Fares - Greater Greater Washington

The Circulator fare would rise to $2 ($1.50 with SmarTrip) under Mary Cheh's proposal; to fund extensions to U Street and Shaw, the Cathedral, and Waterfront Metro. (Post)

WMATA budget was easy

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:38:00 EDT

The WMATA board quickly approved its budget for 2014 with little controversy. The budget does not include a fare increase or a large subsidy increase from the jurisdictions. (Post)

Metro fare signs confuse the riders who need help most

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Nearly every Metro fare machine has a paper sign on it: "Using a paper farecard? Add $1 to every trip." Yet even with this reminder, some riders get stuck at the faregates, wondering why Metro won't let them leave.

Photo by Tim Krepp.

Most people riding Metro use SmarTrip, and that's great. But the ones that are more likely to need extra help with a fare table are the infrequent customers that use a paper farecard.

It makes no sense to list SmarTrip prices on the fare table and then ask people to add $1. Riders shouldn't need to do math to figure out how much to put on their farecards. We want to make purchasing a farecard as easy as possible, while not necessarily offering them the best deal possible.

The simplest solution would be to list the paper farecard prices on the tables, and then have notes that SmarTrip riders get a discount. Even if these riders don't notice, they'll just end up with extra money on their cards, which they can use later.

An even better approach would be to eliminate the $1 surcharge, and instead always charge peak fares for people using paper farecards. The fare machines would simply list the peak fare for each destination, with a note that SmarTrip customers get discounts during off-peak, discounted transfers to and from trips on buses, protected fare balances (with registration) and a guarantee that they won't be trapped in the system if their balance goes too low.

All paper farecard customers would have to do is look up their destination, and make sure their farecard had the corresponding amount. No math, no timetables, no figuring out whether it's currently peak or off-peak.

WMATA spokesperson Dan Stessel said the agency is aware of the confusion and complaints about these signs, and is "considering" making changes to the posted fare tables and signs.

77 comments

DASH will cost more, do less

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:28:00 EDT

Alexandria's DASH is raising fares. The King Street trolley will also come every 20 minutes instead of every 15, along with a few other service cuts, while a few lines will see greater service. (Patch)

Does Metro ask riders to pay too much?

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:06:00 EDT

by Matt Johnson

Metro is one of the most expensive rail systems in the country, with fares ranging as high as $6.75. But aside from pure sticker shock, Metro riders pay a much higher percentage of the cost to provide the service than riders in other cities do.

Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr.

All transit systems in the United States provide information about their "farebox recovery ratio." This ratio is the percentage of operating costs covered by riders' fares.

For example, if it costs $10 million per year to run a transit system, but the system only takes in $4 million each year in fare revenues, the farebox recovery ratio is 40%. The remaining 60% of the cost to operate the system must come from other sources (most likely taxes or other subsidy).

The farebox recovery for the Metrorail system for 2011 (the most recent year with available data) was 67.8%. This is the 3rd-highest farebox recovery ratio in the nation for all heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail systems.

Among heavy rail systems, the average farebox recovery ratio is 46.4%, and systems range from 20.2% (Baltimore Metro) to 76.6% (New York City Subway). The range for light rail systems is between 12.0% (Dallas) and 57.4% (San Diego), with an average of 29.6%. Commuter rail averages 33.3% and ranges from 6.2% (Portland WES) to 62.3% (Metro-North).

What can cause a high farebox recovery ratio?

It's important to note that high fares are not the only reason for high farebox recovery ratios.

New York, for example, has the highest farebox recovery ratio, but their fares are not actually as high as those on San Francisco's BART or Metro. In 2011, the fare to ride the New York Subway was a mere $2.25, plus bus transfers are free. WMATA's highest fare in 2011 was $5.45. In 2010, the highest fare on BART would set you back $10.90.

So if New York has fares that are so much lower, how can it have a farebox ratio (76.6%) higher than Metro (67.8%) or BART (76.1%)?

The answer is in the service efficiency. New York is extremely dense and extraordinarily transit-dependent. As a result, the subway is very productive in terms of the number of riders per train, and that means that New York's system is more efficient. So despite lower fares, straphangers pay a larger percentage of the share.

