December 14, 2006
Transit on Thursday: No Money, Mo' Problems Edition
Our city's transit system is facing its biggest budget shortfall ever, and in order to close the $116 million gap, Metro officials have proposed the first fare increase in three years. Past fare increases have been broadly applied to all of Metro's services, with bus fares, rail fares, and other fees increasing together.
This year's proposal, presented to the Metro Board today, is a complicated but creative set of both fare increases and a few reductions that would ultimately reach deeper into the pockets of riders. It is an attempt not only to raise money for the Metro system, but also to change rider behavior to ease the worst congestion on prime-time trains and in popular stations.
The only problem is, it won't work (and Metro knows it). After the jump: Why DCist disagrees with Metro's fare proposals, yet enthusiastically endorses their proposed 2007 budget.
Photo by DottieboBottie
First, let's run through exactly what Metro is proposing. Metro is finally beginning to push its SmarTrip card through financial incentives, so the steepest fare increases are for those who still want to use paper farecards or cash.
- On Metrorail, SmarTrip users would see an increase 15 to 45 cents, depending on the length of their trip. Those using farecards would pay 65 cents to $1.75 more.
- Metrorail riders getting on or off at any of 19 congested downtown stations would pay an additional 35 cents.
- At off-peak times, base Metrorail fare would be reduced by a dime to $1.25.
- That works out to a maximum Metrorail fare of $4.75 with SmarTrip, and $6 for everyone else.
- Metrorail service would be reduced on several federal holidays including MLK Jr. Day, Presidents' Day, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day, and weekend rail service would begin at 8 AM instead of 7 AM.
- On Metrobus, fares will remain the same for SmarTrip users. For those who want to pay with cash, bus fare will increase 75 cents to an even $2.00.
- Transfers would only be available with SmarTrip.
- The one-day Metrobus pass would be eliminated.
- Up to a dozen bus routes would be eliminated, primarily in Virginia.
- Parking fees at Metro lots will increase 75 cents, and the number of reserved parking spaces would double.
Metro's general plan could be summed up as charging for congestion. The goal is to spread demand over the system more evenly, and recoup the costs of congestion from those who most contribute to it. For the typical rider, Metro officials told the Post that the average increase works out to 5 cents on Metrobus and 30 cents on Metrorail, while the cost for many others could be far higher. The top-fare round trip on Metrorail with parking, it would cost riders $16.
However, the flaw in this thinking is that the market of Metro riders is elastic. Riders get off at downtown stations during rush hour because that's where they need to be when they need to be there. With limited off-peak hours, few commuters would be able to take advantage of lower fares. You could argue that even if rider behavior does not shift, Metro will still reap the benefit of the extra revenue. However, many commuters do not make direct comparisons between the cost of driving and the cost of Metro. They often go by a gut feeling (akin to Colbert's "truthiness") about whether a price is too high. If they feel Metro is not a good value, given the option they will choose to drive. Even when commuters do compare costs, they often leave out the cost of insurance and wear and tear (to say nothing of the externalities of pollution, congestion, and mis- or under-utilized land) and consider only the cost of gas and parking.
Metro has blamed this year's shortfall partly on lower-than-expected ridership levels, particularly at off-peak hours. This can probably be attributed to dropping gasoline prices; not facing rush hour traffic, off-peak travelers used Metro because the price of gas made driving less attractive. Metro assumes that the relatively small discount of 10 cents on off-peak fares will lure these people back. Such a small discount cannot compare with the 50 to 80 cents a gallon that gas prices have dropped over the past year. Therefore, such a measure will drive riders from Metro and contribute to future shortfalls, regardless of posible short term savings.
The downtown congestion surcharge is a thinly-veiled way justification of an additional fare increase that is arbitrary from a policy standpoint. Any additional costs of running a congested downtown station should not be imposed on riders who work in the area with the highest concentration of offices. This policy will not encourage people to get jobs near less popular Metro stations, nor for business to relocate near such stations. However, we could accept the congestion charge if it was accompanied by a similar congestion charge for downtown roadways - a proposal that has been flatly rejected in the past.
Metro's plan to ease congestion and increase revenue through fare increases might be misguided, but that does not mean that there are no good ideas in the budget proposal. A policy of pushing SmarTrip cards is especially wise, since more SmarTrip usage allows Metro to print fewer farecards, which are more expensive than you might think. Furthermore, making transfers available only via SmarTrip not only saves on printing costs, it also cuts down on abuse of transfers, further increasing revenue.
