New slogan: Metro Opens Wallets

They can't afford their operating costs, huh? Well, maybe they ought not to spend thousands to have a quote from Walt Whitman engraved on the Dupont Circle entrance. Or maybe they could prohibit the Post, the Examiner, and anyone else from handing out free crappy papers, because then they'd have less litter in the trains and stations, and less trash means less money spent cleaning up.

Metro has a near monopoly on travel here, unlike other cities. If people don't like to take Metro - maybe it's too dirty, or it's too expensive - they can't always just stop using Metro and drive in instead, because there's very little parking in DC as it is. And what parking IS there is often prohibitively expensive.

But thanks for the eloquent argument there, erincarly. "Shut your trap, pay your fare, and get on the damn train." Truly, you are gifted.

Well what did we expect? I think they should have done a five year plan with grdual hikes so it doesn' end up being a big deal everytime they revisit this issue.

People expect prices to rise with inflation, and when Metro waits and tries to play catchup for all the years they didn't raise rates people (not me, but others) get upset.

Amanda from DCMetrocentric

I'm with erin. It seemed like everyone was aghast that Metro tried to use shorter trains in off peak hours to limit costs, but they were too crowded for your liking. Now they announce a fare hike so that the trains aren't too crowded, but its too expensive. And the new trains have bars that are too high for 3% of the population to reach. Are they serious with the new colors they chose for the seats?

Life is tough in the big city, maybe Des Moines would be more your speed if this is all too much to take.

Maybe a Metro fare hike after four years isn't such bad policy. If WMATA had asked for an annual dime raise each year for the past four years they would have heard the same carping and whining four times instead of just once.

I can understand fare increases, but how do they justify parking increases? This is a serious question - do the operating costs of the parking lots increase with time, or is that just a way to avoid raising everyone's fares even more? Not that I'm opposed, since commuters from the outer suburbs should pay more to begin with.

Metro has a near monopoly on travel here, unlike other cities

Oh right, I forgot about the separate transit lines in cities such as New York, Chicago and LA.

And, actually, Metro does have competition in DC - slugging, HOV lanes, walking, telecommuting, Coach buses from the suburbs, etc.

And, actually, Metro does have competition in DC - slugging, HOV lanes, walking, telecommuting, Coach buses from the suburbs, etc.

These are not competition. We can virtually eliminate "walking," since so many folks are commuting from outside the city. I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting people walk from, say, College Park to downtown DC.

Things like HOV lanes and buses are usually complementary to rail, not competitive with them; this is because people still need to get to the outlying train stations, so they take a bus and then the train or drive to the station.

The main competition to commuter rail is the automobile. In other cities, when you'd prefer not to take the train (for whatever reason), you can drive into the city and pay your $10-$15 for parking. This isn't as viable an option in DC, since there are far fewer public parking lots. (People with lots under their building? What percent of total commuters could possibly take advantage of this? The vast majority don't have this privilege or option.) Fewer parking lots means that most people HAVE to take the train in. That's why it can be considered a monopoly.

In principle, I don't mind a fare hike. I don't like it, but in principle it doesn't have to be terrible. What's bothersome is that I've seen no evidence over the years that Metro has any kind of money-management talent. Or any kind of management talent, period. They had a problem with their employees stealing parking money, so they "solved" it by disallowing cash payments, thus directly closing off a revenue stream (given a choice, a tourist would find a better way into the city, rather than buy a card he'll never use again). Then they bandied the idea of increasing the number of reserved parking spots, despite the fact that most of the existing ones don't get used by people with actual permits (they fill up after 10). Adding more reserved spots means taking away regular spots in most cases. This also closes off a potential revenue stream, as there are certainly more regular commuters than "reserved" ones, and when the average commuter comes to the lot and finds no spots available because the regular spots have been converted to reserve spots, he'll move on.

And I do think it's patently unfair and unreasonable for Metro to raise fares for the purpose of having fewer people on the trains (more money for them with the higher fares, fewer people able to pay them), because this shuts out a great number of people who simply can't afford to utilize the only viable way they have of getting into the city. When the oil companies do this, it's called gouging.

I'm curious, Frothy: what "competition" are you seeing in other major U.S. cities that is lacking in D.C.? What transportation options are available in places such as Boston, Philly, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, Denver, LA, Detroit, etc. that aren't available here?

Show me a city that has plentiful and cheap parking downtown, and I'll show you a downtown that's in serious trouble.

It's simple economics - when downtown is a desirable place to be, land values are high. When land values are high, developers will either build expensive parking garages, or dedicate as much space as possible to active uses (stores, offices, condos) that generate more money than a parking garage does.

Also, garages are dead space. As a matter of urban policy, it's much better to have buildings and streets that are filled with PEOPLE who move around during the day -- walking between meetings, walking to lunch, running errands on foot rather than filling those buildings and streets with large hunks of metal.

In that sense, it's also perfectly logical for Metro to charge more for parking at their lots. That land is extremely valuable. Even putting aside the value of the land for development, obviously there is high demand for parking at the stations. If there are people willing to pay the price, why shouldn't Metro charge it?

This is an expensive region to live in. If you want a cheap house with a big yard where you can drive downtown in 20 mins and pay $5/day to park, move to Kansas City.

I agree with Lou. Everyone benefits from Metro - drivers who deal with less traffic, retailers whose customers take Metro, companies with employees who have an easier commute because of Metro and might not have applied to that company if they had to drive. Yet they bitch and whine about subsidizing the system. It's not the Metro administration's fault that interstate politics mean that the concept of "public good" gets squashed like a bug on the rails.