BART is at the other end of the spectrum. That system is designed much more like a commuter rail system than a subway. The long distances between stops and the lower density of the Bay Area mean that the trains run with fewer passengers, and the agency charges much higher fares, asking riders to pay a larger share.

Metro's recovery stays high

Between 2002 and 2011, Metrorail has had an average farebox recovery ratio of 62.2% and has ranged from 58.1% to 67.7%.

One reason that Metro charges riders so much to use the rail system is the funding situation in the region. With a lack of a dedicated funding source, WMATA has to go to the jurisdictions each year to ask for money. Because the jurisdictions have a variety of funding priorities, WMATA is competing with other things for resources, and it can be a difficult battle to get additional subsidy.

In 2011, rider fares across all modes paid 46% the cost of operating Metrorail, Metrobus and MetroAccess. The local jurisdictions paid 41%.

The way WMATA gets subsidy from its constituent jurisdictions is by calculating the cost to operate the system, subtracting estimated fare revenues, and then allocating the rest of the cost using a complex formula.

Lowering the cost of the fare would decrease the revenues Metro gets from fares, and would mean that jurisdictions would be responsible for paying more. This would put the additional burden on taxpayers in each jurisdiction, regardless of whether they ride Metro or not.

But that's fair, because everyone in the region benefits from Metro. Not only because traffic is reduced by other people using transit, but also because of the enormous economic benefit that Metro provides to the region.

A study released in 2011 estimated that Metro creates an additional $224 million in tax revenues for local jurisdictions each year due to demand to locate within 1/2 mile of stations. The study also indicated that having Metro has allowed the region to grow without adding new roads, an investment estimated to cost the region $4.7 billion.

What might a change look like?

It's difficult to estimate exactly how lower fares would affect the budget.

In 2011, WMATA earned fare revenues of $571,418,362 from rail passengers. That's 67.7% of the cost to operate Metrorail, and is 36.7% of WMATA's overall operating budget.

The local jurisdictions put in $647,248,856 to the operation of the system, about 41.6% the cost of operating the system.

If Metro fare revenues were to drop 10% (through lower fares), the local jurisdictions would need to make up the difference of $57,141,836. A 10% drop in fare revenues would also lower the farebox recovery ratio to 60.9%.

Getting down to the average farebox recovery ratio for heavy rail systems in the United States (46.4%), would mean dropping fare revenues by 31.5% to just $391,665,363. That would mean an additional $179,752,999 annually from the jurisdictions.

One scenario

Were Metro to target a farebox recovery ratio of 46%, what might riders experience in terms of fares?

Using the ridership data that Metro provided and a fare table, I estimate Metro earns about $2.1 million in (rail) fare revenue each weekday.

Assuming that revenue fell by 31.5% as well, daily revenues would need to drop to around $1.5 million to get to to a farebox recovery ratio of 46%.

One path to doing that would be to always charge off-peak fares and drop all fares 45¢.

Note, this model assumes a peak hour ridership elasticity of 0.15 and an off-peak elasticity of 0.40. That means that for every 10% that peak fares drop, ridership increases by 1.5%. For every 10% that off-peak fares drop, ridership increases by 4%. The model also assumes that all trips use full-fare trips (no senior discounts) and are paid with SmarTrip (no surcharge).

So, for example, the current SmarTrip peak fare between Addison Road and Archives is $3.50 and is just $2.75 off-peak. Making all fares off-peak and dropping their cost by 45¢ would mean that for both peak and off-peak trips, the ride between Addison Road and Archives would cost $2.30.

It would mean dropping the average fare (currently about $3.00) to $1.94.

That scenario would lower estimated daily revenues to about $1,507,453. It would also raise average daily ridership from 729,115.1 to 778,782.8.

This example is just meant for illustrative purposes, to give you a sense of the dynamic in play between fares, ridership, and subsidies.

What should WMATA do?

From a practical standpoint, it would be almost impossible for WMATA to lower the farebox recovery ratio at once by dropping fares. However, it could work with the jurisdictions over time to hold fares steady (or lower them) as jurisdictional subsidies increase.

It's a tough time financially not only for WMATA, but also for many of the region's jurisdictions. They already contribute significant amounts toward Metro. Asking them to contribute even more will be difficult. However, with proper political pressure it may be possible.

