Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Mr5t1k t1_iu3u49i wrote

If they made fare gates you couldn’t jump or simply slide past, then they wouldn’t have to be raising the rates. Those who pay shouldn’t subsidize jumpers and skippers. Make it totally free already, because clearly paying is optional.

100

EC_dwtn t1_iu42mvr wrote

They are facing a $168 million dollar deficit--Most of that is not from lost fares.

45

LeoMarius t1_iu48hvc wrote

Raising fares isn’t going to fix that, especially with lax fare enforcement.

7

EC_dwtn t1_iu4hz7l wrote

I didn't say it would. I was responding to someone who said that fare raises wouldn't be on the table if everyone paid, which is likely not true.

4

LeoMarius t1_iu4j9cs wrote

As long as they make fare jumping the norm, fares could be $100 a ride and it wouldn't' raise money for them. It would just make fare jumping more common.

It might get to the point where the ADA protests that the gates only make handicapped people pay.

2

Mecha_Jesus_03 t1_iu4bsc0 wrote

Bro with the amount of people jumping the turnstiles I think it is a significant portion

5

EC_dwtn t1_iu4hsjc wrote

They estimate they lost about $10 million in lost revenue during the first half of the year. It's a lot of money but many/most people jumping are kids who don't pay anyway.

15

Mecha_Jesus_03 t1_iu4j7zu wrote

I don’t know, but I would think that the kids rides are reimbursed to WMATA by the government no? Also, their estimates are definitely conservative. Q1 2022 revenue was 50 million dollars, if 15% of people jump turnstiles (probably conservative lol) thats 35 mil per year

4

SchokoKipferl t1_iu4i09s wrote

A lot of them are teenagers who ride free anyways (Kids Ride Free Program). They're supposed to tap their card but many of them don't bother with it.

10

brodies t1_iu4ue14 wrote

Technicality: it’s free to the kids, but Metro still gets paid. Kids Ride Free is a subsidy provided by the DC government—DC covers their fare. When the kids and teens don’t use their card, Metro isn’t getting money.

13

LoganSquire t1_iu51yfo wrote

Seems like it would be a lot easier for DC to just increase their payment to Metro based on the estimates ridership.

4

brodies t1_iu55hie wrote

My understanding is they can’t actually do that due to the structure of the compact between DC, VA, MD, and the Feds that created WMATA. If I understand it correctly, each jurisdiction’s funding is set by a formula, and they can’t unilaterally give more. As I understand it, that’s part of the rationale behind things like DC trying to give residents $100 in metro money: it’s a way to indirectly fund metro without violating the funding rules. That said, I’m repeating what I’ve read and been told by others; I haven’t actually read the compact to confirm this limitation is in it.

3

NorseTikiBar t1_iu4iehn wrote

"Bro" it amounts to something like 1% of their operating budget.

5

MrJosephBeef t1_iu40lr9 wrote

I know from a fairness perspective this is a problem but with fares being optional seems like metro use is just means-tested. I don’t mind a means-tested pay to use system. If fares are such that it significantly reduces ridership then that would be a problem.

7

blind__panic t1_iu42psi wrote

I know a guy who earns 120k a year and skips the metro gate. If it’s gonna be means tested it can’t be an honesty system.

34

MrJosephBeef t1_iu42us6 wrote

Damn some people lol. Yeah I guess an imperfect means test on susceptibility to social shame.

8

Brainjacker t1_iu45icj wrote

Nah. MPD doesn't care, service is trash, and raising the rates to airfare levels won't make a dent in the deficit based on ridership. It's not on the few (who will pay) to subsidize the many (who won't).

4

blind__panic t1_iu46okn wrote

To be fair, i take the metro a lot and it’s not the majority who skip the gates. It’s mainly kids and homeless people.

6

Worldcitizen1905 t1_iu84v6d wrote

The kids are the ones doing half the crime.. pushing people off busses

1

blind__panic t1_iu8vwoq wrote

If you think “pushing people off busses” is half the crime in D.C., you spend too much time on Reddit.

1

Worldcitizen1905 t1_iu84tk7 wrote

Why should he pay if others are skipping fare to sell crack in the metro?

1

LeoMarius t1_iu48lm8 wrote

Means testing is itself an expensive and burdensome process.

3

resdivinae t1_iu6ac9a wrote

Look, as much as I’d like Metro to be free, the reality is if it were then it would become a mobile homeless shelter and platforms would become even more unsafe. There either needs to be some barrier to entry or Metro cars and platforms need to be heavily policed.

7

Worldcitizen1905 t1_iu84poh wrote

You are correct. If paying riders are asked to subsidize evaders, many paying riders will start evading.

1

walkallover1991 t1_iu43jq1 wrote

Personally, I think zone-based fare systems suck and are equally as confusing (if not more confusing) than the system we currently have now. There is a huge equity issue with them as well in that it often punishes those who take short trips across zones, but rewards those who take long trips within one zone.

Let's say all of DC was one zone. A rider could take the Red Line from Ft. Totten to Woodley Park, and just pay $2.25. A rider could also take the Green Line from Ft. Totten to West Hyattsville (just one stop), but because the trip would cross a fare zone, the rider would pay $3.25 for that trip.

I would be in favor of simplifying the current system. Perhaps calculating the trip distance solely based on a straight line distance (rather than an average between that and the actual track distance between two stations), along with eliminating the distinction between peak/off peak fares. The peak/off peak fare scheme is likely the most confusing aspect of our current fare system.

Regarding fare increases, no one wants to see them, but they are inevitable at this point with inflation. IMO it's remarkable as it is that WMATA hasn't raised fares in years. I agree that fare evasion is a problem, but fare hikes are going to occur with or without fare evasion. I just hope that by the time they do launch fare hikes, they implement a low-income fare scheme that would offset said hikes. Tying low-income fares to WIC/Medicaid/SNAP is a great idea imo.

