How much would ridership increase without the fare hikes?

There isn't likely to be any significant decrease in ridership due to the fare increase- after all, where are they going to go? The roads are gridlocked, all over the metropolitan area. Metro has a captive marketplace, and the WMATA Board seems to be making decisions in full knowledge of this fact. Note that in the recent budget negotiations, the Board balanced the budget numbers by lowering the assumed ridership loss from the proposed increase. There were no public discussions about how this new calculation might be justified- the Board just acted arbitrarily.

There has been no change in ridership or service. If anyone expects a change in either they are living in a dream world.

But wait! From reading the comments about Dulles rail elsewhere on this blog, I learned that public transportation is an inefficient and ineffective means of moving people that should have been abandoned decades ago in favor of more road-building! You mean to say that public transit actually makes sense for some people, so much so that their demand for it is relatively inelastic? My stars.

My wife and I are two less riders of Metro. I ride enough to spend the $110 in metro farecards that my federal job provides to me for free. With the new fare increases, my wife and I use that up in one week. After that, we drive in. Driving in saves us about 45 minutes each way in commuting time and, as I am able to park for $6 a day, it also saves us $7-10 a day over riding the Metro. This public transportation system is a farce. And a VERY expensive one, at that.

Metro is not less expensive than driving now that the parking charge is so high (we can't all live within walking distance of a metro, but it's better for the environment to drive 2 miles than 20). The only reason I still take metro is that the roads are so inadequate that there really isn't any viable alternative. If metro really wants all the suburbanites to drive in (the message they send with the current parking rates), we need to start building some highways that aren't HOV.

I have been tempted to switch to driving in to work...but at the time I need to get to DC, it would take way too long. So I have been stuck with using the Metro. The annoying thing is that inspite of the huge fare and parking fee increases, there is no noticeable improvement in service. I know it has been only 3 weeks since the increase, but they have had the approval for a while, and should have planned better and started improving the system earlier, with the projected (bigger) budget in view. But, as usual, the Metro authorities always seems unprepared! I wonder how many of the "deciders" there use the Metro system..?!?!?

Orange line in Virginia: still stuffed. However, I have switched from parking at the metro station garage (now $4.50 per day) most of the time to walking or biking to the station. I'm sure the garage is still full and metro gets their revenue from some other commuter, but it is fair to say I have reduced my total consumption of WMATA services. It might help me get in better shape, too.

It's sad that some people don't realize that there are buses that run almost if not entirely parallel to all the Metro lines part or all the way. Example: instead of taking the Orange Line, get the bus that runs from VA Square to the Pentagon, and then get the bus that runs into DC the rest of the way. Instead of taking the Red Line, get the W13, P17 or S2 and take it into downtown and Farragut Square, where there are other buses waiting to take you into the rest of DC.
If you live too far away from a Metro station, take one of the commuter coaches that run from the exurbs and suburbs into DC during the morning rush and then the opposite way during the evening rush. The bus doesn't take much longer than Metro, and is often quicker, because there's less chance of encountering mechanical or sick passenger induced delays.
People who seem to think it's either Metrorail or drive haven't researched all available resources.

Metro had cited less-than-anticipated ridership growth to partly justify the recent fare increase, despite numbers showing a 3% increase and the fact that they had set new records for daily ridership left and right last year. A three percent increase may not seem like a lot, but put it in the context of our already strained, overused, and uncomfortable system. Metro can't use ridership as a justification anymore and expect riders to be sympathetic.

http://metro-sucks.blogspot.com/2008/01/largest-fare-increase-in-history.html

Well, I have stopped riding metro.

Perhaps the metro-bailers are small in number but loud in voice?

I don't know, but I do know that I am happier in my roomy car than in the Orange Crush.

For me, I don't have the luxury of giving up on metro and trying another mode of transportation. I think a lot of people out there are in the same boat as I am.

BELIEVE ME, if I could abandon metro, I would in a heartbeat. But in reality, giving up on metro just isn't an option so we grin and bear it. Metro should NOT view that as a victory. Not in the least.

I did the math one day and it WOULD actually be cheaper for me to drive if I had that option, even at $3 a gallon for gas. So metro needs to be very careful here - there is a slippery slope and the more people they piss off, the more people who have the means will take to our already congested roads.

Orange line is still sardines, and service has been worse this month. Why Metro decided to raise fares, instead of increase advertisements or sell hot coffee, bagels, etc. to riders is beyond me. WMATA bigwigs must be sadistic bureacrats with little interest in making money...

The reason why Metro ridership isn't decreasing is that in a world of $3/gallon gasoline, demand for commuter mass transit is fairly inelastic. Any which way you slice it, for most commuters, Metro is STILL cheaper than paying for gasoline and paying full commercial parking rates downtown.

Is a crowded Metro train that occasionally is late any worse than grinding gears and brake pads on 66, 50, 395, 270 or any of the parkways?