Metro's fares are among the highest in the nation. It's unfortunate that riders are being asked to shoulder such a large burden, but it will be difficult to change the situation.

87 comments

Pay without touching

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:05:00 EDT

London recently started allowing riders to pay on its transit system with contactless credit cards. But is the that the future of transit payment, or will mobile payment services become the norm? (Atlantic Cities)

Metro installing new generation of SmarTrip card readers (Jul 21, 2009)
Open payment, open standards are in WMATA's future (Jul 27, 2011)
A brief history of Metrorail fare collection (Jul 8, 2011)
SmarTrip will link to credit cards (Dec 11, 2007)
Imagine how transit fare payment could work in the future (Mar 28, 2011)

No Metro fare hike

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 08:38:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

WMATA will not propose a fare increase in the 2014 fiscal year, as its policy is to change fares every other year. Last year, fares rose 5%, and ridership declined. (Post)

Fare hikes probable to cover part of Metro's $120 million gap (Dec 2, 2011)
Metro should include fare increase option in FY12 budget (Apr 12, 2011)
Metro outlines fare policy principles (Jan 12, 2010)
WMATA budget deep dive, part 3: Fare proposals (Feb 25, 2010)
New Metro fare table may confuse new riders (Jul 2, 2012)

Pricey passes not a hit, not surprisingly

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:20:00 EDT

Many fewer Metro riders are buying passes after WMATA raised the prices. Michael Perkins is not surprised, since he said they wouldn't succeed as implemented. (Examiner)

Metro putting bus passes on SmarTrip cards (Oct 13, 2010)
Metro to offer rail passes on SmarTrip in the spring (Oct 7, 2011)
WMATA considers smart passes, fare zones and more (Oct 12, 2011)
Metro's lost passes (Sep 8, 2010)
Metro's proposed monthly pass could serve more riders (Feb 7, 2012)

Germans love transit

Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:18:00 EDT

Despite a high level of car ownership, Germans use mass transit at 5 times the rate of Americans. Service levels, fares, land-use policies, and gas taxes all play a role. (Atlantic Cities)

How much transit is the right amount of transit? (Jun 14, 2010)
Mass transit: gain riders, lose stigma (Dec 3, 2008)
Be like Berlin (May 20, 2008)
Fare hikes probable to cover part of Metro's $120 million gap (Dec 2, 2011)
Post endorses mass transit (Dec 9, 2008)

Autoload is coming

Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:21:00 EDT

A system to automatically reload SmarTrip cards from a credit card when the balance gets low is now in testing, as 30,000 riders got an invitation to try the feature. WMATA won't yet say when it will roll out to everyone. (Examiner)

New Metro fare table may confuse new riders

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:37:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Metro fares rose on Sunday, and the surcharge for a paper farecard increased to $1 per trip. Metro chose to list the SmarTrip fares, not the paper farecard fares, on the fare tables, along with a separate note about the surcharge. This could create significant confusion for the riders most likely to consult the tables: tourists using paper cards.

Photo by the author.

Metro could, instead, have shown both the SmarTrip and paper farecard fare for peak and off-peak trips, but this would show a lot of information and would likely be too cluttered. Or, they could show the paper farecard prices with a note that SmarTrip users save $1 per trip.

Vistors and infrequent riders, who need to look up their fare for a specific trip, are the ones most likely to use the tables. Since these riders are more likely to use a paper farecard, it makes more sense to list the paper farecard fares and have a note that you save $1 by using a SmarTrip card.

With the fare table Metro chose, a customer that doesn't notice the note would buy a card with the fare listed on the table, get to the destination, then get frustrated when they realize their farecard doesn't have enough to pay for the trip. The exit fare machines don't take credit cards, so customers that don't carry cash could end up stuck (or station agents will let them out without paying).

If Metro instead listed the paper farecard prices and stated there was a Smartrip discount, the worst case is that a SmarTrip customer would end up with an extra dollar per trip on the card. SmarTrip customers are more likely to load a larger amount regardless of the price of an individual trip, so this is not likely to be a huge problem.