An increases to bus fares paid in cash also makes sense. Bus riders are often choosing between walking, Metrorail, and the bus, so there is less of a chance that fare increases will also increase traffic congestion. By keeping SmarTrip fares the same, Metro also gives riders an easy option to avoid any increase in cost. Encouraging SmarTrip use on buses will help Metro increase the quality of service, too. It can reduce long waits at bus stops that not only irritate riders, but also hurt the reliability of schedules. For those that still want to pay cash, finding two dollar bills might even be faster than digging for coins in a purse or pocket.
However, policies pushing SmarTrip should be paired with an increase in the availability and convenience of SmarTrip cards. SmarTrip cards - currently only available online, at stations with parking, and at Metro sales centers - should be available at every rail station. The ability to add value to SmarTrip online would also be a step in the right direction. Subsidizing the $5 cost of the physical SmarTrip card for low-income riders would satisfy those who point out that favoring SmarTrip affects low income riders more than others.
There are other sensible ways Metro could save money. Incoming Metro chief John Catoe's proposal for a private audit Metro's of administrative structure to weed out any waste should be pursued. Metro should use fuel-efficient cars and truck for its maintenance fleet, continue purchasing hybrid buses, and invest in energy-saving appliances from light bulbs to computer screens to HVAC systems. However, these measures will never close the gap needed to keep Metro financially secure.
So what should Metro do to cover this and (inevitable) future budget shortfalls? Despite our rejection of the policies Metro is proposing, we think that Metro should do exactly what it is doing: propose large, sweeping fare increases. This should starkly demonstrate to the powers-that-be just what happens when the system is underfunded by the jurisdictions that rely upon it.
As others have pointed out, Metro's current budget shortfall is due to the fact that it is virtually the only major transit system in the country without a dedicated source of funding. While D.C. has passed a measure to guarantee $50 million a year to Metro over 10 years, Maryland and especially Virginia have been so far unwilling to do the same. This keeps Metro from getting the $1.5 billion that Virginia Rep. Tom Davis has lined up in Congress that is conditional on dedicated local funding. As a result, Metro has to plow scarce operating revenues into expensive capital investments like new rail cars, helping to create the current budget crisis, and no doubt more in the future.
Like any transit system, Metro is not designed to make a profit - the closest thing to a money-making rail system in the D.C. area is any of top-notch the roller coasters at Six Flags America, at the eastern end of the Blue Line. As we have pointed out in the past, Metro provides a benefit not just to riders, but to non-riders in the form of less pollution, less traffic, and a transportation option for workers without cars who nonetheless contribute significantly to the regional economy. That demands a matching level of regional investment. Perhaps when politicians who represent Metro riders see what their inaction could cost their constituents, they will finally put ideology aside in favor of common sense.
|
Colin, congratulations on a well-reasoned article. I'm convinced. Clearly Metro should be favoring SmarTrip--but they also need to make it more accessible.
You get close to a key element of the argument, then veer away from it when it gets thorny. Our crowded trains and roads aren't a result of too few trains or too little pavement. They're a result of everyone trying to get to work at the exact same time, then trying to get home from work at the exact same time. I agree that fare increases attack the effect (ants marching) and not the cause (The Man). But at least Metro is making an effort to change habits.
Whenever I've been on a bus with a broken SmarTrip reader, it seems that the yuppies (like me) get to ride free while the people who could probably use free rides most still have to shell out a buck twenty-five. Maybe it's an access issue, maybe it's sociological, maybe it's who Metro targets with SmarTrip ads, but I really see these proposals as screwing people with less money.
I like the idea of closing the Dupont Circle station. WMATA would be doing a service to all those morbidly obese Dupont residents by forcing them to hoof it to Woodley Park or Farragut North. Crippled people and the extraordinarily lazy could simply take the 42 bus.
DC is just becoming too expensive for me.
Imposing a surcharge at the congested downtown stations will not change rider behavior, or employer locations. In fact, it is a good thing that jobs are centrally located in tight clusters - this exactly the antidote to the "sprawl" that everyone complains about.
