It doesn't look good at all though they seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=4371).
What's worse is that Metro could be $150 million in the hole per year for the next decade (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=4372). If things are THAT bad, what are the odds that it will end up bankrupt and under federal receivership? Problems that big are the sign of a failed company since even the MTA's doomsday plan in New York doesn't look this dim.
30-minute waits on trains?
Trimming frequencies is the best way to save a lot of money. Let me tell you, that saved our butts in Vegas by doing that without taking a hacksaw to the entire route network. They need to find some way to save. I like the elimination of bus stops too. We here have way too many and are trying to spread them out a little bit.
You don't think New York's proposal is that bad? You're just trying to do everything you can to make WMATA the scapegoat and find everything right in everyone else.
Maybe putting it under fed control will be a very good thing.
Yeah right, a Federally controlled transit system? WMATA has always been criticized for being too favored by the Feds. You were moaning and groaning about not paying more taxes if they ran extra service on Jan 1, so you want them to fund 100% of it?
Socialized Mass Transit. Yay!!!!
Hmm...honestly the trimming of headways seem to be quite reasonable. I don't quite agree with the elimination of 8 car trains, since the system is at/over capacity right now.
Quote from: Perry on December 18, 2009, 02:11:16 PM
Yeah right, a Federally controlled transit system? WMATA has always been criticized for being too favored by the Feds. You were moaning and groaning about not paying more taxes if they ran extra service on Jan 1, so you want them to fund 100% of it?
Socialized Mass Transit. Yay!!!!
If the alternative is a bankrupt and broke WMATA that is hacked to the bone with ridership being a fraction of what it is today, what would you choose?
LOL, Perry - I missed your edits. I just saw your original post as "Yeah, right", which said more than enough for me!
Federally controlled transit...yikes...
They're not going to go bankrupt because the feds already pitch in to keep it afloat. You just want to stir the pot. All transit systems re going through this and none will just shut their doors.
Isn't the WMATA already Fed controlled anyway, like the majority of transit systems in the country?!? I mean, it is getting Federal funds and (therefore) subject to Fed regulations that come with it.
IMO, WMATA was setting themselves up for this "hole" when they made the purcha....let me leave that to myself (to avoid controversy); that issue has already been hashed to death. I will say this, a lot of transit agencies are suffering right now, and a good number of them done it to themselves (i.e. making unnecessary purchase of equipment, mismanagement in the higher ranks, etc.). That doesn't mean they aren't getting some sort of help.
At this point, reducing train frequency to 30 minutes would be the practical idea here. IMO, I think additional cuts to bus service would be a bit dangerous, given the D.C. politics.
Exactly. With 80% funding for bus purchases followed by every Federal Regulation there is, they're not going to completely take over the whole thing. Could you imagine a 100% Federally funded agency trying to then purchase vehicles, award contracts, etc. It won't happen. If anything, I would suggest Metrobus and Metrorail be operated by two completely different entities if that was the case.
The FTA is screwy anyway. Their outdated spare vehicle ratio rules and National Transit Database drive me nuts on a continual basis.
Wow. I was just reading about the Doomsday cuts for MTA NYC. Now WMATA? Oh boy.
Most large transit systems are putting together a doomsday scenerio.
Quote from: Perry on December 18, 2009, 06:28:43 PM
Most large transit systems are putting together a doomsday scenerio.
Yea. I remember reading through NYC MTA's proposed service cuts. Well over 200 million dollars worth of cuts. I also remember when Chicago threatened to eliminate over a quarter of their routes due to the budget issue in Illinois.
The doomsday scenario is nothing new for New Yorkers. We've dealt with them for many years, but usually it's the threat of ridiculously high fares and service cuts. Not saying they'll definitely get the funding, but the cuts they're proposing will be bad. Some of it is that they want to cut the overnight service on several bus routes. One thing for sure is that most NYCTA hawks have plenty of riders. It's a 24/7 city where most don't own cars and they need the service to support it. My bet is that it doesn't play out as threatened, or if it does happen, at least some service will eventually be restored.
Also in NYC, the largest amount of cuts always seems to be directed at those in the MTA's largest agency, NYCTA. A concern had been that the MTA's other agencies (LIRR, MNR) routinely gets funding to cover a larger portion of their expenses than NYCTA gets.
MD MTA is similar. Cuts to MARC and DC commuter bus always get modified due to their riders being more politically savvy than riders in B'more. IMO folks in B'more may scream and holler but just resign themselves to taking it in the gut. Whereas MARC riders will push every button, pull every string to minimize their pain and usually succeed because they know how to do it and the political powers that be will listen to them, not necessarily because their argument is substantively stronger but because it is presented more "professionally" with "reasoned" emotion instead of free floating anger. I.e., what worked in the 60's doesn't now.
However, the point is, most TA's are supported by sales taxes, property taxes or gas taxes, all of which have tanked in the past year for obvious reasons. Fares cannot be raised to make up the difference although doing so may play well with the more conservative among us. Transit funding worldwide is at a tipping point regardless of political system as a result of the economic crisis.
Most European countries and many in Asia long ago adopted policies favoring transit over roads, imposing heavy automotive fuel taxes, among others, to pay for those policies, that supported government operated TA's. However during the past ten years or so, most of those TA's have begun to be more cost conscious and have begun to privatize, contract out, their operations, particularly in the UK and Germany with varying degrees of success and efficacy.
Remember this: Transporting humans is an EXPENSIVE enterprise regardless of planes, trains, buses or boats. If airlines did not carry freight under the floor there would be very few of them operating today. Even in the heyday of the railroads, passenger profits were marginal at best. Hauling the freight pays!! Freight does not need to be pampered and does not sue!
My AGM for Transit just returned from a trip to South America and with many of the transit systems there, there is no subsidy at all, the entire system is paid by fares. Just mention a 5 cent fare increase and everyone starts to cry foul in this Country. South America also found a way to incorporate transit as its primary mode of transportation with BRT lanes that have been around since the early 70's which we're just sort of waking up and trying to build in the US. Transit is unfortunately fighting a losing battle against the private auto and the developers are not helping.
While neither politically acceptable or correct does anyone believe that fares should not be static but instead rise incrementally over time, based on not only the need to cover rising expenses but also tied to implementing improvements and service expansion?
And tie this to sharing financial and system performance information with the public, even down to individual route performance. Many TA's already share system financial and operations info with the public. Does it make any difference in public perception of transit's value or no difference at all?
Do what Portland does and tie it to inflation. The only drawback is that it creates a headache from a marketing point of view, but at least it could be a 'fair' way to raise fares. They should index the fuel tax with inflation too....
To me, people expect transit to do what they want, when they want and that money is no object. But, to tell you the truth, the general public only thinks of what they don't have and does not understand the fiscal impact of extending a route, starting a new route or adding service. They think it all fits nicely into the package funds they receive or pay taxes for in the first place. It doesn't matter that a public transit system is fighting with every other public service out there for the same small amount of funds.
It is asking too much for people to actually be rational and not try to rile up people on other websites with a one-sided view only to draw the ire of Joe Public Transit Rider. It wouldn't make big news otherwise.
Trimming frequencies, fine. 30 minute headways in the evenings? I don't see that going over well or even happening. That said, I like the Red Line restructuring proposal, the 2.5 minute headways really haven't worked out in my opinion, and also think that they can reduce service on the rails prior to 7 AM, demand doesn't warrant true rush hour headways until about that time anyway based on my experiences. I also think closing some of those station entrances during off hours and cutting out underutilized sections of the bus system are good ideas. But the trains need to come at least every 20 minutes during the evenings in order to be attractive to choice commuters IMHO.
Anyone know if running fewer longer trains would save money? I'm thinking run fewer TPH at rush hours but make them all 8 cars long.
If the rails have to be electrified the whole time, then I don't know if there is a difference between running 1 train per hour or 10. Fewer cars used equals lower maintenance costs I would assume.
Quote from: Perry on December 19, 2009, 02:48:06 PM
Do what Portland does and tie it to inflation. The only drawback is that it creates a headache from a marketing point of view, but at least it could be a 'fair' way to raise fares. They should index the fuel tax with inflation too....
To me, people expect transit to do what they want, when they want and that money is no object. But, to tell you the truth, the general public only thinks of what they don't have and does not understand the fiscal impact of extending a route, starting a new route or adding service. They think it all fits nicely into the package funds they receive or pay taxes for in the first place. It doesn't matter that a public transit system is fighting with every other public service out there for the same small amount of funds.
It is asking too much for people to actually be rational and not try to rile up people on other websites with a one-sided view only to draw the ire of Joe Public Transit Rider. It wouldn't make big news otherwise.
Perry, the costs of expanding and running service would easily be covered if they just stopped paying all of those overpaid management officials so much money!
/ end sarcasm
You are quite right...it's a shame that the public has this mentality towards public transit agencies.
Since I'm not one of those I won't take offense to it. :-)
Quote from: Perry on December 19, 2009, 05:28:00 PM
If the rails have to be electrified the whole time, then I don't know if there is a difference between running 1 train per hour or 10. Fewer cars used equals lower maintenance costs I would assume.
So if running fewer, longer trains ultimately results in a net decrease in the number of cars on the railroad, I think my idea would have some potential.
Quote from: Perry on December 19, 2009, 05:28:00 PM
If the rails have to be electrified the whole time, then I don't know if there is a difference between running 1 train per hour or 10. Fewer cars used equals lower maintenance costs I would assume.
I don't know either, but I always thought that more cars in a train meant more electricity being used???
Wayne, you are right but I would imagine if the net number of cars being used was ultimately lower, the costs would go down.
I would expect that 6 8-car trains over a time period would be cheaper to operate than 8 6-car trains over that same period, simply due to a lower labor cost to haul the same number of people.
There may be a switching cost to assemble 8 car trains if they are not to be utilized across the day, but that may already exist as it is.
Quote from: btconet on December 20, 2009, 12:20:40 PM
I would expect that 6 8-car trains over a time period would be cheaper to operate than 8 6-car trains over that same period, simply due to a lower labor cost to haul the same number of people.
There may be a switching cost to assemble 8 car trains if they are not to be utilized across the day, but that may already exist as it is.
Yup - I think that was always an issue with NYCTA. Years ago, they'd routinely shorten trains during off-hours, especially the overnight trains. I could see where they could be a problem. On my home line (The D), if you went to the station around 6:30-7:00 AM, you'd see the last of the over-nights trains coming N/B with 6 cars. Once they reached 205th Street, they'd have to get 4 cars added as it used full length trains from early AM to late PM hours. Then in the late evenings as trains pulled into terminals, if it was staying out overnight, they take off 4 cars. I guess they felt it wasn't worth the manpower, time and an so on to shorten trains.