Further, Metro's latest improvements to SmarTrip allow you to add fare online or have your account automatically topped off when your balance gets low, so SmarTrip rail customers are not as likely to need to use the fare vending machines or the fare tables.

New fare table. Photo by the author.

Metro spokesperson Dan Stessel defended the move. He wrote in an email:

Today, roughly 80 percent of Metrorail trips are taken with SmarTrip cards. We wanted to show what the vast majority of customers would be paying as clearly as possible.
It is not correct to assume that the majority of people using the fare machines are paper transactions. Already, SmarTrip transactions exceed paper farecard transactions at the machines—and the share of ST vs. paper will only increase over the next several months due to the surcharge.
Speaking of "surcharge," that's what we're calling it. It's not a "discount" for using SmarTrip, but rather a "surcharge" for using paper. So, the fare charts display the fares as they are, and there's a big bold box that says add $1 if you're using paper.

This is all technically correct, but ignores the key difference between different types of customers that use the vending machines. Many customers that use the fare vending machines don't look at the table at all, such as Smartrip customers topping off a card by adding a fairly large amount of money that they plan to use on multiple trips.

The customers that want to look up the fare for a specific trip or a round trip are more likely to be infrequent riders or visitors, are less likely to know the fare system well, and are less likely to be using SmarTrip.

Metro's leadership seems to feel that increasing surcharges on paper farecards will eliminate their use entirely, or reduce it to the point that the customer experience with paper farecards no longer matters. I disagree. Metro should make the system as simple as possible (though more expensive) for paper farecard customers.

42 comments

Replace paper card fares with a single fare table? (May 31, 2011)
Can Metrorail fares be simpler? (Nov 17, 2010)
WMATA proposes fare hike, eliminating "peak of the peak" (Jan 10, 2012)
Metro to offer rail passes on SmarTrip in the spring (Oct 7, 2011)
A "tourist zone" might simplify Metro fares for casual riders (Nov 28, 2011)

3 years after crash, Metro repair and funding is top priority

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:55:00 EDT

Today is the 3rd anniversary of Metro's Red Line crash. Three years later, residents still consider Metro maintenance and reliability the top regional priority. Transparency and management effectiveness also came up as a very important issue.

Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

In a recent focus group, respondents ranked the problem of deferred Metrorail maintenance as the top transportation challenge facing the region, ahead of traffic congestion.

Respondents also said that finding funding to repair transit, roads and bridges was the most important strategy to pursue, with circumferential transit behind that. Highways like an Outer Beltway (and more bike sharing) brought up the rear.

I'll be on NewsTalk this morning from 10-10:15 to talk about Metro's progress; ~~you can watch the segment live~~ the archived video is online.

Metro maintenance rates as number one challenge

AmericaSpeaks conducted the focus group for the Transportation Planning Board on June 2. It recruited 41 people from around the region, whose geography and demographics fairly closely match the overall regional makeup, except that there weren't as many people in the highest income bracket as in the general population.

The organizers posed a series of transportation challenges and had respondents vote, using small remote controls at their seats, on how important each one is on a scale of 1-5 where 5 was the most important. Here are the average scores:

Deferred Metrorail maintenance causes unreliability	4.62
The transportation system is too congested	4.36
Many people cannot access affordable and convenient transit	4.22
Many residential areas have limited transportation options	4.11
Aging roadways need repair	4.11
Bottlenecks are causing delays of inter-regional movement	4.00
Development and transportation are often not well-coordinated	3.89
Natural resources are threatened by transportation and growth	3.89
Traffic incidents are a major source of delays	3.87
Travel times to & from airports are increasingly unreliable	3.59
Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities are a growing concern	3.56
Air quality and public health standards are getting stricter	3.14

69% of respondents ranked Metrorail maintenance as "very important," with nobody ranking it "low" or "very low." The much lower ratings for pedestrian and bicycle fatalities point to potential challenges in dealing with road safety; commuters may not be very eager to accept speed enforcement and traffic calming if they don't think that crashes are a big problem.