But I think the surcharge makes sense from a different standpoint: raising revenue from the daily commuters who really don't have much choice whether to ride metro or not. This might seem unfair to downtown commuters (like me), but it is analogouos to the way airlines charge substantially more for tickets that don't include a Saturday night stay. This price structure has nothing to do with the cost to the airline; the seat doesn't cost the airline any more or any less depending on whether its occupant has been out of town all weekend or not. But the pricing is just intended to charge business travelers more because they are perceived as more willing and able to pay. The same holds for metro. The system does not need to attract more rush-hour commuters. But keeping fares low during the off-peak times, when people have a genuine choice whether to drive or take metro, might be a way to attract riders that the system could use during off-peak times.
Another thought: Not all, but a pretty high percentage of riders in the congested area are federal workers, who get transit subsidies from the government. Frankly, I don't mind if my fare goes up, because Uncle Sam will pay more (until I hit the maximum per month, which I am not yet close to). This is an indirect way of forcing the federal government to subsidize the system.
In fact, the best solution of all might be forcing federal workers to pay more, but I can't imagine how they could implement that.
You missed one important change: they're treating Fridays between 2 and 3 as "rush hour." They're trying to take advantage of the drunk consumer! Don't let them get away with it!
Don,
Do you think there are too many Metro stops? Why don't we eliminate every stop if we're going to arbitrarily eliminate one?
Not that this would save money, but they should eliminate some bus stops (not lines). It is super frustrating to stop at 3 or 4 separate stops that are all within a quarter mile of each other, and it kills the schedule.
As a daily bus rider, I wholeheartedly support Metro's bus plans. I would estimate that my commute could be shorted from 35 minutes to 25 if 90% of riders used starttrips or weekly passes.
Mike said, "Another thought: Not all, but a pretty high percentage of riders in the congested area are federal workers, who get transit subsidies from the government. Frankly, I don't mind if my fare goes up, because Uncle Sam will pay more (until I hit the maximum per month, which I am not yet close to). This is an indirect way of forcing the federal government to subsidize the system."
I'll bet by the time you factor in all the service industry folks, the nonprofits, lobby firms, and various miscellaneous services, the percentage of the workers in the congestion zone is not really all that particularly high. I'll bet it's probably close to 50/50. While I'm sure it's not too hard to care much when Uncle Sam is footing the bill, it's alot harder to be apathetic when you have to pay it all yourself, on a smaller than average income.
Miles-I would need more convincing to believe that all the peoples commuting at the same time is a problem, as in other cities, people go to work at roughly the same time, and yet they don't seem to have the same problems.
And Don- morbidly obese Duponters? I don't get it.
AND, here's a question- if MD and VA refuse to get on board with the whole dedicated source thing (which you make a good case for AGAIN), why shouldn't their constituencies be penalized? Raise the SHIT out of the fares to MD and VA (sorry, MD and VA peeps) so that there's a huge public outcry and the policy peeps will HAVE to listen. Maybe it's time for Metro to be aggressive.
Goo - Unfortunately, MD and VA reps still sit on the Board even if they don't pay in. Since they're political appointees, there's no way they would support such a logical plan.
Why does WMATA have such a hard on for the SmartTrip cards?
Interesting -- Metro includes VA stops in the 'congestion' zone but excludes the primary Hill stops (Cap South, Eastern Market, Federal Center).
Great business model -- tax your CORE CUSTOMERS a frivilous $.70/day (on top of other increases) because they have the chutzpah to have to go to work. How does that encourage off-hour use? Congestion could be argued to impose additional cost if it causes additional maitenance (debatable), but the primary cost seems to be born by crammed riders.
I'd imagine it's a few reasons.. they don't have to stock the farecard vending machines as often, they don't have to fix the faregates as often, they don't have to deal with demagnitized cards as often, and it is a lot easier to collect detailed data about riding patterns on both bus and rail.
I think encouraging SmarTrip Cards is a great idea (I even proposed the discount on buses idea on this site a few months ago). I do hope though that they can install SmarTrip meters, similar to the new green parking meters, at all if not most bus stops. Ideally you could buy new cards from these meters, if not just being able to refill your card would be great.
So by the sound of it, I guess all you will bring your great suggestions and complaints to the next Metro Town Hall meeting.
for starters, how about turning off unnecessary electricity at the Arlington Cemetery station during the hours in which it's closed? i rode by the other night, and the station lights were still on, as well as the status monitors...maybe a few different designs to the Smartrip card to encourage more usage?