86

EverybodyBeCalm t1_iu4bk8u wrote

The problem that I see is that most commuters will just refuse to take transit if driving is cheaper. Need to get these people out of their cars already.

30

Torn8oz t1_iu4ct8h wrote

And the zone system seems to punish those coming from DC from the suburbs more, which is where a lot of the traffic is already coming from and where we want to incentivize higher public transit usage

31

sciencecw t1_iu5mq5n wrote

Driving is never cheaper than public transit, but the convenience and time saving is worth it for some people. The problem is how do you make public transit actually more convenient than cars.

2

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iu5rei4 wrote

That is false. It costs me $10/day to go from Rockville to Cleveland park. Driving that distance does not cost $50/week, not even factoring in insurance, maintenance, and gas. I use the metro now because it’s ecologically better, not because it’s affordable. It really isn’t.

16

sciencecw t1_iu5unsx wrote

How much is parking for you?

Honestly it just shows the complete breakdown of economic model if metro isn't even strictly cheaper than cars on direct trips (not to mention the huge subsidies).

9

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iu5w3lm wrote

My workplace has parking. If it’s full, the zone 3 ticket would be prohibitive for sure. That brings up another factor: I have to leave before 7 AM or I’m not guaranteed to arrive on time via metro. The delays are way too unpredictable, so I need to leave time for those. Typically when I do drive it’s because I haven’t left by 7 and can’t trust I’d arrive by 8:15 due to unforeseen delays (this includes the walking parts, tbf).

8

Xanny t1_iu6aep2 wrote

The US subsidizes the hell out of cars, you barely pay for the roads, gas taxes are extremely low among western nations, and annual vehicle fees are, in some states, an inspection, some a registration, etc, but they are rarely more than $50 a year per vehicle.

It also hurts that charging fares the way they do disincentivzes participation. Its harder to do, but as it is the marginal cost of adding people to most lines at most times is near zero given the train is already going to run and be maintained, and thus the added cost burden per added passenger is tiny up to capacity. IE, you want full trains, but not overcrowded trains.

Since the trains will always run, if there is a line that isn't regularly nearing capacity, then fares should be reduced to attract ridership up to that threshold. The problem is that seeing the macroeconomic effect of cheaper transit can take years or decades as areas served by cheaper fares are included to build denser and accommodate the demand for the cheaper transit. But it goes both ways - when the trains feel more expensive, slower, or less reliable than cars, people gradually stop taking the train. When they are cheaper, reliable, and fast people gradually ride the train more, and the city is built around it more. But all these effects take decades to measure.

4

sciencecw t1_iu82tvw wrote

> The problem is that seeing the macroeconomic effect of cheaper transit can take years or decades as areas served by cheaper fares are included to build denser and accommodate the demand for the cheaper transit.

I'll have to nitpick to say that 1. metro didn't open in last decade, 2. passenger trends are going down, not up, so the model is going in the opposite direction you argue it would, even when there were multiple programs to lower fares in the past decade 3. demand for housing has always been there. Developers don't wait for that demand to start. I'm sure you understand the real hurdle but it should be spelt out that these are due to poor land policy. Until that is fixed, Metrorail's economic model will not be viable.

3

Gitopia t1_iu7co8z wrote

Cost waaaay more than 50/wk with a car payment.

0

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iu7csff wrote

Car payment is avoidable. Going to work is less avoidable.

1

Gitopia t1_iu8dklz wrote

Step 1: inherit car? Did you grow your car yourself?

Just trying to understand how you eliminate the literal cost of the car from the equation. I don't have to plunk down 6-8k minimum to ride transit.

1

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iu8rnv5 wrote

Not that it’s any of your business but some people save up and buy decent used cars for not a lot of money. Some people also buy used clothes and don’t have credit cards. Crazy, right? Doesn’t change that $10/day for public transit from the closest semi-affordable suburb is too high a rate for many.

1

Gitopia t1_iua7gl2 wrote

You are not listening to others. If you save up and buy a car that is financial cost, and if you saved 10k for a car over three years, that's an extra $277/mo you are ignoring. It is FAR more expensive to drive than take transit. Idk how else you are going to understand that.

1

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iua8co4 wrote

Well, once upon a time ten years ago I bought a car for $3k. I didn’t live here at the time, but I’m still driving the car since I moved here. Feel free to compute.

1

Gitopia t1_iuaaq91 wrote

I'm not even discrediting what you have done; I did the same and am grateful I don't have to buy a used car at today's prices. But bruh, be realistic in regard to others, all I'm suggesting.

1

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iuac4xs wrote

My sole point is that the metro rates are too expensive and the system is not reliable enough. My experience has shown me that it’s reasonable for many in situations like mine to choose driving due to these factors. I don’t know anyone who is going out to buy a $10k used car to avoid riding the metro. Do you?

1

Torn8oz t1_iu5s536 wrote

Yeah my commute is $7.50 a day on the metro, and when I estimate how much gas if I drive to work it comes out to about $3.50 a day. So, big difference actually. I take the metro most days though since it's much less stressful

8

sciencecw t1_iu5shmn wrote

I might be the only person not having a car in the city, but that must have not taken into account the cost of a car. Also is parking free for you?

4

Torn8oz t1_iu5tou3 wrote

Yes, parking is free at my work. And yeah, if I had bought a car to commute to work, it would be a lot more expensive, but I've had this car for several years (fully paid off) before I moved to the area

9

Not_A_Hemsworth t1_iu60xlz wrote

Don’t forget yearly maintenance, unseen maintenance, insurance. You can’t just calculate gas. That’s ridiculous.