"Fix it first" is clear; suburban transit beats Outer Beltway

In a later part of the session, organizers asked participants about 6 potential strategies to improve transportation, and got these ratings:

Secure Dependable Sources of Funding to Ensure "State of Good Repair" for Highways and Bridges	4.45
Create a Dedicated Regional Funding Source to Ensure "State of Good Repair" for Metrorail Trains and Facilities	4.43
Connect Existing Metrorail Lines with High-Quality, Circumferential Transit	3.51
Improve Pedestrian Facilities and Safety Around Bus Stops	3.29
Expand the Region's Highway Network, Possibly Including New Potomac River Crossings	3.05
Expand Bike-Sharing	2.18

Clearly, repairing both roads and rails is the highest priority for people in this focus group. The perpetual boosters of the Outer Beltway, who have started talking about the idea as "new Potomac River bridges" instead, will likely be disappointed to find weak support for this compared to circumferential transit.

At the same time, sustainable transportation advocates may be disappointed at how bike sharing came in last. That is, at least, a far less expensive solution than most of the others.

Metro fares aren't that confusing after all

One other tidbit: Despite the common suggestions to create a flat or simpler Metro fare, participants in the focus group didn't seem to feel that the fare structure was any problem. In one section, they came up with their own sets of transportation challenges at tables, then voted on them.

In one set, someone came up with "Metro system, including cost structure, is hard to understand," but nobody voted for that one; "Lack of funding to support maintenance or expanding transportation options" got 43% on that vote, and "Existing funds are managed poorly, limiting quality of transit" got 34%.

Later, a potential strategy to "Simplify and/or restructure Metro fares" only got 4 votes out of 74 (I assume people could vote multiple times); the top choices were "Increase incentives and improve infrastructure for the use of transit, carpooling, walking, and biking," "Require agency transparency to ensure accountability," and "Encourage employers to support telework and alternative work schedules."

Transparency is on people's minds

In the aforementioned question, the way WMATA manages its money is clearly an issue people worry about, coming in second, with 34% of votes, to the need to just have enough money to make repairs, at 43%.

Later, the tables came up with 3 challenges around maintenance, repair and safety of transportation: "Lack of funding," "Lack of transparency, trust in management, and maintenance oversight," and "The general public doesn't realize the extent of maintenance needs." Here, again, the votes came out similarly. Lack of funding got 56% of the votes, while lack of transparency and oversight got 38%.

The two absolutely go together. If WMATA can show the public that it is managing repair funds effectively, riders and jurisdictions will be more willing to increase funding to achieve a state of good repair. Communication and customer service has improved, but it still can be better. WMATA remains a fairly secretive organization that often acts like riders don't need to know what's going on beyond the most basic customer information.

This mindset will remain a political obstacle until this CEO or a future one makes it a priority to reform the insular culture and turn riders into advocates instead of frustrated skeptics or angry critics. Because no matter how pressing Washingtonians think Metro's state of repair is, they'll be hard pressed to cough up more money to an agency they can't trust.

10 comments

Metro should include fare increase option in FY12 budget (Apr 12, 2011)
More people support transit than new or wider highways (Mar 6, 2012)
Can Metrorail fares be simpler? (Nov 17, 2010)
Advocates say fares, jurisdictional contributions both too low (Jan 27, 2010)
What is WMATA's 2025 budget? Should we care today? (Apr 18, 2012)

Give peak a chance

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:44:00 EDT

Metro is dropping its peak of the peak surcharge, but some say they didn't give it enough time or design it in the way that would actually shift ridership away from the peak. (Examiner)

"Peak of the peak" makes flexible passes more crucial (Jun 16, 2010)
WMATA proposes fare hike, eliminating "peak of the peak" (Jan 10, 2012)
WMATA budget deep dive, part 4: A better fare increase? (Feb 25, 2010)
Metro analyzes "peak of the peak" options (May 10, 2010)
WMATA considering 50c, core-only peak-of-the-peak fare (Apr 30, 2010)

Fare hikes likely a go

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:47:00 EDT

The WMATA board will likely approve a fare hike later today that would raise bus and rail fares as well as parking rates. The increases go into effect July 1, giving Metro time to update signs and fare gates. (Post)

And...

