The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Make sure to check out this post by former DCist editor Rob Goodspeed over at Goodspeed Update about the costs of a Metrorail trip per mile. Contrary to the claims of former WMATA Board Member T. Dana Kauffman that the new Metro fare structure is a “raw deal” for suburban commuters, Goodspeed finds that most suburban Metro commuters "continue to enjoy costs substantially lower than driving" and shows that commuters with longer trips actually save more per mile than those with shorter ones.
Remember, the new Metro fares go into effect this Sunday, Jan. 6.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"...commuters with longer trips actually save more per mile than those with shorter ones."
Make that:
"...commuters with longer trips actually spend less per mile than those with shorter trips."
Intriguing analysis. I wonder where he gets the mileage data for each station. Estimates from looking at a map? Didn't think Metro has that info, or publishes it.
I also wonder what the data would show if measured from a route terminus, e.g. Shady Grove or Vienna. Obviously the overall conclusion wouldn't change, but the slope of the curves might be a bit different.
I wholeheartedly agree that it's absurd to bitch about metro fares. It's very simple.
1) Metro can barely meet ridership demand now during peak times, and as the population grows and traffic worsens, it will become more in demand.
2) Metro needs to pay for operating costs, maintenance and capital improvements, either from increased fares or from taxes.
It has to be paid for, and the service is in high demand. Why on earth would they not raise fares?
If you don't like the fare increase, then try getting back in your car and see how that fits you. Metro obviously is a choice that makes economic sense for millions of people now and I can't believe a couple bucks extra will change anyone's mind back to commuting in the parking lots on 66, 496, 270 and so on.
A couple of things about this study:
1. It does not include the price of parking, but there is argument that babysitting your 2000lbs keychain does warrant an extra cost.
2. This study looks at cost per mile assuming that all miles on Metro are the same; which they are not. For instance, most suburban commuters are coming in on surface tracks and through open air stations which cost significantly less to construct and maintain than the urban tunnels and sub-terrain stations. Therefore, one can assume that traveling on urban track cost more per mile than suburban track. So the question is: "When ridding the less expensive suburban part of metro are you subsidizing those riding the more expensive urban track?".
But even this is too simplistic, like the cost per mile study, to even suggest that one set of riders are paying their fair share; there are simply too many cost variables for every rider.
It makes no sense to try to quantify the fairness of the cost per user based on where they live.
Without ALL the miles, including all the stations that you may never ever use, and the fact that the system goes lots of different places so it's useful to millions of people OTHER than you, it would be useless to everyone. It is a SYSTEM. Sure, above-ground rail is cheaper. Fat lot of good that would do you without all the underground stations in DC where you want to end up.
Metro is still a better option for me than driving in, even at the new price. Plus I enjoy reading and sleeping, and not fighting traffic. However, I take a wee bit of issue w/ this:
"but there is argument that babysitting your 2000lbs keychain does warrant an extra cost."
Yes, there is parking and yes, it's needed but babysitting? I wish. Those metro lots are unsupervised and down right dangerous. I have personnaly known 2 people get thier cars stolen. It's not at all like downtown parking lots, which might be nicer.
"it makes no sense it sense to try to quantify the fairness of the cost per user based on where they live"
Sounds like you support a flat fare system than one based on distance traveled.
We urbanites truly get the best deal because when we exit a Metro station or step off a Metrobus at the end of the day on our way home, we aren't in the suburbs.
Mudda Flubba: Metro lists the mileage between stations on the website when you look for fare data between stations. Also, 5 miles from Shady Grove costs the same as 5 miles from Shaw. I don't see how it matters which station you are starting at.
Is it just me or does this graph look 'backwards'?
According to the graph, the fare for a 1-mile trip appears to be $4.00 - whereas this should probably be the cost for an 18 mile trip.
RJ, I get your point, but the analysis is of Metro fare/mile, rather than track cost/mile. So in the context of the fare increase I think it's a relevant metric.
Of course, if you want to get into who's paying their fare share, indeed that would be a more complex analysis.
I don't think this chart takes the costs of parking at a metro lot into account, which tacks another $4 (soon to be more) onto what suburban riders are laying out per mile.
As a side note, it's not like it was a lot of our life long dreams to end up in the suburbs. But hey, you get married, you have kids, you know you won't be able to afford private school because you work for a non-profit, so you move someplace where they actually have enough text books to go around that fits your budget.
Sorry I'm not toughing it out with you in the District (and really we're talking NW and select parts of NE and SW), but it is ironically and simultaneously too rich and too resource poor for our blood.
ces12 - it's cost per mile, and it looks like a 1 mile trip is about $1.50. The $4 dot is at about 1/4 mile or less.
ces12 - it's cost per mile, and it looks like a 1 mile trip is about $1.50. The $4 dot is at about 1/4 mile or less.
That makes a lot more sense.
Thanks!
The best part about Metro: It's free for the federal government employees...think about that. Granted it tops out at $110 but some people claim the whole amount and have plenty left over if they live in the city. Then the flip side is the guy who needs the whole amount and still pays out of pocket every month. I think more companies should pay just like the government to get their employees to take the train. Less congestion and better for the city and metro system.
BigL:
Government employees cannot claim the entire $110 subsidy if their actual commuting costs are less.
Government employees are limited by their actual commuting costs, and sign a form attesting to their actual commuting costs. In addition, if a government employee takes leave one month, the employee must reduce the amount of the transit subsidy accordingly the following month.
Yeah like that ever happens.....I used to work for the Patent Office and I can attest that everyone I knew claimed the full $110 for the transportation subsidy, even if their commute was less. I had a friend who used to save his extra fare cards and then give them out to his visiting friends.
I remember sometime last year they found people selling thier extra fare cards on Craigslist/Ebay.
On the added cost of parking for suburban riders . . . . those riders made a choice to live in the burbs and one of the consequences of living in the burbs is that most of those riders do not have the option of walking to a Metro station. They must drive. Therefore, Metro parking fees are an added cost that comes with their decision to live in the burbs. Similarly, those of us that chose to live in the city have to deal with consequences that burb dwellers typically avoid (limited parking, higher cost of housing, etc.). But many of us city dwellers benefit from the ability to walk to Metro stations. So I get tired of hearing complaints about the added cost of parking for suburban Metro riders. It's a consequence of their decision to live where they live. Whether those parking fees fairly represent the capital and maintenance costs for the parking structures is another issue.
Maybe patent examiners are unusually dishonest, but I'll second what adamol said. I remember people telling me I should claim the subsidy as well, even though I lived within walking distance from work at the time.
-- Another former PTOer
DC Dve,
A Parking spot in a Metro garage pays for itself within 5 years. After that it is mostly profit for Metro. Since most of the Metro parking capital cost are paid for, or will be in a short time, the question the equitability of the price increase is fair. Remember that a parking spot is not only is brining in $5 a day, it is also brining in a rider who is spending $9 a day on the Metro; thus $14 to metro/day. Burbians are not only upset about they are doing something about, they are finding other mass transit options other than Metro. Northern Virginia Transportation Commission has found that the number of NOVA riders on Metro has dropped, and the number of riders on other forms of Mass transit has increase. So you maybe tired of hearing about the dumb asses out in Manassas complain about parking rates increase, however Metro better start listening to them because they are taking their $14/day elsewhere. How can you blame them since the Bus from Manassas to L’Enfant Plaza is about $4 each way.
"Sounds like you support a flat fare system than one based on distance traveled."
Not even remotely. I'm just saying that an exact analysis of what it costs for each particular ride is almost impossible, since the costs and benefits don't depend only on the costs of the system between those two points. They depend on the costs and benefits of the whole system.
I think the cost of a ride should be based on the relative economic value of the ride. I have no idea how metro comes up with their formulae, but in the end, it's still in huge demand and a way better deal than the alternatives so everyone should shut the fuck up, or just stop using Metro if it's no longer a good deal. Not complicated.
RJ, seems to me that if you're living in Manassas you'd be better off taking VRE, anyway.
I just choose Manassas for its lyrical value. But the $4 applies to all Omni Ride Busses.
The problem with Metro, transit planners, and the assumptions in this article is that the following statement is not true: "The cost of operating an automobile range from $.50 per mile to $1.50 per mile."
This is a fully loaded cost that takes into account full depreciation, insurance, and all maintenance. The actual variable cost of operating a vehicle is $0.12 per mile ** plus gas. At $3.00/gallon and 25 MPG, gas comes to another $0.12 for a total of about $0.24/mile. Of course your mileage and vehicle costs may vary. Remember, most people in the suburbs still need a car to get to the Metro, to get to the grocery store, to transport kids to soccer games, and live a life outside of commuting.
So for my last two commute locations, the 17.03 to 17.31 mile trips calculate out at $0.23 to $0.24 per Metro mile … even extended by about 2 miles each way because of road miles being longer, mean I have reached a tipping point where the cost to drive and the cost to take Metro are about equal.
Given an opportunity to have personal space, and the travel time being shorter on good days and most mornings ... why take Metro?
The extra $2.00 daily that Metro is taking out of my pocket for peak-fares and parking has created a tipping point that makes no economic sense.
** http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0501.pdf - Table 5.1-3 adjusted for inflation
I'd actually like to see some sort of analysis of ridership trends for all modes in Northern Virginia. Most of those commuter bus services are not terribly flexible (not very many trips) and they also tend to serve areas like Manassas, which are far from any Metro lines so you're not really talking about the same commuters.
Also, people keep making a big deal about this drop in Metrorail ridership in NoVA, which was 0.5%. One year does not a trend make -- between 2001 and 2006, Metrorail ridership in NoVA grew by close to 14% -- this included a dip between 2001 and 2002. Ridership was back up, and higher than 2001 levels, by 2003.
If you look at the trends over 5 years, Metrorail ridership in Virginia in 2007 was almost 18% higher than in 2002. Since 2002 was an anomaly, the 4-year trend from 2003 shows close to 13% growth. I'm not sure any of that indicates that Northern Virginians are abandoning Metro in droves.(All data is available on the NVTC website)
I do think that we're likely to see some big changes with the growth around Fort Belvoir in the next few years as a result of BRAC. But those people won't be driving because Metro sucks -- they'll be driving because the federal government is relocating thousands of jobs to an area without Metro access.
The bulk of the BRAC jobs will be located about 1/4mile from the Franconia/Sprinfield Station. However, most of those BRAC workers live south of Springfield so VRE might see a nice jump.
The loss of almost 500,000 trips for FY07 on Metro, while all others outside of VRE are seeing increase,s should be a huge concern. Sure the numbers may seem low, but the fact that they are decreasing even for one year is alarming.
While it is certainly worthwhile to ask why ridership fell in FY07 with an eye to improving service in the future, the loss of 500,000 trips out of more than 94 million does not mean the sky is falling.
As for Fort Belvoir, take a look at an aerial of the Franconia-Springfield station and tell me you think most people are going to choose to walk anywhere from there. The reason planners are always talking about 1/4 mile is because that's about a 5-minute walk. Looks to me like 5 minutes would just about get you to the edge of the parking lot.
Esmeralda,
Yes and they do.
The distance using side walks is around 2000ft from platform to the GSA warehouse where the majority will be located. It is a little shorter than the Mall is from the station(2500ft); and tons of people park at the mall and walk to the Metro which is about a 7min walk (done it a few times). Although DIA will be at the proving grounds, I am sure there will be shuttle from there to the Metro.
'Tis True Big L, we feds don't ALL get Metro rides for free. I get the maximum monthly amount in my commute from Metro Center to Grosvenor, but it STILL doesn't cover even 80% of my daily Metro fares. And it definitely does not cover parking there, or any buses to & from the station.
You fill out a fed form confirming your home address & how you commute to work. You sign it, so if it's a lie, you have your voluntary signature on it. Perfect evidence if you get nailed for fraud.
Even so, feds are given those "Metrochecks" every 3 months. If you resign, retire or are fired from your agency or office, you must return any unused fare cards equivalent to the number of days left in those 3 months. If you already put them on your Smartcard, you're forced to pay the equivalent in cash.
I've never been able to afford parking every day at Grosvenor, I had been doing it 3 days a week but starting next week at $4.75, I'll park there twice a week. I would take Ride On there if I could, but the bus to there goes by my neighborhood only once every 30 minutes, otherwise it's quite a long walk (in cold weather & in the dark coming home) Plus I have to stop by daycare on the way, so it's not feasible for me to take the Ride On now.
Some days, I park in a nearby neighborhood & walk to Metro...
> Remember that a parking spot is not only is brining in $5 a day, it is also brining in a rider who is spending $9 a day on the Metro; thus $14 to metro/day...
That ignores the alternative, which is developing those parking lots with buildings. Metro draws far higher ridership from stations with densely developed surroundings than it does from the park and rides. Not only for commuting, but also at other times of day and for purposes. It's ultimately much more economically efficient for Metro stations to have skyscrapers around them rather than parking lots.
You need the parking lots at some stations, true enough, it's a fallacy to say parking at Metro pays for itself. Any Metro-adjacent land not being used for high-density urban development is wasting the agency serious money.