Equity of Fare Increases Questioned

[WMATAGMOAGH]

A point raised here before the June increases took place was that people who have their fares subsidized by the government don't really care how expensive the ride is, they aren't paying it (so long as Congress doesn't extend the benefits at their current rate by December).  Obviously, there are some issues with the fact some people aren't paying directly for their rides, but does anyone have a legitimate suggestion for how to eliminate potential inequality issues while keeping this issue in mind?

Personally, I think some inefficient bus services should have been revised and/or cut entirely, either to reduce the size of the fare increase or simply to save money (but the increase still would then have been as large as it was).  As Jeff McKay is quoted as saying at the end of the article, the Metro Board can't set fares based on how much various employers subsidize their employees' ride to work.

Although not mentioned in the article, Dr. Gridlock also has written several times that no one really complained about the peak of the peak as it was proposed until after the Board decided to institute it.  I do think it is important to note that the Board really did listen to the rider feedback, and that I think it is a legitimate question to wonder if people who are complaining about the fares now took action during the public comment period when they had the chance to influence things.  If you are complaining now but did nothing earlier, are you entitled to complain at this point?

Equity of Metro fare increases questioned
    [size=-1]  By Ann Scott Tyson
  Washington Post Staff Writer
  Monday, August 9, 2010;  B01 
  [/size] 
 
  Metro's historic fare increase is hitting some riders far harder than  others -- with some paying entirely out of their own pockets while a  large percentage, including 170,000 federal employees, enjoys a  commuter benefit of up to $230 a month that offsets the cost. 
That disparity has generated complaints of unfairness from some  commuters, but it could shrink by the end of this year, when the size  of the federal commuter benefit will fall by almost half -- to $120 a  month -- unless Congress passes legislation to extend it. 
"It's ridiculous," Anthony Cuff, 26, a FedEx employee, said of the  fare increase as he boarded a Red Line train Thursday. "The fare  increase is making it very difficult for me to maintain my budget,"  said Cuff, who does not receive any benefit for his daily commute from  Bowie. 
"Somebody is paying for the fare increase -- it's our tax dollars at  work," Jan Augustine, a retired international management consultant  from Chevy Chase who does not receive any transit benefit, said of  federal workers' shares. 
Many federal workers are not feeling the pinch. The fare increase is  of "no concern to me," said Wayne Smith of Chevy Chase, who works at  the Smithsonian Institution as a project manager. The transit benefit  amply covers "whatever it takes" to go to and from his job downtown,  Smith said Friday at Friendship Heights Station. 
The debate over the fare increase and commuter benefits raises  questions about the shifting incentives for commuters to either drive  or take public transit. 
  Metro's leadership decided to impose the $109 million, across-the-board increase  to fill the bulk of the $189 million operating budget deficit for the  fiscal year that began July 1. Rail fares have gone up about 18 percent  and bus fares 20 percent overall. 
Who bears the brunt?
  Public comment solicited by Metro before the increase suggested that  many riders preferred to pay more in fares rather than face service  cutbacks. But as Metro data show, a significant percentage of Metro  riders weren't bearing the brunt of the fare increase. 
According to Metro, more than 120,000 federal employees ride Metro  to work daily, and federal workers make up 40 percent of peak  ridership. 
"The preference for fare increases opposed to service cuts is driven  by people who don't have to take cash out of their pocket," said  Mortimer Downey, a federally appointed member of the Metro board of directors. 
  Jim Graham, board member from the District, said it was unique to the  nation's capital that a transit system's fares would be raised and yet  not felt by so many riders. "You have during the peak hour a  substantial number of people who can pass the fare increase to another  place," he said. "They don't experience the same increase that other  riders do." 
Federal employees are entitled by law to up to $230 a month in  public transit subsidies for getting to and from work. With the fare  increase, federal employees will be claiming more of that benefit,  indirectly increasing federal funding for Metro's operating budget, as  opposed to its capital needs. 
The commuter benefit, which allows employers to provide workers with  a tax-free or pre-tax transit benefit, was increased from $120 to $230  a month in March 2009 as part of the Obama administration's economic  stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 
  About 170,000 federal employees and 115,000 private employees are  registered for the SmartBenefits program, Metro data show. A Metro  passenger survey from 2008 showed that 42 percent of Metrorail riders  and 24 percent of Metrobus riders use SmartBenefits, with some  employers paying for benefits outright and others deducting from  payroll pre-tax. 
Opposing benefit cut
  That benefit will revert to $120 a month Dec. 31 unless Congress  acts to extend it, reducing the maximum tax-free benefit available to  all employers and reimbursement offered to federal workers. 
Metro and transit advocacy groups are lobbying to have the higher  benefit continued out of concern that cutting it could push some  commuters back onto the roads. A study in the Journal of Public  Transportation this year found that transit benefits have succeeded in  mitigating traffic over the past 30 years. 
One reason Congress adopted the higher public transit benefit was to  attain parity, for the first time since transit benefits were codified  in 1984, with tax-free parking benefits provided by employers. 
"If there is less of an incentive, perhaps people will be more  inclined to say, 'I won't take the train; I will go back to driving my  car,' " said Rob Healy, vice president of government relations for the American Public Transportation Association. 
  Draft legislation in the House has been put forward that would extend the higher transit benefit for one year, Healy said. 
  "Commuters who choose to use transit should not be penalized with a  smaller transportation benefit than those who drive," said Metro  spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein. "If there is a greater benefit for parking  costs than for transit costs, people have an incentive to drive rather  than to use public transportation, thereby adding to the region's road  congestion and greenhouse gas emissions." 
To address the gap between subsidized and non-subsidized commuters,  more private employers should provide transit benefits, said Metro  board member Jeff McKay of Fairfax. The inequity "concerns me to a  certain extent," McKay said. 
"I wish more private employers would offer benefits to their  employees to use transit . . . to make the commute easier for their  employees," he said. But he said the Metro board "can't set a fare  structure based on how generous a certain employer is." 