I have two modest proposals:
1) A regional gasoline tax could provide a dedicated source of revenue to Metro and encourage decreased congestion on the roadways.
2) Metro should create an "unlimited rides" pass for frequent riders. The Chicago Transit Authority provides a pass for one monthly fee that gives a rider unlimited passage during a 30 day period. Although it is expensive to pay up front, it effectively caps a person's monthly commuting costs.
furthermore, how about closing the Federal Center SW station on the weekends? no one's EVER there, (that i've seen anyway) and people can walk 2 blocks to L'Enfant Plaza...
Dan,
A quarter mile? Try every block in some areas. The D6 stops half-way between 6th & 7th Streets NW and then again at 6th Street. But you can bet your ass some lazy-mofo's are going to holler if they have to walk an extra block to their bus stop.
Straphanger,
Eastern Market is understandable, its traffic is mostly not like that of Capitol South or Federal Center (i.e. its people who live there going to work and coming home, not people commuting in to work in its tiny commercial strip). And you can bet that people don't get off at the Eastern Market metro and walk to the Capitol and house office buildings.
The problem is that we have a stupid, shortsighted system design. No extra tracks for switching/express trains? Like a train is never going to break down? As long as Virginia and Maryland's sprawling suburbs keep demanding service further and further from the city-core, the worse service is going to get for the rest of us - those trains have to traverse the whole length on a two track system.
Here's an idea - since Maryland and Virginia won't contribute their share, cut them off. Last stop on the Orange Line - East or West Falls Church, Red - Bethesda, Blue/Yellow - Old Town(whatever its called). I'm sure Arlington and the close in counties will kick in some funding. Then sell the excess tracks and real-estate off (Virginia and Maryland can buy it and run their own stretch of the track).
There's a link in the story to the city's failed effort to impose a commuter tax, but the only reason I clicked it is because it sounded like a story about creating a high-congestion zone for cars, like London has. If I'm going to get hit with a fare increase for simply being present on a Metrorail car zipping under downtown, why not penalize the people who drive into downtown as well? Rather, we'd be incentivizing them to take Metro.
What about the tourists? By charging more to use paper farecards, WMATA should see increases in revenue from tourists who use public transportation. That sounds like a good way to make money to me. How about a stroller surcharge for Metro, too?
Good article, Colin.
One part of this new plan doesn't make sense to me. You touch on the nickel and dime savings of riding off-peak. If the powers that be wish to encourage more riders to travel during off-peak times, then why has Metro continued to cut off-peak service? In this plan they cut weekend hours and close station entrances on weekends. This certainly doesn't boost ridership.
The biggest obstacle for me to ride during off-peak hours, particularly after working late on weeknights, is the long waits for trains that arrive more crowded than during rush hour. At 9pm on a weeknight, it takes nearly an hour for me to get home. A $10 cabride taking 15 minutes is a much better option.
Through the years, Metro has squeezed off-peak riders by sending shorter trains and several rounds of decreasing train frequency. Charging a few cents less isn't going to do anything to increase ridership. What's the reasoning here other than good-ole positive spin to help sweeten this HUGE price hike?
Chris - Selling excess tracks and real estate is one thing that helped kill mass transit in much of this country. Please do not advocate such a stupid and shortsighted action.
Politburo, I was speaking satirically.
I can't believe the proposal presented by the board today! A congestion zone?! Bollocks! Let's make a congestion zone on automobile traffic. Actually, since that will probably be politically unfeasible in car-loving culture such as ours, let's add a special tax to any parking space downtown (except parking meters perhaps). So, instead of someone spending, say $20, to park for the day they will pay $21. That dollar tax could be dedicated to public transport. This would possibly discourage some car usage into the central city, and provide funding for feasible transportation alternatives to the car commuters (more metro funding). I don't know the exact number of autos that drive and park in public garages everyday, but I'm fairly certain that this would be a sizable chunk of change. I wonder if the numbers, logistics, and legality of that could really work... ?
My case for the fare increase/incentive package:
http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com/2006/12/metros-fare-increase-incentive-package.html
My big problem with the proposal is that it effectively punishes people like me for choosing to live relatively close to where we work. Metro and urban planners have been arguing that it's better for everyone when people live close to where they work. I live in the downtown area of the District. I work in the downtown area of the District, about two miles from home. I take Metro back and forth. For that I pay a congestion fee. If they really want me to live close to where I work, they shouldn't start charging extra when I choose to do just that.