I've noticed that parking is a lot easier to find at Shady Grove. It was filling up by 7:45 or 8 am most every day. I came in late today and had absolutely no trouble parking at 8:30. I wish there were somewhere else to park out there, but as far as I know there isn't. For those of us who almost always work far later than the evening rush hours, waiting for long periods between buses on the return home is not a good option to replace parking.

I've been asking parking proprietors whether they have been filling up more often/earlier and/or have noticed bigger crowds, and they all say no. And prices haven't yet gone up (although they did in a number of places this fall - after the fare hike was announced but before it went into effect)

Metro could increase their ridership if they could do something about the parking situation. At Vienna and Huntington, the two Metro stations I am most familiar with, it is a bad idea to assume you can find a space in any garage or surface lot much after 8:00am.

For those riders concerned with rising metro costs, the solution (rather then complaining about the problem) is to seek other modes of travel or reduce your travel distance. Finding a job in your neighborhood or moving are always possible solutions - you can apply your $4.50 parking fee & $8 a day in metro fares towards the higher housing prices of moving further in.

I wouldn't mind the fare increases if I felt the service had improved. But it has only gotten worse. On Monday night at 8:30 pm I waited 10 minutes for a train at Gallery Place, which arrived sardine-can stuffed. I frequently wait 6-8 minutes during morning rush hour at Medical Center for an overcrowded train, and that is only 5 stations from its origin. 8 car trains do not help if they run too infrequently! No wonder the doors fail to close so often.
Please turn down the microphone at Gallery Place station. It is so loud that no one can understand the announcements and the blaring noise is annoying. There are panhandlers in the cars. I could go on, but those of us who ride Metro every day know the problems. I still take Metro to work - I have virtually no choice - but I take my car to evening and weekend events because of unreliability of service.

DR. G: I think Metro's assertion might be a little misleading. I think it'd be interesting to find out what point-of-origination numbers look like. For example, are trips on Metro from the outer reaches on the decline because people more or less have found different ways of getting from A to B where there are viable alternatives?

I for one have switched the bulk of my trip to MARC, but that doesn't mean I've been able to stop riding Metro altogether. I still need to get from Union Station to my Federal Triangle office, and my transit on Metro still counts for overall ridership, right? But I'm not *originating* my trips at nearly the same place as I used, which means that Metro is getting much less money from me everyday. If others are doing the same thing as me (and, anecdotally, I've encountered a number of people on the MARC train that are), does that present another concern in that Metro will see less revenue coming in from the higher dollar trips than they apparently projected, leaving the transit authority no better off in the end than they were in the beginning?

Too true, snazzyman, living near where you work should always be a consideration for commuters. That said, I'd be surprised to see any new housing transactions in that vein. You may have missed it, but Merrill Lynch released a report last week that they expect nationwide housing prices to decline a full 25%(!!!) by the end of 2009 - echoing a litany of concerns that the real estate troubles aren't nearly over. Buyers would want to wait for a clear bottoming of price before taking the plunge.

My demand for metro is pretty inelastic - even if they doubled fares, it honestly wouldn't have changed my rate of use. Metro still would be generally the best option for me to get downtown, especially when I want to go out to dinner and have a couple of drinks, and it's much faster for me to get to downtown meetings from silver spring using the metro than it is driving.....even considering delays. I don't do my daily commute on metro (I'm lucky enough to be able to walk to work), but I have had periods where I have used the metro for the commute. Even with the crowding, it was still less stressful for me than driving.

The main thing that I'd like is more frequent non-rush hour trains - I'd happily pay much higher fares to have trains that come more frequently than every 15 minutes late at night.

Why should Metro care if you start driving so long as they can make their budget numbers work? I can't believe the number of people threatening to go back to their cars. If driving is cheaper, just drive! No sense in lamenting how much you'd rather drive -- if driving is cheaper and faster why are you sitting on a metro train???

The Metro board is not in the business of keeping people off the roads; they are focused on keeping Metro solvent. Yes, my ride has gone up 20% but for me it's still the most cost-effective way to get to work. If the math doesn't add up for you, hop in the car!

For the poster who said earlier "if driving was an option I'd do it," Why not buy a used car then pay for parking downtown? If that is too expensive, maybe Metro isn't so bad after all.

I'd just like some CONSISTENCY. Yesterday, I find metro running two trains to Grovsenor before a Shady Grove train arrives at the start of evening rush (5 pm). Huh? Why? Last week, no Grovsenor trains at all at one point, just trains to Shady Grove-but its like the Grovsenor trains just disappeared, the wait between the Shady Grove trains was still about 5-7 minutes. And speaking of wait times......again, no consistency. Sometimes its 2 minutes between every train during rush, sometimes, 1, 4, and 3, and sometimes much much worse. Sometimes trains seem stack one on top of the other, and then there will be (invariably) a very long wait, which makes the platforms and trains crowded and tends to put everyone in a foul mood. Consistency, please!

as if riders have much of a choice - Metro has you by the short hairs!