[Scrabbleship]

I think that Metrobus could've taken some hits in this most recent fare increase in terms of service adjustments and fare increases. Some lesser-ridden routes could've stood to have been cut or merged with other routes. Some bus stops could've been cut in areas where every block has a stop (16th Street and Lee Highway are the biggest offenders). As hot of a potato as it would've been, ending the east-of-the-Anacostia fare subsidy should've been an option as it'd have saved some money. I also think transferring some more routes to county providers might have been a good idea if they prune their own lesser services; I think Ride On would be a better fit for the J5, J7/J9, and weekday L8/T2/Z2 while Connector could run the 15M and merge the 28T into the 425.

I think that Metrobus could support a fare structure of $1.75 Smartrip/$2.00 cash for local, $3.70/$4.00 for express, and a flat $5 for Airport (since the Airport hike was extortion). I think people, even the very poor, would survive under such a structure if advocacy organizations were to aggressively get Smartrips in their hands and train them on how to use Smartrips though such campaigns might fall victim to behavorial patterns that go way beyond DC.

[WayneNYC]

After reading this article a couple of times, I'm not really liking the remarks made by McKay in regards to transit subsidies should be provided by the employer.  Don't get me wrong... I'd love to have transit subsidy benefits from my employer.  The fact that some employers offer this benefit is great, but I'm not sure he should be putting this on the shoulders of the employers.

My employer doesn't offer transit benefits, but our benefits package overall is quite competitive (some would say it's generous).  A question I'd ask McKay is that using my employer as an example... If an employer already offer good benefits and competitive salaries, should they also be expected to add in transit benefits (a significant expense)?   Also, if employers took on this expense, I think it would be naive to think that they could simply absorb this added cost.  In many cases something would have to give like: Lower salaries, cuts in other fringe benefits of worst of all, a possible reduction of personnel.

My employer charges us to park which is tax-free, but so are the Metro fare cards that we can purchase through payroll deduction.  So, for myself and most other employees who live outside of DC it's less expensive for us to drive (and pay for parking at work) than it is to use the tax-free Metro fare cards and Metrorail station parking.  Is it my employers' fault that it's cheaper to drive than using WMATA from the 'burbs?  If my roundtrip Metrorail fare wasn't $10 per day along with $4.75 per day to park at the Metro station, then perhaps using Metrorail to commute would be an attractive option.  So, why should I pay more money for a trip that would take longer to make via Metrorail over the comfort of my car?