Micelle said: "What about the tourists? By charging more to use paper farecards, WMATA should see increases in revenue from tourists who use public transportation. That sounds like a good way to make money to me. How about a stroller surcharge for Metro, too?"
I like the idea of a tourist surcharge. Sort of like hotel taxes - they don't vote here, and they can't object. A stroller surcharge is good place to start, and how about some additional surcharges for:
- fanny packs
- cameras
- T shirts that say "FBI" on them
- butts that take up more than one seat
Mike (tongue planted firmly in cheek)
Here's why I don't buy a SmarTrip card: It costs $5.00 and I very rarely use Metro, although I live in the District. I use the bus sometimes and with one fare of $1.25 and a transfer I usually get a roundtrip ride. Why pay a $5.00 base to get a card I don't often use and I'd then have to carry around all the time? If Metro gave out a "first card free", I'd probably load it, but it bugs me that they want me to pay for the stupid thing.
"However, the flaw in this thinking is that the market of Metro riders is elastic. Riders get off at downtown stations during rush hour because that's where they need to be when they need to be there."
I agree that most people can't shift their schedules to post 9:30 rush, but I think people could shift their schedules within peak, but so long as Metro doesn't break out Peak Hours into different segments, there's no financial incentive to do so. By creating tiered prices, culminating in the highest price at the highest normal congestion, then there would be incentive on the margins for people to get to work 15-30 minutes earlier. I think that could make a big difference.
"However, many commuters do not make direct comparisons between the cost of driving and the cost of Metro. They often go by a gut feeling (akin to Colbert's "truthiness") about whether a price is too high. If they feel Metro is not a good value, given the option they will choose to drive."
That's not true. You're discounting the value to people of driving, including, length of commute, control of personal time, not having to deal with crowds, etc. These things have value to people, and they factor that in even when the straight financial test leans towards Metro. That's not "truthiness" that's just one of the basic elements of economics.
I think Chris is onto something with cutting off MD/VA til they pony up -- stop service to Arlington and see the legislature come to life. Once those $500K condos at Ballston (and stops with other built-up areas) can no longer advertise proximity to Metro, watch the prices plummet, and with them, NoVa tax revenue. Bwahahaha.
I'd hate to rain on the "screw Virginia" party here, but the people in the legislature who continuously block dedicated funding are the ones who not serviced by either Metrobus or rail. Their constituents -- if they ride transit to DC at all -- ride buses that go all the way into the city. In fact, a lot of them represent places that are not even in the Washington DC metropolitcan area. (Sure, there are one or two exceptions, like Ken Cuchinelly who represents parts of Fairfax Co.) But even if you hold us hostage with $20 bus fares, we cannot vote for the representatives from Warrenton or Culpeper or Dalgreens.
Even if VA had dedicated funding, we are a long long long way from closing the $116,000,000.00 shortfall. Plus give VA a break; they made it possible to have a much more Metro friendlier Senate. Come on Senator Webb bring home the bacon!
MM (Comment 31) - You represent the very attitudes that leave the finances of our mass transit is such a precarious state. You are also a chronic cheapskate.
So $5 is too much for you to fork out for a SmartTrip card? Despite the advantages of never having to search for change, not having to collect and keep a transfer, having the money you loaded onto the card guaranteed in case of loss...I could go on.
People like you feel who complain about making the smallest investment in the system do not deserve access to the system.
Son, you are now officially barred for life from all DC area mass trasit services. Walk on.
Some of the alternate proposals include cutting 60 'take home' fleet cars for staff. WTF!?! Why do WMATA employees get fleet cars at all? Could that possibly be cheaper than mileage reimbursement? If they don't like the high cost of driving they should either ride mass transit or find another line of work.
Years ago when Metro first opened, the idea of a tiered fare system was that you payed a premium during rush hour because you got extra service (i.e., more trains). Later on, they started monkeying around with rush hour hours, extending rush hour pricing to 8pm at one point, and changed the justification saying that rush hour prices were really the actual prices, and that non-rush hour traffic was actually charged a discount because non-rush hour riders actually got less service. Now they are completely disconnecting the idea that fare has any relationship to service level at all - instead it's about "congestion".
