******FARE HIKE ******* FARE HIKE ******** FARE HIKE ******
IT HAS BEEN APPROVED :o :o
YA, but the Z-Man was right to approve it.
How can everyone complain when the majority of passengers pay less of a fare than passengers at peer TA's? MTA-NYC and CTA are $2.25, SEPTA is $2.00 (with transfers extra), MTA-MD is $1.60 with no transfers, MBTA's the same for CharlieCard on bus but more expensive otherwise.
It must be one of the concessions of the "high cost of living" or there are artificial reasons keeping it low. By artificial I mean about 5'10", old, bow-tie wearing, and transit avoiding in practice.
Thanks to this fare hike my bus rides in DC will become even more limited. But since there are still Flxibles down there, I'll make an exception.
i must say that no one likes prices to be raised (the customers/passengers that is) but I'll have to agree with Scrabbleship in which other TAs have it worse. To add to his list, some South Florida (BCT and Palm Tran) have always had higher fares. BCT and Palm Tran for example have it at $1.50 (with transfers extra) and Miami-Dade Transit has it at $2 (not sure about transfers).
Quote from: Scrabbleship on January 29, 2010, 06:04:54 AM
How can everyone complain when the majority of passengers pay less of a fare than passengers at peer TA's? MTA-NYC and CTA are $2.25, SEPTA is $2.00 (with transfers extra), MTA-MD is $1.60 with no transfers, MBTA's the same for CharlieCard on bus but more expensive otherwise.
It must be one of the concessions of the "high cost of living" or there are artificial reasons keeping it low. By artificial I mean about 5'10", old, bow-tie wearing, and transit avoiding in practice.
I actually think the bus fare should be higher. I don't want to come off as being insensitive, but a bus fare of say, $1.50 (with the current free transfer) is still a decent bargain in my opinion. On the other hand, I think Metrorail is way too expensive. Other than BART, I don't know of any subway system where fares can rival those of commuter rail. I think it would be good for the majority if Metrobus fares were a bit higher, like $1.50 and Metrorail fares were a bit lower. Parking at Metrorail stations can also be very expensive. Again, I'm not trying to knock the DC area, but sometimes I feel like expensive Metrorail parking, high Metrorail fares and so on actually work toward keeping people (who have a choice ) in their cars.
In NYC the subway and local bus fare are a bit on the high side (2.25). However, IMO, you do get quite a bit for your fare, like a free bus/subway transfer and bus/bus transfer.
Just my two cents.
I must agree with Wayne. It always stinks when fares increase, but if it means you guys can retain decent service, so be it. You guys get SUCH a bargain compared to other TA's on the bus side. For $1.25 (with Smartrip), you get unlimited rides on buses of various local agencies for 3 hours. That's AMAZING and is a reason why I like fanning down there so much.
The funny thing is that the cost of living doesn't seem to really be that much different than folks further up the Northeast Corridor, like Baltimore, Philadelphia and Trenton. So why are the fares so low? Politics?
Quote from: Tritransit Area on January 30, 2010, 12:29:43 PM
I must agree with Wayne. It always stinks when fares increase, but if it means you guys can retain decent service, so be it. You guys get SUCH a bargain compared to other TA's on the bus side. For $1.25 (with Smartrip), you get unlimited rides on buses of various local agencies for 3 hours. That's AMAZING and is a reason why I like fanning down there so much.
Never mind that that 3 hours resets with every tap of the card on the bus end. Someone could keep using the same transfer all day as long as they were on a bus every 3 hours. No wonder Metro has such issues...
My ideal fare scheme: $1.50 for Metrobus (with a strict 3-hour transfer window) and a Metrorail fare system that'd go $1.50/$2.00/$2.50 in off-peak with, say, a $1 rush-hour surcharge.
Hm, maybe I ought to keep traveling the world. I rode the subway in Cairo for under 20 cents and Mexico City is still under a quarter I think.
But seriously, keep in mind that in the case of the rail fares, they are distance based. A short trip in the city is still comparable in price to a bus route along the same route. BART and WMATA both view themselves as hybrid subway/commuter rail systems and take passengers in from long distances, so the high fares are somewhat reasonable in my opinion. That said, I think parking plus rail fare is very high. The biggest issue in my mind is the city politicians arguing against the suburban politicians without any compromise, and the DC delegation's vetoing of every fare increase that puts a greater burden on bus riders is a huge problem in my mind. I wonder how much damage Jim Graham has done by insisting that fare increases not be considered and robbing the capital funds to solve all of WMATA's problems.
I think Jim Graham and his influence over the DC representatives on the WMATA board are the biggest problem Metro has and the whole equality thing in the WMATA compact makes it hard for anyone to yell over him. Until there is a concerted effort to get him off the WMATA board, he and he alone will cripple things just as much as Annapolis and Richmond.
It makes me feel sorry for Catoe, he goes from a pack of illogical luddites who want to hurt the inevitable (the BRU in LA) to a unitary one who has its grip on the whole agency (Graham).
I think the Graham effect is over rated. I can't see Graham telling the Z-Man anything and from dealing with him in Arlington, what Zimmie wants Zimmie gets.
OMG, the political nature of that board makes me sick! Good grief, just work together y'all!
Quote from: Tritransit Area on February 01, 2010, 11:36:59 AM
OMG, the political nature of that board makes me sick! Good grief, just work together y'all!
It's one of those things where I wish a Metro Czar, or dare I say even a Metro Dictator, would be a drastic nuclear solution. Of course, unitary power holders don't work as can be seen by Graham.
Well at least the fare increase won't last long. It's from Feb. 28 to June 26.
I am betting it continues and is in fact added too.
Quote from: OrionFlyer on February 18, 2010, 08:13:03 AM
Well at least the fare increase won't last long. It's from Feb. 28 to June 26.
OMG, February 28th?! That's just two weeks away. Do you guys have any ideas on what the fares will be?
It is a 10 cent surcharge. Details are on the WMATA site.
Anyone who thinks the fares will decrease on June 27 is delirious IMHO.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on February 18, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
It is a 10 cent surcharge. Details are on the WMATA site.
Anyone who thinks the fares will decrease on June 27 is delirious IMHO.
Anyone who thinks the fares won't increase further on June 27 might be slightly delusional, IMO.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on February 18, 2010, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on February 18, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
It is a 10 cent surcharge. Details are on the WMATA site.
Anyone who thinks the fares will decrease on June 27 is delirious IMHO.
Anyone who thinks the fares won't increase further on June 27 might be slightly delusional, IMO.
I agree with both of you!
If they know they're going to increase fares again a couple of months later, why not have one fare increase. I say this because they're expenses associated with the fare increase. Why do it twice within a 3-month timeframe? If they're unsure of what will happen later (including the percentage of the second increase), perhaps they should wait a bit longer (closer to 6/27) to increase the fares.
Quote from: WayneNYC on February 18, 2010, 11:20:01 AM
If they know they're going to increase fares again a couple of months later, why not have one fare increase. I say this because they're expenses associated with the fare increase. Why do it twice within a 3-month timeframe?
The way Metro's phrasing this fare increase is that it'd expire on June 26th and it'd revert to the current fares. With a MASSIVE budget shortfall coming and the idea that Doomsday might become real, I can't see rolling it back, they'll like the literal nickels and dimes (and more for passes) a bit too much.
Multiple fare increases in one year aren't that uncommon, besides the obvious VRE example I remember reading how ages ago (early 80's I think) CTA had to raise fares twice in 6 months. Wasn't there also a time in NYC's nadir of the late 70's-early 80's that they had fare increases in back to back years too?
Quote from: WayneNYC on February 18, 2010, 11:20:01 AM
If they know they're going to increase fares again a couple of months later, why not have one fare increase. I say this because they're expenses associated with the fare increase. Why do it twice within a 3-month timeframe? If they're unsure of what will happen later (including the percentage of the second increase), perhaps they should wait a bit longer (closer to 6/27) to increase the fares.
There must be a severe deficit in this fiscal year's budget for them to do such a thing now, rather than later.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on February 18, 2010, 11:24:32 AM
Multiple fare increases in one year aren't that uncommon, besides the obvious VRE example I remember reading how ages ago (early 80's I think) CTA had to raise fares twice in 6 months. Wasn't there also a time in NYC's nadir of the late 70's-early 80's that they had fare increases in back to back years too?
Hard to recall which fare(s), but I believe it was either the .75 or .90 fare that was increased quickly. However, I don't recall NYCTA putting the new fare in place and publicly announcing another increase to come shortly thereafter.
Quote from: WayneNYC on February 18, 2010, 11:20:01 AM
If they know they're going to increase fares again a couple of months later, why not have one fare increase. I say this because they're expenses associated with the fare increase. Why do it twice within a 3-month timeframe? If they're unsure of what will happen later (including the percentage of the second increase), perhaps they should wait a bit longer (closer to 6/27) to increase the fares.
Wayne,
I agree with you, but I think the way the budget rules work forces them to do it this way.
My only hope is Jim Graham doesn't keep the next fare increase low for the benefit of his constituents. At some point, he just needs to accept that service needs to be cut and fares need to go up for everyone, and that the bus riders in this town are getting a relative bargain for 1.25/1.35/1.45/whatever it is plus their 3 hour transfer.
Quote from: Tritransit Area on February 18, 2010, 11:49:52 AM
Quote from: WayneNYC on February 18, 2010, 11:20:01 AM
If they know they're going to increase fares again a couple of months later, why not have one fare increase. I say this because they're expenses associated with the fare increase. Why do it twice within a 3-month timeframe? If they're unsure of what will happen later (including the percentage of the second increase), perhaps they should wait a bit longer (closer to 6/27) to increase the fares.
There must be a severe deficit in this fiscal year's budget for them to do such a thing now, rather than later.
That's exactly what happened - this increase plugs the hole in the FY10 budget, then there will be new talk of a new increase to fill the projected (but real) hole in the FY11 budget.