4

Torn8oz t1_iu61pkf wrote

Well, I guess my logic is that I'd own the car whether or not I drove to work. I do agree that driving to work increases maintenance costs though, but it's hard to quantify. Would my $500 dollar fix to my engine last month have been necessary if I hadn't been driving to work two days a week like I was doing? Hard to say

6

Not_A_Hemsworth t1_iu62s0f wrote

Fair. I was operating under the assumption that you wouldn’t need the car. I mean 90% of trips people take in cars are to work or home from work so.

3

Torn8oz t1_iu64q12 wrote

Yeah I've been really toying with the idea of getting rid of my car for your reasons haha

2

Not_A_Hemsworth t1_iu6ift7 wrote

Would recommend! I got rid of mine two years ago. About 4 months before the pandemic hit. I pay $50 every 4-6 months for new tubes and tires. I’m riding a bike from 1993 that’s a fucking beast that I got on Craigslist for $100 three years back. I have a milk crate strapped to the back for carriage. When biking I notice incredible things, I feel healthy, my commute to work is half biking half metro rail. Metro is honestly the most expensive part. Wish they’d get their shit together.

Honestly. You don’t think about, but biking also saves you a lot of cash outside of the vehicle. You’re mucch Less likely to spend too much cash on eating out when you have to bike to wherever you want to eat. Gotta be conscious of how much you buy anywhere cause you gotta bike it home. Impulse buying drops significantly. At least it did for me.

3

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu7ppkb wrote

Yeah, I got one bike in summer of 2020 ( when new ones that weren't expensive were scarce). And then got a folding bike a few months later.

Riding a bike has really changed my life. During the height of the Pandemic it was nice to not deal with the stress of being on a bus with crazy people. Not having to wait for the bus at all either. I just rode my bike just about wherever I wanted to go.

Then I started doing food delivery with my bike as well so being able to earn money with something I had already turned into an absolutely wonderful benefit to my life.

Think about it..buying a bicycle it's yours. There is no multi month payment on it. No insurance is necessary no gas just feed yourself and your good to go

I also love how it helps my stress levels as well. Before I had a bike I did a whole lot of walking but it makes getting groceries a lot easier as well as doing my laundry. All in all I am on my bicycle a whole lot and because I have two I can always choose which one I want to ride lol

2

Not_A_Hemsworth t1_iu8ap9p wrote

That’s the life. I do want to upgrade and have a nicer newer bike and then my Beater. But we will see if that ever happens

2

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu9ao5h wrote

That's cool. Just take your time and really research what's around so you can get what you really want.

Personally I would love an electric bicycle but my goodness the choices can make that a daunting task indeed.

1

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iu8t0ko wrote

It’s worth noting that if one has children or elderly dependents, it’s not always an option to eliminate a multi-passenger vehicle for a variety of reasons.

0

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu9bg4t wrote

DUH!!!

I'm not talking about those people.

Even when we are talking about elderly dependents you act like Metro Access doesn't exist or Uber or Lyft. It's not as if those elderly folks don't have a way to get where they are going and chances are they don't need to go there every single day either.

I would also say that it's not like those elderly folks don't have friends or other family members that can't possibly help out and take turns taking them where they need to go.

As far as children they make bicycles that can easily accommodate several children. I've seen them in DC myself and would love to see them more often.

https://yubabikes.com/carry-kiddos-as-cargo/

https://www.wired.com/gallery/best-electric-cargo-bikes/ There are ways around what may seem to be a major issue if one is willing to think outside the box.

Granted, I wouldn't recommend the bike when there is snow or ice on the ground. Having done it myself I know that really sucks.

Also, if it's raining I can see that being an issue as well mostly because people drive like retards in the rain as if they have never experienced it before.

1

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iua9ole wrote

So “those people” are a lot of people, and a lot of “those people”, which clearly does not include an an ableist person such as yourself, can’t ride bikes for a range of reasons. Do they also not deserve affordable and far-reaching public transit? Isn’t that the point of this conversation? Have you ever tried to take a 12- and a 14- year old to a doctor appointment at children’s national from any other part of the city on a bike? Or on the Metro? Or walking? Do you want to tell them why they need to take the day off work because it’s gonna be a two hour trip on the bus each way? Would you like to explain to a person who makes $15/hr in that situation why the Uber they need to take from SEDC costs $25?

Widen your perspective a little, yo. Your remarks are showing your privilege.

0

CaptainObvious110 t1_iuavbyq wrote

I gave you transportation options that are outside of the box that people normally think about.

If they don't fit your particular circumstance for whatever reason then they simply don't and that's just fine.

Never did I say that EVERYONE can do them. But I venture to say that MOST probably could.

I don't know I only know a few places I'll be willing at one time

Again whoever is unable to do them then they would know that my post wasn't directed at them so you coming at me with snark is completely and totally uneccesary.

0

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iub7fb0 wrote

You started your post with DUH, and I matched your energy in kind. I did not describe my own circumstances, merely thought about some that do exist and are regularly ignored. I’m merely pointing out that what you think is ‘out of the box’ is actually quite narrow and excludes a lot of people.

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_iubbnuc wrote

Duh because it's painfully obvious that there is no "one size fits all" as people have different circumstances.

It's not about being "ablest" either. Why do I say that? Because a number of people who I know that are elderly or disabled do the very things I mentioned. (Not bikes as they simply can't do it as much as they would like to).

0

Dear_Art_5845 t1_iubzlmm wrote

The word is ableist.

My point is that you are clearly not considering the people you so obviously don't know in your nice bubble.

0

CaptainObvious110 t1_iuc8ra6 wrote

False. Folks that are disabled or elderly can use Metro Access. That's what that service is for. It's not like these people are left stranded with no way to get where they need to go at all.

I mentioned that in my first message to you. But for whatever reason you missed that completely.

Anyway I'm out of troll food so take care.

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu7os6w wrote

Maintenance costs and stress for you. Plus you still pay for insurance and gas as well.

That $500 you spent on your engine would pay for one of my bicycles or be half of what I paid for both of them. They are MINE. Now, I might have to replace an inner tube or even a tire here and there with an inner tube being less than $10.00 (I would save money if I did it myself as well).

I'm just thinking about the costs that come with a car and for ME it's just not worth it.

I'd rather contribute to gas for friends and save money for trips than to have my own car

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu7ok4d wrote

Yeah, forget all that. I'd rather ride my bicycle. Which covers the bulk of anything I'm likely to do each week anyway.

Other than that I can ride with a friend or family member, Uber, bus or train.

I just wouldn't have much of a reason to have a car at all.

2

Gitopia t1_iua7sh5 wrote

Again, you have to account for those costs, even if they are already paid. Someone with a transit card that never purchased a car never spent any of that money, ever. If they needed to drive they would, right?

1

overnighttoast t1_iu4besv wrote

>Let's say all of DC was one zone. A rider could take the Red Line from Ft. Totten to Woodley Park, and just pay $2.25. A rider could also take the Green Line from Ft. Totten to West Hyattsville (just one stop), but because the trip would cross a fare zone, the rider would pay $3.25 for that trip.

Yeah, where I live, im directly between two metro stops, one in one zone and the other in a more expensive one. But the bus only goes to the stop in the more expensive zone, so even though I live in the zone that would be cheaper to travel from, it's more complicated to get to that stop and I'd pay much more for just starting one stop over.

22

hbooriginalseries t1_iu53yxm wrote

Fare evasion isn’t a problem as long as driving into and around DC isn’t tolled.

4

EverybodyBeCalm t1_iu56ebg wrote

Drivers are the real fare evaders.

5

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu7ocdf wrote

Good point tear up the roads and don't contribute to its infrastructure costs just makes their money and go back home

2

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu7o9jb wrote

I honestly don't feel that it's an issue of affordability though.

Many of the same ones I see jumping or stepping over the fare gates have on designer clothing and name brand shoes. it's not an issue of poverty it's a matter of having the wrong priorities in place.

It takes money to get those things, a lot more than what it costs to ride the bus and the train.

1

CassowaryCommander t1_iu3recr wrote

This is so comical to me because I've seen, in the last 2 months, three instances on the Red Line alone of a group of teens-to-early-twenties kids/people jump the turnstiles while a literal group of DC Metro PD officers (at least 4 each time, one with a dog) were about 20 feet away just shooting the shit and having a good time. In each group, at least half of them saw this happen and none of them did a thing. Admittedly, I don't have a ton of respect for Metro PD because, honestly, what do they actually do? Then you see junk like that and any modicum of respect I did have is completely erased. Then on top of that WMATA is actively posting digital and physical posters about reporting turnstile jumpers. What a farce. What's Metro PD going to do? Stand around doing nothing even harder? Instead of raising fares (though they are pretty cheap comparatively, I'll agree), why doesn't WMATA make their cops DO something? Or maybe install fare gates that prevent jumping?

47

ahmc84 t1_iu3vk9i wrote

The question here is, if fare enforcement were drastically increased, that comes at a cost. How many fare-jumpers are going to switch to paying vs. just not riding? It's conceivable that fare enforcement might actually be more of a money drain than fare-jumping (note that I am not aware of any analysis on this one way or another).

Of course, then there are the variables of safety, and perceived safety, along with overcrowding and the related assessed need for greater frequency, that also affect a paying customer's choice to ride or not. So it's not exactly a simple problem to really solve.

DC kind of shot itself in the foot by proudly announcing the decriminalization of fare evasion, which was basically tacit permission for fare-jumpers to go wild.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/12/05/dc-council-decriminalizes-metro-fare-evasion-giving-its-final-approval-contested-measure/

26

LeoMarius t1_iu48dvr wrote

What does Metro lose if free riders don’t ride? Some annoying people who take up space.

13

EHsE t1_iu4s5mp wrote

why would i care if fare evaders stop riding? either revenue collected goes up because they start paying, or the platforms and trains are less congested because they stop riding.

13

ahmc84 t1_iu4t5r7 wrote

Because the cost of real enforcement to stop fare evaders (meaning, vigilant enforcement at the faregate, ensuring that fines get paid, etc.) is not zero. The balance has to be that that cost is outweighed by the additional revenue from those who decide to pay instead of jumping the gate, plus the revenue from drawing additional riders to a system they perceive to be safer because the "criminals" are being kept out. I don't know where the inflection point is for that.

WMATA says they are about to start cracking down by issuing tickets to evaders, but that's only a deterrent if there is a will to pursue people to make sure those fines get paid.

4

EHsE t1_iu4tuw9 wrote

that’s only true if you’re looking at MWATA as an entity that exists to turn a profit, which is the wrong way to look at public transport. it’s a public service that is partially offset by collections - to my knowledge, the metro has literally never been solvent without needing additional funding.

increasing enforcement for a few years, even at a loss, would at least put a dent in the “fare optional” culture of the metro

9

CassowaryCommander t1_iu41b8e wrote

Oh, I absolutely get that and that's a well-spoken point. It's a problem everywhere, and not just in the US. I live part time in Barcelona and while the metro there has slightly less jumpable fare gates, it's still done with some frequency. What's comical is that WMATA has the audacity to act as if they care, when they clearly don't nor does the city. So the anti-gate-jumpers media is so frustratingly stupid and the complete lack of give-a-shit from Metro PD when they literally have nothing else to do is all just so laughable. It truly makes me wonder what kind of trained geese are running WMATA.

11

DcDonkey t1_iu44rzb wrote

There is very high risk to the police officer's career if they try to stop any citizen for doing anything. What happens if the citizen resists, fights back, or runs away? There is a chance something could go wrong, somebody could get hurt, and then the police officer's career is at risk. If they do nothing there is a 100% chance that nothing will happen to them and their won't be any complaints.

10

Worldcitizen1905 t1_iu85a2u wrote

They will let kids, homeless & crack heads do any crime they feel like.

1

Docile_Doggo t1_iu493m0 wrote

Isn’t Metro’s current plan to start more heavily enforcing fare evasion pretty soon, though? Isn’t that why they have all those signs up now with the fines for each jurisdiction listed, so that they can give people notice that greater enforcement is coming before it actually does?

I haven’t been following this closely enough to know exactly what Metro’s plan is. But imo if I have it right, that seems like a pretty solid plan to me. Give people adequate notice about a change in enforcement and then hold them accountable.

11

dynospectrum7 t1_iu4b1dq wrote

Yes. Haven’t you seen the big scary sign warning people about fines?

2

Docile_Doggo t1_iu4flvp wrote

Yeah I specifically mentioned those signs in my comment

3

brodies t1_iu4wj8u wrote

Metro basically barred enforcement in the city after DC decriminalized fare evasion. Cops could no longer arrest fare evaders, just issue them a $50 citation, but WMATA argued they had no ability to actually issue a binding citation under the new scheme. Supposedly this has finally been resolved, with the DC government itself being the ones printing the citations and providing them to WMATA.

I am curious to see how this plays out. In the past, much of the controversy around enforcement of fare evasion was around things that happened when people refused to stop for police or resisted attempts to cite them. This led to some violent altercations and controversy over the level of force being used when the underlying offense was just not paying a $3.50 fare and for which the fine, before resisting arrest, etc, was only $100. People will undoubtedly refuse to comply with attempts to issue a citation, and what happens then? Do the police escalate and arrest for failure to comply when the underlying offense isn’t criminal? We’ll find out, and I imagine it won’t be without controversy.

6

Pipes_of_Pan t1_iu5doid wrote

Yes, squeezing an extra eight bucks out of those kids would definitely solve the $146 million budget shortfall

−1

thirsteefish t1_iu43xpi wrote

"We’re not the New York City Subway, we are a hybrid system,” Clarke said. “We are a commuter rail, and a subway system combined – and that is a big difference.”

Imagine if Brooklyn residents were subsidizing Metro North residents in Westchester or Stamford.

That's essentially what this map is saying for the Silver Line.

43

colglover t1_iu46dzm wrote

Ehhhh. This argument might hold more water if DC wasn’t so sprawling. But going to Reston and the airport on the metro is different than going to bedroom communities in Stamford. There are integral parts of the city infrastructure out there.

21

thirsteefish t1_iu4cnid wrote

The fact of sprawl is reflected in the recognition that Metro is a combo of commuter rail and rapid transit subway. As a combo, fares should reflect that.

Many cities have their most recent iteration airport well outside the city center (most notably Tokyo) and it costs more to get to than other closer-in destinations. Even Chicago which has a flat rate system charges extra to get to ORD (vs MDW).

More to your point about sprawl, on one hand I agree that we don't want people priced out of the city center to be penalized (and discouraged from transit) with nosebleed high prices, but there should be a balance of fairness. For every working class household pushed out, there's probably a more well off one that either wants a fancy new apartment that's cheaper in the exurbs than Navy Yard (vs an older unit in Columbia Heights) or a sprawling McMansion that's cheaper in Ashburn-upon-Dulles than Spring Valley (vs an attached home in Chevy Chase).

11

colglover t1_iu4isjd wrote

Those people you talk about that “want a McMansion in the exurbs” aren’t using metro to get into the city. Unless you propose a taxation solution that captures drivers, you aren’t going to catch their revenue whether the fare is $3 or $50

12

thirsteefish t1_iu6vya8 wrote

If I were king there'd be a $10/day additional tax on parking for more than 4 hours within 1/4mi (or perhaps 1/2mi) within a metro station in the urban core. Parking is way too cheap downtown vs other cities.

3

RDPCG t1_iu5gyxr wrote

Imagine if DC's rail infrastructure was even remotely the size of NYC's, and similar to NYC, riders paid a flat rate to traverse the entire system. Weak excuse, IMO.

7

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu6ykop wrote

Yeah I hear you there. Ok instead of expanding out the Silver Line take care of the problems the existing system has first. If people aren't able to get to and from where they need to go efficiently then that needs to have been addressed years ago.

Also, the issue of safety needed to be addressed years ago as well.

2

Throwaway2theplate t1_iu43xzu wrote

I'd like to see a disabled person sue Metro because there are no handicapped fare jumping options.

23

albinotuba t1_iu46aw5 wrote

I’ve seen people with bikes push through the emergency exit gate to bypass the turnstile. A person in a wheelchair could do the same.

5

Funkles_tiltskin t1_iu7le10 wrote

Disabled people already get free metro rides

1

Throwaway2theplate t1_iu8f3kv wrote

Thanks, I didn't know that. I haven't ridden in years because there are never any handicapped seats available. Last time there was a 50% discount but I just paid full price to avoid any hassle.

1

Gamer1189 t1_iu48p8k wrote

I often take one-stop metro rides and the fact that it's minimum $2 is so messy to me when you can take a bus across the city to Virginia for also $2 lol

20

sagarnola89 t1_iu4uoff wrote

Ya thats why I usually walk, take bikeshare, or take a scooter if I'm going less than 2 stops.

11

sciencecw t1_iu5nb3h wrote

This is getting into behavioral economics, so if longer trips are less subsidized and priced higher, you'd take one stop ride because it seems more worth it?

3

Gamer1189 t1_iu5p9jd wrote

No I take one stop trips cause I need to go to that destination and it happens to be one stop away lol

5

sciencecw t1_iu5qdfi wrote

I think you might have misread the point. I mean that your perception of fair price is affected by lower price of longer rides, even though it really doesn't change whether your current trip is worth the price or not

3

Gamer1189 t1_iu5xmhg wrote

Right because Metro charges a certain amount depending on your start and ending destination lol

2

Quiet_Meaning5874 t1_iu7gvx7 wrote

Yep, and same with short (but essential) bud rides. Paying $2 for a 2-10 min bus ride is ridic!

3

MirrorBreakr t1_iu420ex wrote

They could retrofit the existing fare gates to make tall doors similar to what Paris has.

19

C0333 t1_iu41quc wrote

Metro could set the price at $2 or $3 or $4, but any of those options could have equity concerns. For instance, long-distance commuters could ride 30 miles for $3 dollars – but a lower-income rider going three or four stops would pay the same.

Just get the system running reliably. Trying to figure who has what money living where is damn near impossible. An unfortunate part of being poor is that some things are a larger proportion of your income than if you were rich. The only way to solve that is leveling at tax time not trying to micromanage every single aspect of human existence.

17

colglover t1_iu46oox wrote

This. The people relying on metro are the people least able to afford fare hikes. The people most able to afford to subsidize this system are the lobbyists and business owners driving into the city in Mercedes E class sedans.

Introduce a congestion charge on every vehicle entering the city or a flat fare on the bridges over the Potomac and watch the cash to fund Metro pile up.

16

mcsul t1_iu5v4in wrote

I'm not super-sure about how much DC could get from a program like that. The London congestion pricing program ends up increasing their transportation system's total funding by only ~3%. The various NYC proposals have all eventually been modeled around the same, I think. Cost to administer is roughly 25% of revenue brought in.

The money would obviously help, but only if it doesn't increase downstream costs like even lower office-worker spending downtown.

Now congestion pricing is good if your goal is to reduce traffic at peak times, but that's sort of a separate issue.

2

bakedpotatopiguy t1_iu47e4q wrote

Does DC have any way at all for getting money from MD/VA drivers? If we can’t enforce collections on cars with $40k in tickets, how can we do that with every MD/VA car? This is an issue that only the conservative governors of MD and VA can help solve, and they have no reason to do so.

1

colglover t1_iu4ijj6 wrote

Literally a fare collection station on the entry points would do it

4

Worldcitizen1905 t1_iu854bs wrote

About time something benefits long distance commuters over crack heads

1

resdivinae t1_iu4d7oj wrote

There were 12 minute headways on the O/S and B lines this morning. Metro needs to fix its shit.

15

Not_A_Hemsworth t1_iu61n69 wrote

Seriously. You can’t talk about raising prices when your service is substantially below the price you have now. Pathetic.

8

morningsmog t1_iu6gjus wrote

“Let’s increase the fares :) wait why is everyone still jumping”

8

celtsfan93 t1_iu4nbqo wrote

There are quite a few comments implying that few adults are guilty of fare evasion. It depends completely on the metro station you are entering from. I had not witnessed mass fare evasion until I moved and my regular station was on a different line. I would say at my new station only about 1 in 3 adults pay the fare. Previously I don't believe I witnessed an instance of fare evasion over a three year period.

7

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu6tu9q wrote

LOL! Teens and adults alike hop or step over the fare gates ALL the time. White or black it doesn't matter.

4

thezhgguy t1_iu3zngw wrote

comments section here is brain dead - how do y’all still think fare evaders are the reason metro doesn’t have money it literally makes no sense

6

LeoMarius t1_iu48r9x wrote

Then why have fares at all?

6

predictablepants t1_iu49ggx wrote

very good point, there shouldn’t be fares for public transportation

6

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu4xzyb wrote

There’s always a virtue signaling response like this. Yah then the system would be instantly overloaded and a expenses would shoot thru the roof. Private businesses/delivery ppl could subsidize certain transportation expenses onto the taxpayer. Congrats you just bankrupt the wmata

−2

turnageb1138 t1_iu59cet wrote

You clearly don't understand anything about how any of this works.

2

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu5djc9 wrote

I welcome your expertise in United States mass transit systems that operate fare-free

−2

turnageb1138 t1_iu5rn13 wrote

Why the qualification of "in United States"? When it comes to mass transit, and transportation in general, we should be looking to almost anywhere else than the US, because our governments at every level are owned by various corporations and business sectors that profit massively and directly from both car-focused transportation policies and the massive government subsidies, direct and indirect, that they receive through those policies.

In the US, the main places you will find free transit are university campuses. But there are a number of cities who offer varying amounts of free transit, from small buses that run through areas of heavy tourism and shopping, to citywide free buses. Cities in numerous cities worldwide offer free transit for part or all of their users, and quite successfully.

Your assertions in your reply are not based on anything except misconceptions and faulty assumptions. Any given system that relies on fare collection only expects those fares to cover roughly 10% of its budget. Eliminating those fares increases ridership significantly (which is a good thing), and is seen by many as a low-cost but high-impact way to reduce economic inequality.

>Private businesses/delivery ppl could subsidize certain transportation expenses onto the taxpayer.

As for this sentence, I don't know what it means. Businesses already put the expense of employee travel on the employees who have to buy and maintain cars, and the government which builds and maintains roads, etc. And I can't see delivery people ever significantly relying on trains and buses; even if we successfully ban private vehicles in part or all of the city, commercial delivery vehicles would still likely be allowed, and lots of deliveries in urban areas are made by bike and scooter bikes.

Fare free systems have challenges and would certainly take political capital to enact anywhere in the US. But the net benefits can be significant for business, residents, tourists, everyone. Given our climate crisis, governments should probably be paying and otherwise incentivizing everyone possible to take transit rather than private cars. Just saying you have a robust transportation network that's FREE has difficult to measure benefits for attracting both residents and businesses, which in turn grows the tax base to fund just such a system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/free-public-transportation-is-a-reality-in-100-citiesheres-why.html

https://qz.com/2048165/american-cities-are-experimenting-with-free-public-transit

https://www.inverse.com/culture/free-public-transportation-scientific-studies

2

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu5vnlk wrote

Why? Because the United States has very different laws and tax codes than other countries? You don’t understand why we can’t just copy/paste stuff from other countries here? Yes, there are some places in the us that have fare-free service, but to compare those to a multi-state transit system like wmata is simply disingenuous.

Oh yah, your sources are Wikipedia and news articles retrieved from Google, along with yet again more virtue signaling about why free public transit is great. Yes, I agree, in an ideal world we all take the metro/bus everywhere and no one needs cars. But how are you realistically gonna make that happen. I’ve live in Asia for over a year and trust me I’d love to have no car. But to just say ‘let’s have no fares transit’ is such a leap it just doesn’t make sense.

My example is literally just one thing I thought of off the top of my head. If you can’t see the potential pitfalls of having no fares in a the wmata idk what to say. Sure, no one can predict the future. Maybe a fare free metro is amazing and it works out perfect, or maybe it falls apart and is rife with safety, reliability, and corruption issues.

350mm a yr in fares is a lot to make up for. Plus, as you hope, when literally everyone is riding the metro that will increase costs. And you’re misrepresenting facts by saying ‘it only represents 10% of the budget’. It represents 78.3% of operating budget.

0

turnageb1138 t1_iu5x649 wrote

This is why I have to remember not to write serious replies to trolls. Your use of the phrase "virtue signaling" alone means your opinion is discarded. Bye.

−1

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu5xn4k wrote

Lol your the one lying about the facts there buddy. Keep on with what makes you feel good about yourself you probably need it

1

turnageb1138 t1_iu59q8v wrote

Good question, with a complicated answer, but in truth the answer is that there's no good reason. For a myriad of reasons, public transit in DC (and everywhere) should be a public service run by the government and free for all users.

4

thezhgguy t1_iu493mn wrote

Good question, metro should probably be a public service and gov’t subsidized to be free for DC residents

2

SchokoKipferl t1_iu4ivwi wrote

Yeah especially because the vast majority of fare jumpers seem to be kids/teens who ride free anyways. I very rarely see adults jumping.

2

professor__doom t1_iu54qag wrote

Depends where and when you are there. I see adults doing it all the time.

Most ridiculous I saw was an entire family, from toddlers up through the grandma.

3

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu7q1gr wrote

Oh wow even the grandma? That's crazy but yeah might as well at that point so everyone isn't held up

2

turnageb1138 t1_iu59iwn wrote

It's always like this when anything comes up about Metro at all. It's extremely frustrating.

2

thezhgguy t1_iu5b7nr wrote

Yeah it seems like this subreddit somehow attracted all of the center right austerity consultants or something. Just such animosity towards the poor and underserved and an “I’ve got mine” mentality

0

Less_Wrong_ t1_iu42cv6 wrote

Have you ever rode the metro? Prob half the people on it did not pay the fare.

1

thezhgguy t1_iu491hk wrote

Do you know how many demographics in this city get free rides anyway? And did you know that regardless of if anyone pays or even is there, the trains will run anyway and will cost the same amount regardless. Missed revenue is not lost money and wmata’s inability to budget properly is not at all the fault of fare evaders. More likely, it’s due to the huge costs of metro police who do very little to stop crime on the metro (see: shooting at the petworth station this morning), and overinflated corporate salaries, along with incompetence regarding maintenance and updates which cost huge money in the medium and long term

6

TimAppleBurner t1_iu47utr wrote

I would challenge that “half” doesn’t pay. I’d believe 15%-20% on the high side. But half is a bit strong.

3

turnageb1138 t1_iu59f2k wrote

Hyperbole doesn't help your case, it's nowhere near half.

0

Pipes_of_Pan t1_iu5ditb wrote

A lot of people in here think that kids (who ride free anyway) jumping turnstiles is why there is a $146+ million budget shortfall. Y'all think there have been like 70 MILLION free rides!?

6

mcsul t1_iu5t1xw wrote

Maybe? $40M is the current estimate. May be lower because kids ride free. May be higher because some wmata people worry that estimates for metro fare evasion are very low.

https://wjla.com/news/local/metro-fare-evasion-deter-wmata-washington-dc-train-free-pandemic-covid19-stations-gates-plans-campaign-silver-line-phase-two-barriers-criminal-crime-arrested-tickets-smartrip-credit-card

3

Pipes_of_Pan t1_iu5y3gn wrote

If every single DC student rode Metro to and from school every school day and skipped every fare, it wouldn’t come even close to that number

1

Dingle_Berryless t1_iu6a2vg wrote

For the university population of over 70 thousand, data is from 2017, with a minimum fare of $2 and a maximum far of $6 over the course of the 180 day school year there's a possible loss of between $25 and $75 million.

Clearly this estimate is quite believable.

2

Pipes_of_Pan t1_iu6eld8 wrote

Every kid rides free, which is why the conversation is silly. Do all the math you want, it adds up to $0 for Metro’s budget

1

Dingle_Berryless t1_iu6f7ji wrote

What about university students then? They're students who don't ride free correct? Plus my point wasn't about kid's evading fares they already don't have to pay. I was pointing the monetary loss estimates are believable.

1

Pipes_of_Pan t1_iu6fule wrote

Delete all the addition you did for people under the age of 18. They all ride free.

2

Dingle_Berryless t1_iu6gnvh wrote

Done, mistake corrected. It's still clear a loss of $40 million in evaded fares is believable.

2

endlessly_apollo t1_iu49y0g wrote

> Obviously, we haven’t provided the level of service that we’ve wanted to over the last couple of years…

Ok. So boom! Don’t raise fare prices— one flat rate to go anywhere should be the norm. $2.1 off-peak, $3 peak.

5

jednorog t1_iu5pn7d wrote

As a DC resident, my instinct is that I'm not all that interested in paying $3 to go my 3 miles to work when my colleague rides an hour in from Reston for the same $3. My colleague is getting a very different level of service than I am for the same price.

Maybe I'd be interested if we also had a congestion tax on out-of-District cars. We could then use the revenue from that to subsidize the long-distance metro fares. But that idea is beyond WMATA's mandate.

I guess I'm in the minority but I actually think the current fare structure - where each pair of stations has its own cost - is fine. Not great, but not so terrible that it's worth all the hassle.

−4

ac9116 t1_iu6gu88 wrote

From an externalities perspective, that's way better though. We would be subsidizing reducing the largest amount of car miles and preventing more cars from driving into the city center during work days.

3

jednorog t1_iudr3ps wrote

Sure, but we could do this with a carrot and stick model. Carrot of lower Metrorail prices, funded by the stick of congestion pricing for those who insist on driving into DC.

1

CaptainObvious110 t1_iu6y44i wrote

As a person born and raised here I honestly don't think the fares for the metro are too expensive as they are.

Frankly, even if it was a dollar flat fee the people that are currently hoping the pay gates would still do it. They aren't doing it because they are impoverished. They are doing it because they can. There is a certain thrill that comes from breaking the rules and that's what a number of these folks are going for.

3

placeperson t1_iu4xfi1 wrote

I just don't think Metro should be fare-based, ideally. The public benefits to transit use are so high, and it's not the type of scarce good or service that you need to discourage overconsumption of.

5

jednorog t1_iu5pt8i wrote

You're right, but I don't think that type of change is within the WMATA board's abilities.

3

bsil15 t1_iu5nb0u wrote

What’s the deal with that $100/month subsidy council supposedly has passed?

5

Hemansno1fan t1_iu7adzi wrote

I'm googling this all the time hoping for an update!! I thought they were supposed to vote on it this month.

1

SchokoKipferl t1_iu3uo20 wrote

I agree the fare table system is overly complicated. I like the zone idea, but maybe stick with 2-3 zones instead of 5, it looks a little messy.

4

cjt09 t1_iu4183b wrote

I think the problem is how it’s displayed on the map. The way to do it is to just have the zone number next to the name of each station. That’s how people will actually use it.

For example, you need to go from Metro Center to Landover, you look at the numbers next to Metro Center and Landover and easily determine what 3 - 1 is.

5

TheDeHymenizer t1_iu43w99 wrote

glad I stopped using the metro and now ride my bike every where. Went from a daily commuter to now maybe once every 3 months.

I can tell you this too. I'm in sales and had WMATA as a prospective client. Despite offering a better service at a significantly lower cost we lost the sale. Its not a well managed organization drop top to bottom.

4

endlessly_apollo t1_iu4auzn wrote

> drop top to bottom

Raindrops, drop top, smokin on cookie in the hotbox!

2

StillSoberingUp t1_iu4cjyp wrote

Oof. So a month ago they were going to give us money to ride the metro and now they want to take more of our money to ride the metro. Big sad.

4

haroldhecuba88 t1_iu4pdsn wrote

Keep it simple, fare based on overall distance so people can understand the overall cost structure. If they charge more during rush hour it’s understandable.

Improve the product and experience, make people feel safe and comfortable and see what happens. Need to add separate and active security everywhere. Clean it up.

4

Polis24 t1_iu6kl8t wrote

Should fix fare evasion before increasing fares, otherwise it will make fare evasion worse and we will then need higher fares and so on and so forth

4

BourbonCoug t1_iu60qoo wrote

If we can't do fare free (which I see a nightmare trying to get the state legislatures to fund that) or flat fares regardless of distance, I think a zone-based system is the next best alternative. Just not necessarily the ones showcased yesterday. I think five zones is still convoluted since you're trying to make it easier for not just residents but also business travelers and tourists to understand.

The more that I look at the three-zone plan the more that I like it with probably a few minor tweaks. (For example, I think King Street Station in Alexandria and East Falls Church should be in zone two with everything beyond those -- at least on Blue and Silver lines -- in zone 3 since they are transfer stations. I don't like the stops at Arlington Cemetery and Pentagon being zone 1 since if you were coming from Rosslyn you'd have to cross zone 1 just to get to office spaces at Crystal City in zone 2.)

I wish we could be having a different discussion about the Silver Line. Not that it's not open, not about express service, but rather just how long the entire line is from Ashburn to Largo. Wouldn't splitting that and only running Silver service into downtown D.C. be more efficient as far as train timing than a Silver Line Express? But I guess outside of Stadium-Armory there's not really another track to turn a train around on that corridor.

There have definitely been some pains throughout the past year(s), but I do appreciate Metro displaying these different ideas on how things could function in the future.

3

Worldcitizen1905 t1_iu84972 wrote

So penalize those of us paying to make up for the fare evaders. Not cool. Arrest fare jumpers, they are the ones doing crime on metro.

2

creamof_yeet t1_iu6ykwk wrote

Then I’m gonna keep hiking my ass over the turnstiles

1

GhostDawg01 t1_iu4ebe4 wrote

The problem that I see is that most commuters will just refuse to take transit if driving is cheaper. Need to get these people out of their cars already.

I don't think so! I use my car to get groceries for my family. Also I'm disabled. What kind of mass transit Nazi are you?

0

LeoMarius t1_iu485di wrote

That will just mean more fare jumpers.

−1