When Metro was formed, rather than having a unitary price throughout the system, it was decided to price based upon distance because there were several jurisdictions using different formula to pay for Metro's costs. Now, Metro is breaking away from that also, instead using it's non-unitary pricing policy and ability to practice discrimination against users of particular stations regardless of the distance travelled. The whole idea of Metro pricing is now turned on it's head - a non-rush hour rider from Dupont to Farragut North will pay more than a non-rush hour rider will pay from Friendship Heights to Stadium-Armory.
Amazing. Thirty-eight comments and no one has yet brought up the fact that the congestion and rush hour surcharges might encourage people to bike to work. Well, let me be the first. If more people bike to work because of this, then I am 100% behind it.
I also don't get the opposition to the SmarTrip. Have you people actually tried using it? It's great, and it couldn't be any easier to get one. Boo hoo, they don't have machines on every street corner. Go online, sign up, and wait two days (the horror!) for it to show up in your mailbox. Five bucks is not too much of a deposit when it also guarantees that if you lose the card, you don't lose the money you have on it. And save the "poor people can't afford it" twaddle, Jane Addams. It's five bucks.
I don't think anyone said "poor people can't afford it." I just said they don't seem to be using it now. I think the access to them and marketing of the program have a lot to do with that.
Why can you buy a bus pass at Giant but not a SmarTrip card? Why don't they sell them at every Metro station not just the ones with garages? I'm all for encouraging their use, I love mine, but why not make it easy for people to get them?
I don't know why they don't sell them at Giant, but I doubt it's because devious WMATA execs want to vex prickly DCist readers. If it was really inconvenient to get one, then I would agitate for more access. But the fact that it's merely less convenient to get than a paper pass -- so what?
As for the poor, I wasn't responding to your comment in particular, and, yes, people have made the argument that preferring SmarTrip will disadvantage the poor. To the extent that poor folks are resisting SmarTrip -- and I would refrain from relying on anyone's casual observation to make that inference -- I suspect it has more to do with transfer abuse than with marketing and access.
MM, I too was reluctant to pay $5 for a smartcard. Everyone kept telling me I needed one, but I hardly ever rode metro - I would wait until they gave me one for free. Let me tell you, that was stupid of me.
Now that I have one, I can't understand how I lived without it. If my house were on fire I'd run inside to save it (and the tivo). It's that good. Buy one. If you still don't think it's worth it 6 months later, I will pay you back the $5 personally
1) MD and VA legislature need to dedicate necessary funding to ensure the 1.5 billion federal funding
2) MD and VA legislature need to dedicate necessary funding to ensure the 1.5 billion federal funding
3) Close non-elevator metro exits on the weekend: Metro stations with multiple exits should follow the L'Enfant Plaza model for the weekends. This model is closing one or two of the exits which translate into paying one less station manager for the exit, less area to pay someone more hours to collect trash, etc . . .
4) Monthly passes should be converted to SmarTrip card technology to get rid of that paper too and abuse. Monthly pass users should keep up with their pass month to month or continue to pay the base $5 for a new card.
5) SmarTrip promotion: To incentivise SmarTrip use, Metro should run a one day, one week, one month long promotion . . . that gives $5 FREE for the first X number of customers adding at least $5 who go to an online promotion. X number will fix the cost of the promotion. To accommodate the digital divide, SmartTrip should pass out FREE cards to those who add $5. For new SmarTrip users your card is free during the promotion.
6) Finally, MD and VA legislature need to dedicate necessary funding to ensure the 1.5 billion federal funding
Suggestions 1 to 6 do not close the $116 million budgeting gap entirely nonetheless they reduce that gap.
One other thing to do to cut costs would be to eliminate excess fare machines, not every station needs 6+ machines, even during peak periods.
I am all for the bus idea. I get so sick of people that can't GET THEIR MONEY OUT BEFOREHAND and have to root around for a quarter! (I also can't tell you how many times I've seen bus drivers wave people thru that didn't pay the full fare because they couldn't find a quarter...) It's like they get up to the fare machine and are surprised they're expected to pay!
Maybe we could have an electronic scale at the gate to compute a larger fare for fat people as they walk through and it would deduct more from their card automatically. Doesn't it take way more electricity to move a fat person through the tunnel? Don't they take up a lot more space on the train? I've seen a lot of fat people hauling those little trailor things with a tiny briefcase on it. With that combination they effectively take up the space of not two, but three people.