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:41:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

VRE raises fares by 3%. (Post) ... As it turns out, the half-mile circle around transit stations may not be the best measure of accessibility. (Half-Mile Circles) ... Vallejo, CA, will turn to the public for its budget process. (Times-Herald)

WMATA releases preliminary budget, gap now $190M (Jan 29, 2010)
Metro should include fare increase option in FY12 budget (Apr 12, 2011)
Judge says Metro can pay workers more... if it hiked fares (Aug 2, 2011)
Then and Now: The Times-Herald building (Jul 22, 2010)
Advocates say fares, jurisdictional contributions both too low (Jan 27, 2010)

Incomplete passes

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:19:00 EDT

Besides the proposed $230 pass, WMATA's old computer system makes more monthly passes unlikely in the near future. CEO Richard Sarles says they hope to upgrade computers soon to allow more passes. (Examiner)

Metro to offer rail passes on SmarTrip in the spring (Oct 7, 2011)
Rethinking Metro's passes, part 2: Benefits and principles (Dec 15, 2009)
What would you ask WMATA's new CEO? (Feb 2, 2011)
Metro's lost passes (Sep 8, 2010)
Metro doesn't need just any "monthly pass" (Jan 23, 2012)

What is WMATA's 2025 budget? Should we care today?

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:20:00 EDT

In 2012, like the last few years, WMATA faces a budget shortfall. In coming months, it will make some cuts, secure more funding from jurisdictions, and increase fares considerably. Then, next year, the cycle will likely repeat.

Photo by kurichan+ on Flickr.

Will these routine funding crises end? If so, how many years will it take and how do we get there?

Riders don't have that information today. Some WMATA officials would like to collect and share it, but it will take support inside and outside the organization to make it happen.

Meanwhile, the largest repair effort in the agency's history is underway. It's absolutely necessary, but riders must suffer frequent single-tracking, delays from shuttle buses on weekends, and even entrances closing for months.

Will this end and will Metro reach and maintain a "state of good repair"? If so, when, and how much will it cost?

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.

25 comments

WMATA faces $90 million budget gap (Nov 1, 2010)
WMATA budget not a crisis thanks to leadership, though some harmful cuts remain (May 5, 2011)
Metro faces big budget gap even with a fare hike (Sep 10, 2009)
Get Metro a fair share (Mar 8, 2010)
WMATA budget deep dive, part 6: Are there capital projects that can be deferred? (Mar 1, 2010)

Why a flat fare is a bad idea for Metro

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:18:00 EDT

by Matt Johnson

At last week's WMATA board meeting, new Virginia member Jim Dyke suggested that the transit agency study a flat fare. While a flat fare would certainly be simpler to understand, it's not a good policy. It would not be more equitable. Nor would it be cheap.

Photo by 35mmMonkey on Flickr.

The idea of a flat fare for Metro comes up every so often, especially compared to the current, complicated fare structure that requires looking up fares in a huge table. This idea is to create a simpler system by charging everyone the same amount to ride, as is the case in many subway systems.

For someone used to paying $4.50 each way, a flat fare like Boston's $1.70 or New York's $2.25 looks attractively cheap. But the reality is that even if Metro were to adopt a flat fare, it would not be that cheap.

Michael Perkins ran the numbers and discovered that (assuming no loss in ridership) a flat fare would need to be at least $2.90 to be revenue-neutral.

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.

104 comments

Metro isn't the NYC subway, part 1: Rapid rail vs. subway (May 25, 2010)
WMATA considers smart passes, fare zones and more (Oct 12, 2011)
Metro by the numbers, part 1 (Jul 28, 2010)
Ask GGW: What will the Metro fare to Dulles be? (Jul 20, 2011)
Metro isn't the NYC subway, part 2: Don't forget transfers (May 26, 2010)

It's quite fare

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:30:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

A WMATA Board committee tentatively approved a fare increase which will eliminate "peak-of-the-peak" and add a $14 all-day pass. Changes would take effect July 1. (Examiner)

WMATA budget deep dive, part 4: A better fare increase? (Feb 25, 2010)
Metro should include fare increase option in FY12 budget (Apr 12, 2011)
WMATA proposes fare hike, eliminating "peak of the peak" (Jan 10, 2012)
WMATA budget deep dive, part 3: Fare proposals (Feb 25, 2010)
WMATA Board approves fare hikes, no service cuts (May 27, 2010)

Use rosier Metro outlook to reduce fare hike

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:22:00 EDT