May 1, 2007
A Fairer Fare Increase
Remember when a loaf of bread cost a quarter, a gallon of gas was 50 cents, and you could see a movie for a buck or two? Neither do we. The fact is, as time goes on, elusive forces at work in our economy inevitably drive up the price of most items. Though no one likes having to shell out hard earned money for something that cost less yesterday, we grudgingly pay the extra amount as we pray that our wages are rising at a faster rate.
For Metro, however, the price of a ride is not subject to those same economic forces. It remains constant, year after year, until the Metro overlords decide that a fare increase is in in order. Before Metro proposed its convoluted set of fare adjustments this past November, the cost of a ride on Metro had not increased in three years. Each time one of these sporadic fare increases occurs, it set off a chain reaction of outraged passengers, allegations of wasteful spending and lax management, and city officials clamoring to fight the hike at all costs (pun intended). Nothing in this histrionic process is terribly productive, however, and whatever the result, passengers, Metro, and city officials are left with unanswered questions. Was a fare really warranted, or am I being overcharged? Does Metro need more money, or could it balance the books with existing revenue?
As universal as it is to U.S. transit systems, this system of arbitrary fare increases is absurd. The lack of a dedicated source of funding creates enough financial uncertainly for Metro's budget chiefs without them having to worry about the fact that a $1.35 fare will cover less of a Metro ride this year than it did last year.
Photo by AlbinoFlea
After rejecting any notion of a fare increase this year, Metro chief John Catoe stated that one would be necessary as early as 2008, and would be included in a revised budget proposal to be released this month. At a District Council meeting on Metro's budget yesterday, instead of offering a standard fare hike proposal, Catoe asked a great question. Rather than ambushing riders with irregular cost increases that are less that transparent, why not set a formula for determining when fares will increase and by how much? The general idea is to tie fares to cost-of-living measures, such as the consumer price index or the rate of inflation. As Catoe told the Examiner, “With such a system, fares would rise at regular intervals instead of big jumps every few years. Furthermore, linking fares to an economic index makes fare increases transparent, predictable and easily understandable.”
While we could not agree more, response to Catoe's idea was mixed. Metro board member and D.C. Councilman Jim Graham stated that he could not support any fare increase until he was "convinced" that every cost-cutting option had been examined, even though Catoe is currently searching Metro's budget with a fine tooth comb for savings, and just announced that 220 employees will be laid off. Metro board chair Jennifer Hewlett, of Maryland, disagreed though, arguing that a clearer, more predictable fare policy would benefit riders no matter what.
Catoe and his aides will work on an indexing formula for Metro fares over the next several months. When he unveils it to Metro's board, we hope that it is Hewlett's view that prevails.
|
San Francisco did this with BART a few years ago, the adjustments happen every two years. They also have a dedicated source of funding from sales tax receipts. As well as counting unused tickets as revenue (something Catoe's has suggested that WMATA do) -- and still they have a budget shortfall. It's not as bad as it once was. And I think they had a year or so there in the black. But it's still been rough. And now it costs people $10 or more roundtrip to get from work to home (there is a premium to cross the bay -- so people that live and work on the same side don't have that problem.)
SF has recently proposed having FREE transit. As the system makes so little money at the faregate that paying for fare gates, toll collectors, etc. may actually not be worth the cost.
More money needs to come from government sources for all transit. Or increase the dedicated funding streams -- tolls on highways, congestion tax.
I don't know what the answer is, but many of these ideas that have been floated around here have been tried elsewhere -- and not always with the success that was promised.
That's a good point, DC1974. I was unaware of the SF situation. It's true that this won't solve all or even much of Metro's financial woes. My point was more that, since fare increases are inevitable, making them as predictable and clear is good for both riders and Metro. And in addition to being more fare, it might also shed light on the your point that Metro will need solid government support (i.e. increasing at least at the rate of inflation) each year. Cost cutting and efficiency should remain separate from the issue of rising fixed costs.
More money DOES need to come from the government. Public transportation funding should be right up there with education, health and affordable housing (none of which get the money they deserve). The only problem is that the auto industry and countless others, have their hands down the pants and blouses of government.
hell I'll pay more if they promise to get rid of the nasty old cars that smell like urine.
I just hope that those green smiley faces and red frowny faces at the faregates will soon be standardized throughout the system.
After all the news about the overtime schemes and huge number of bus drivers drawing $150,000 per year and the pension system rigging along with the various kickback schemes that various Metro managers participate in (Verizon, handicapped pickup contractors, etc), well, isn't it time to face up to the fact that Metro is an organized criminal enterprise? Isn't it time that the Metro system be taken over by the feds just like the Los Angeles Police Department was when it was declared an organized criminal enterprise back in 2000? These things do happen.
the incredible handy work of the green / red smiley's frowny's can be found at the New York Ave. metro station.