I'm with Birdie--consistency is key. Although not a "major service disruption," why have I been on so many trains that sit and hold for a minute or more during the trip? It's really ramped up over the past two months for my Red Line trip, and I almost never had it happen a year ago.

Buses are heavily inefficient because most run twice an hour. Yes, it may be possible to get from your house to your work via public transit, but if it takes three hours, you may not.

Metro usually cannot win on speed. Convenience is a draw (being able to read versus being able to spread out). It loses on flexibility. This leaves two things to compete on - concern for the environment and price.

With every increase in Metro fares, it becomes harder to justify riding a system that breaks down repeatedly and whose employees only rarely seem interested in meeting customer needs. The benefit for many isn't worth the cost.

the numbers being posted don't reveal anything.

The fare increase comes into play for people with longer commutes; therefore you would have to look and see if people on the outer stations are taking Metro less. Also, you would have to look at the parking income to see if there has been any trade off. In addition, people may be timeshifting and riding earlier/later to avoid rush hour surcharges.

The bus system simply does NOT work for suburban commuting into DC. It runs late, not at all, is also just as crowded, and is subject to traffic. And I live in Rosslyn! Not to mention the homeless people on it. The suburban systems may work alright for moving people from the metro station to their homes; I haven't taken them for that.

Also, government friends tell me that SmartBenefits have not figured out about the new fares. If anything, we should be asking for a large increase in those -- the indirect subsidy they provide Metro is important.

Metro could also get a lot of benefit from allowing mass purchase w/discount of $500 SmartCard at the vending machines. I've taken to loading it up with $5 using a credit card machine -- the transactions fees alone destroy any profit metro can make.

More times than I can count, I have waited at Vienna for a train to head eastbound and at least two have arrived, kicked everyone out, stated "No Passengers" and left. This usually happens between 8:45 and 9:30am. If I have to pay twice the price to ride during "rush hour"--5:30 till 9:30am, the trains should come twice as frequently the ENTIRE time. Generally it seems they start slacking off at 8:45. Boo Metro!

I'd be interested in knowing whether Metro's numbers are simply the raw number of passenger trips on a given day or whether they can determine the times at which the trips were taken. Are the rush-hour numbers the same as they were, for example? Or are the trips at other times of day, which would suggest other reasons for the travel?

For example, let's consider the period since January 12. The Bullets have played five home games at Verizon Center, one of which was on a Saturday and one of which was on the King holiday. The Capitals have played five home games as well; one of those was on a Sunday, one was on a Saturday. The other games for both teams were all on weekdays. Georgetown basketball has played three home games, two on Saturdays and one on the King holiday. I don't follow the NBA or Georgetown and so I don't know how those teams are doing (or how their attendance has been), but I'm a rabid Caps fan and have observed that as their play has improved recently, attendance has increased. I'd be interested in knowing to what extent larger crowds for games (for any of these teams) might be a factor in Metro's claimed numbers. Then you also have the March for Life last Tuesday, which draws a bunch of people who would not normally be riding the trains that day.

Point being....it's potentially misleading just to cite raw numbers of passengers as a sign that ridership is the same.

Forgot one thing. I wanted to response to the guy who said "take the bus." The problem is that in the DC area, a LOT of the subway users are people who don't work a set "9 to 5" schedule. Consider the number of law firms downtown. Attorneys can't generally plan on being out the office door at a precise time every night and thus it's difficult for them to rely on the bus.

44West, good for you for walking or biking. I know this isn't always possible for everyone, but if you live within a few miles, I would seriously consider doing this just to save on the parking fees.

Dr G., I have noticed that the trains arriving at White Flint after 9:30 in the morning seem more crowded then they used to be. I've taken to go to work later to save money on the rush hour fares. I'm wondering if more people are doing this as well?

Hey Rich, The Washington NBA team is the Wizards, not the Bullets. (Sorry to say but I got quite a chuckle out of your oversight and as you state the obvious later in your message RE: you do not follow the NBA.) :)

Totally off-topic for this blog, I have to say I wonder which name is more offensive: "Washington Bullets" because "Bullets" may be seen as connoting violence, or "Washington Wizards" in a city where a majority of the residents are black.

Dear "takethebus,"

I do. Everyday. Twice a day. It's got its own set of problems: http://metroincovenience.wordpress.com.

Totally off-topic for this blog, I have to say I wonder which name is more offensive: "Washington Bullets" because "Bullets" may be seen as connoting violence, or "Washington Wizards" in a city where a majority of the residents are black.

Do what now?

I, for one, still take the Metro. I don't park there... that honor goes to Germantown and the wonder that is the Express 100 Ride-On bus. The MARC/Metro Transit Link Card works well for me, and is by far the cheapest way to use Metro from Shady Grove to downtown DC. To the people making comments about the lack of bus services - do a bit of research. Each county has their own busses in addition to MetroBus, and the routes may be well suited to a more pleasant commute.

It's Wizzards, not Niggards.

had probably reaction by year. I still I confessed living knew and began huge tree