a conscious decision because many people who rely on buses have limited incomes. That's a perfectly valid policy decision. And the result, of course, is a low farebox recovery ratio.

Support Us
DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC