WMATA Board Approves Fare Hike

Article from washingtonpost.com:

Metro Board Approves Subway, Parking Fee Hikes
Friday, December 13, 2007; 1:14 p.m.
By Lena H. Sun Washington Post Staff Writer

By an overwhelming majority Metro board members approved today the largest increases in subway fares and parking fees in the agency's history after months of contentious debate among directors.

The 8-2 vote came during the board's finance committee meeting and essentially guarantees that the full board will formally adopt the plan at its meeting today following the committee sessions.

The committee approved a plan offered in recent days by Maryland members that lessens the impact on suburban and long-distance riders. That plan followed a public hearing that drew more than 400 comments from riders, many of whom said that proposed fare and fee hikes were too high and not merited by Metro's unreliable service.

For months the public debate has pitted suburban board members who want to keep parking fees and train fares low, against urban members who want to hold down bus fares for low-income riders.

Under the plan adopted by the finance committee the largest increases would affect rush-hour suburban riders who make up the biggest group of daily users. The rush-hour boarding charge would 30 cents to $1.65 per trip, a 22 percent hike. The plan would raise the maximum fare per trip by 60 cents to $4.50. There would be no increases for off-peak riders or for MetroAccess.

At parking lots where the daily fee is as high as $4, the plan calls for a 75-cent hike for six months with an option to increase parking fees by 25 cents after that. Reserve parking would also increase by $10 to $55. That fee is in addition to the daily parking charge. Reflecting sentiment from passengers who park and ride, there would be no increase in the number of reserved parking spaces.

Bus fares would increase a dime for passengers who pay in cash, but would remain $1.25 for riders who pay with electronic SmarTrip cards.

The increases are meant to raise $109 million to help close a projected shortfall in next year's budget. Officials estimate the plan would raise $3-4 million less than the targeted $109 and that some, but not many passengers, would stop riding. Nearly three-fourths of the money would come from the increase in rush-hour train fares, an additional 25 percent from increased parking charges, and 1 percent--about $1 million--from higher bus fares for riders who pay cash.

Although federal workers make up 34 percent of subway riders, Metro receives no federal dollars for its operating costs. Unlike other major transit agencies, it has no dedicated revenue source. Its operating cost is paid by fareboxes, revenue from advertising and parking, and subsidies from local jurisdictions that Metro serves.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

As a daily suburban rider, I welcome the increase.

More money = better service, and maybe the trains will be a little less crowded.

It's still cheaper and easier than driving. :D

Here is a little secret most don't know. Metrorail has one of the highest if not the highest fare box to subsidy ratio of any agency in north America. Something over 55% of the operating cost are paid directly by the fare paying passengers.

I'm not happy at all seeing this fare hike. I remember reading that Catoe wanted a fare hike back in September deeming it "necessary" for operation. Then, I read the actual proposal on Metro's website which talked about service improvements that would supposedly come from the fare hike but seemed to forget the detail that half the projects listed as improved service (buying new equipment, rehabilitating Metro cars) have to do with the government-funded capital budget rather than the operating budget with which the fare hike was concerned. After reading this, and taking into consideration my experiences on the system since Catoe took office with frequent Metrorail breakdowns, late and disappearing buses, and observing both a disregard for the riding public (with the recent weekend service reduction fiasco) and system aesthetics, I don't expect that whatever results from balancing the budget will be worth the fare increase. That and it annoys the bloody hell out of me that Metro got overwhelmingly negative feedback to the idea of a fare hike at the meetings last month, and yet the board approved almost unanimously such a drastic hike without even thinking about how otherwise they could go about balancing the budget. Given how Metro is a public service and runs on an otherwise supposedly "lean" budget, would it have been so hard to have at least tried to lobby local governments for some help with increased subsidies or a loan rather than slam Metrorail riders with 20-some percent fare increases for getting off the roads and riding public transportation in the first place.

How would you suggest that the budget gets balanced then (seriously, not trying to start a flame fest)?

Cut maintenance? That's what has gotten the system to where it is now.

Cut services? From where? Everyone is OK with service cuts, as long as it doesn't affect them.

If the equipment purchases come from subsidy money, what does the fare money go towards?

"HokieNav"
If the equipment purchases come from subsidy money, what does the fare money go towards?

Fares go to pay for roughly 45% of the daily operating costs (routine maintenance and supplies, labor and energy).

The equipment purchases come from capital grants. New rolling stock, new busses, capacity expansion, infrastructure expansions are budgeted separately and are not paid for with fare box moneys.

That's doesn't leave a whole lot of room for cutting expenses - energy is expensive, you can't cut people without cutting services, and maintenance would be the absolutely worst thing that they could do at this point in my book.

"HokieNav"
That's doesn't leave a whole lot of room for cutting expenses - energy is expensive, you can't cut people without cutting services, and maintenance would be the absolutely worst thing that they could do at this point in my book.

You obviously know little about the organizational structure of this quasi governmental agency. WMATA operational is a relatively efficient operation. Above that is a top heavy typically bloated government bureaucracy. There's an alternate phrase that goes with the acronym WMATA that is known within the agency, We Meet And Talk Alot. The management part of WMATA functions as a democracy, most if not all decision are made by committees, within committees, within committees, within committees. There is no single person in charge of decision making at various levels of management.

I would like to make a correction to my above post. The 45% I quoted for covering daily operating costs should be 65%. WMATA has the one of the highest if not the highest fare box recovery ratio in the transit industry.