Lately, a lot of DC Blogs have been discussing the possible fare hikes v service reductions that’s been all in the news about the DC Metro system. To meet Metro’s budget gap, the Metro leadership has opted for $36 million in cost reductions, in addition to a four million in service reductions. Jim Graham, who represents DC’s Ward One, and who is on Metro’s Board, blocked the Board from considering an option for a twenty-cent fare hike.
I first read about this on Greater Greater Washington:
Graham, however, wasn’t willing to even hold a hearing giving riders the option of choosing a fare increase more than 10 cents. With the support of City Administrator Neil Albert, he successfully used the DC veto to limit the hearing notice to a 10-cent increase, saying he feared “agitation among the rising public”.
As urged to by the writers of Greater Greater Washington (which, honestly, is probably the best transit blog about DC and the Metro area), and other local blogs (notably Left of LeDroit), I wrote Mr. Graham an e-mail:
Dear Mr. Graham,
I am a resident of DC who commutes via the Metro to both a full time job in Bethesda, and a part-time job near Farragut Square. I do not oppose a twenty-cent fare hike, but I am very worried about the service cuts that might result if Metro is unable to meet its financial needs.
I believe WMATA’s Board should be allowed to continue discussing this option with rider input. When I’m leaving my part time job at 9:30pm, having gotten into my full time job at 6:30am and gone straight from one to the other, I will be far more forgiving of a .20 cent fare hike than I will be of having to wait an extra thirty minutes for my bus.
Thank you,
And he wrote back to me a few hours later:
But it ought not to be a choice…between higher fares and poor service. By no means. The gap regarding possible service reductions is but $4.5 million. There are a total of five options for dealing with this. One of which is the idea of a fare surcharge of up to ten cents for a four month period that would achieve more than double of what is needed. What’s the problem with that?
By the way, 25% of the people I represent in Ward 1 live below the Federal poverty level. This concerns me also.
And something clicked in my brain — wait, ten-cents per fare is double the money that is needed to close the financial gap?
I ran back through my archives to post I wrote on September 8th of last year, titled Metro’s Fare Increase. However, back then, the estimated budget shortfall was one hundred million dollars, not four and a quarter million. Basically, what I came up with, given the average number of weekly riders, is that a thirty-cent fare increase one way (so, really, a sixty-cent fare increase assuming most people at least make a return trip on the Metro) would more than cover the gap. Admittedly, this does not account for riders who might skip the Metro in face of this increase.
So, if an extra sixty cents per rider per day covers $100,000,000 over the year, a ten cent fare increase (which would be twenty cents a day) would, over a four month period, unless my math is completely totally fucked all to hell*, would actually bring in a little under six million bucks — okay, not quite double which is what Mr. Graham said, but still more than enough to cover the necessary costs to keep service where it is now.
Of course, it’s possibly my math is bad, or there’s something I’ve neglected — or maybe Metro really does need more cash and a higher fare is necessary for reasons other than the service cuts. That said, I gotta say, judging from what I’ve read, and what I’ve been able to arithmetic, a ten cent fare hike should be more than enough.
*My math is this: four months equals roughly sixteen weeks, times five business days per week, times 700,000 trips per day (which is a bit less than average business day rider level, I believe), times ten-cents per trip.
UPDATE:
New e-mail from Mr. Graham:
I confirmed this AM–Metro CFO conservatively estimates a ten cent hike (on all modes) will raise $8 million over a 4 month period. Where the Post got $4 mill is anybody’s guess…Bests Jim
So, if .10 cents is more than enough to cover the budget gap, what’s with all the moaning about Graham killing a twenty cent fare hike?
With one of my parents involved for years in the Federal budgeting process, they early on taught me an old trick popular among government agencies: when budgets are asked to be cut, the agency will propose cutting the most high profile items to cause the most disruption as proof that they cannot afford to cut their budget (when in fact they very well can).
The famous example would be a National Park Service cut resulting in a proposal to close the Washington Monument. Of course they could find some useless program elsewhere to cut, but by targeting that which would cause the most public outrage, the agency generates public pressure on the legislature to hold off on budget cuts altogether.
Similarly, WMATA’s proposal could be a Machiavellian move to stoke public support for fare increases, even when they could find other less disruptive ways to balance the budget.
There’s no proof that this is happening at WMATA, but it’s something to keep in mind.
Comment by Left for LeDroit — January 8, 2010 @ 9:50 am
i also heard that for the 5 cent bag tax, 3 cents are going to cleaning up the mess they have caused int he area, and 2 cents are going into DC’s pockets. im afraid the 10 cent metro fare hike would do the same thing. just a shady way to extort more money from us for a serious “high profile” need.
Comment by Lusty Reader — January 8, 2010 @ 11:13 am
Math aside (that gave me a headache), the underlying problem is the silly libertarian notion that public transit ought to be self-financing. Riders aren’t the only beneficiaries of Metro — so are drivers who are relieved of having to deal with thousands of extra cars, and developers who see real estate values go up around stations, and business owners… practically everybody. So everybody should pay. It should be understood that DC, MD, and VA cough up enough tax dollars every year to adequately fund Metro’s operations and expansion.
Comment by Alex — January 12, 2010 @ 10:39 pm