Is there any other way to put this?As part of the proposal, Metro staff members will recommend increasing daily parking fees at its lots by 75 cents and bus fares, for those paying cash, by 75 cents. Bus fares would remain unchanged for riders who use SmarTrip and weekly passes.Amazingly, this is Metro's response to a budget shortfall caused by slumping ridership. In other words, facing with fewer customers than expected, Metro decides to raise prices on their existing customers!Rush-hour subway riders who use paper farecards would pay 65 cents to $1.75 more, depending on the length of the trip. Riders who use SmarTrip cards would pay increases of 15 to 45 cents.
Additionally, all rush-hour rail riders who pass through one of 19 downtown stations where crowding is most severe would pay a 35-cent surcharge.
Under the proposal, the current maximum rush-hour fare of $3.90 would increase to $4.75 for SmarTrip users and $6 for paper farecard users.
So, for these commuters that the region is begging to keep off the highways - Metro wants to sock them with a $30+ price increase, pushing their overall costs much closer to the costs of simply driving and parking downtown. Sure they'd be switching to traffic gridlock, but most people would prefer their comfortable cars to crowded mass transit - especially if costs are equalized.
In addition, the decision to sharply increase rush hour fares while holding off-peak fares steady is plain silly. You can't attract new customers with a non-increase in prices. But that's what Metro is trying - to attract more off-peak riders by not raising their fares. And raising prices on existing customers to subsidize services for non-existent customers is suicidal - Metro is risking driving away their current revenue base (that pay the highest fares) in the hopes that new customers (that pay the lowest fares) will appear. That sounds like an "all or nothing" bet to me.
Well, what could Metro do, you ask? First off, I recognize their predicament. Budge shortfalls are a tough thing. Thus, I heap a large dollop of blame on parsimonious legislatures that are not providing enough funding. Second, Metro needs to seek more alternative revenue. I'd like to see more aggressive advertising campaigns. A handful of ad-covered train or bus is a good step, but let's do more across the board. Third, Metro should spend less on bells and whistles. Sure, an electronic sign telling us how long the wait is for the the next train is nice, but I wish Metro did not spend millions on something that doesn't really add much for riders. I'd rather fares stay steady than having expensive next-generation services that barely improve the transit experience. So, cut the budget to the bone - turn off these signs, close extra exits, pare down excessive bus routes - before you drive up rates and drive away your customers.
And, this should be a wake-up call to those Federal and state lawmakers. Maryland and Virginia are headed for traffic hell without more mass transit funding.
Metro could also reduce costs by finding inefficiencies within its own organization.
And well put, Rob. I was stunned as well upon seeing this stroke of genius.
This just goes to show that we shouldn't be so quick to embrace the new Metro line, which will cost billions, to Dulles. If Metro can't run their system properly and ridership continues to decline that'll be a couple billion down the drain.
How are they going to get the ridership to justify the additional cost of operating that new line? How many people are really going to ride to Dulles?
I'm a fan of public transportation and energy friendly solutions, but I haven't been sold on the Dulles line and with Metro's Custer-like leadership I'm definitely against it now. Let's put those billions into real solutions that can be implemented by competent organizations. How about it Tom Davis and Frank Wolf?
And why don't you mention Moran? Could people here be more partisan? (Obviously no - I know that)
I do honestly believe, however, that Tom's heart and intentions were in the right place this time, and it was a few jerks that we have in Richmond that botched this up.... Well it's their turn to squirm this coming 2007 cycle. As I remember this and correct me if I’m wrong, The ENTIRE NoVa Dems delegation along with some individual moderate Republicans strongly supported this attempt at bi-partisan federal/state regional transportation funding relief.
I also think Metro NEEDS to start running 24 hours a day, like most other cities that like to do things that make sense.
Graham suggested that the agency cut an additional 5 percent from administrative budgets across the board and eliminate all of the 240 vacant administration positions instead of only 34 that staff have proposed. For other savings, he also suggested reducing the agency's consulting budget, eliminating about 60 "take-home" cars, and rejecting a recommendation for 5 percent pay increases to about 1,600 non-union employees. Agency officials had proposed the raises as a way to keep middle managers from leaving for jobs in other jurisdictions where pay raises have averaged about 5 percent.
But, yes, a good start.
Cutting inefficenies inside Metros operation is definitely part of the solution, but it has to be done by balancing security and hiring concerns. Top-level managerial talent won't work for cut-rate pay. You also want to make sure that Metro doesn't cut corners on the safety end to reign in expenses.
and I agree - don't cut corners on safety and security. cut corners on the bells and whistles and increase revenue through advertising, leasing to retail, an d other corporate partnerships.