Also, back to McKay's comments again.  Unless I've missed something... Who has suggested that WMATA's fare structure be based on what the employers are paying and/or offering in benefits?  My issue is the huge disparity between Metrorail's base fare and the maximum fare for a subway ride!  Again, they can call it what they want, but I'm still not seeing where a $5 one-way fare is reasonable.   

Even if this weren't my feeling, I think it's a darn good and realistic example in which one could play devil's advocate.

[Tritransit Area]

My employer doesn't offer transit benefits, but our benefits package overall is quite competitive (some would say it's generous).  A question I'd ask McKay is that using my employer as an example... If an employer already offer good benefits and competitive salaries, should they also be expected to add in transit benefits (a significant expense)?    Also, if employers took on this expense, I think it would be naive to think that they could simply absorb this added cost.  In many cases something would have to give like: Lower salaries, cuts in other fringe benefits of worst of all, a possible reduction of personnel.

Hold on, it's not necessarily a HUGE expensive if people are paying for their passes out of pre-tax pay.  Plus, the employer saves as the amount an employee deducts for the pass is not subject to:

FICA, Unemployment, or Workers' Compensation/Disability Insurance. 

They'd really just have to worry about the service fee and shipping and handling.  At least, this is how the TransitChek program works, which is, I imagine, VERY similar to the SmartBenefits.

Just wanted to clarify that.  I do agree with your other points, though.  Out of curiosity, how much does WMATA promote their weekly/7 day passes?  How many people use them?  The short trip pass could be a great deal if you travel during off-peak times.  Why can't the Metrorail pass be used on the buses?

[SchuminWeb]

Just wanted to clarify that.  I do agree with your other points, though.  Out of curiosity, how much does WMATA promote their weekly/7 day passes?  How many people use them?  The short trip pass could be a great deal if you travel during off-peak times.  Why can't the Metrorail pass be used on the buses?

I don't see them really promote the weekly passes at all.  As for why the rail pass can't be used on buses, the pass is currently only available as a paper farecard, which the buses have no mechanism to accept.  Additionally, using the rail passes prevents riders that transfer rail/bus - like me - from taking advantage of the SmarTrip-only transfer discount onto the bus (there's also a bus/rail discount, but if you're using a pass, it's a moot point).

[Scrabbleship]

Just wanted to clarify that.  I do agree with your other points, though.  Out of curiosity, how much does WMATA promote their weekly/7 day passes?  How many people use them?  The short trip pass could be a great deal if you travel during off-peak times.  Why can't the Metrorail pass be used on the buses?

I don't see them really promote the weekly passes at all.  As for why the rail pass can't be used on buses, the pass is currently only available as a paper farecard, which the buses have no mechanism to accept.  Additionally, using the rail passes prevents riders that transfer rail/bus - like me - from taking advantage of the SmarTrip-only transfer discount onto the bus (there's also a bus/rail discount, but if you're using a pass, it's a moot point).

WMATA had a great chance to merge a bus flash pass into the rail pass when they ended paper transfers. They stupidly punted that chance and allegedly never explored it. Would've been a good concession to make.

[Tritransit Area]

If it was a "flash pass" why can't that policy still be in effect for the buses?   Why must they wait until it can be "uploaded" until the Smartrip?  Why can't WMATA take what they have and try to make it work to the best of their ability until they can do better? 

They used to be so good with the organization of the Regional Day Pass and the Regional Bus Transfer.  What happened?  How can an organization that forces many of its passengers to use both bus and rail (by terminating routes that formerly went into DC at Metrorail Stations) not have a unified pass yet?

[WMATAGMOAGH]

If it was a "flash pass" why can't that policy still be in effect for the buses?   Why must they wait until it can be "uploaded" until the Smartrip?  Why can't WMATA take what they have and try to make it work to the best of their ability until they can do better? 

They used to be so good with the organization of the Regional Day Pass and the Regional Bus Transfer.  What happened?  How can an organization that forces many of its passengers to use both bus and rail (by terminating routes that formerly went into DC at Metrorail Stations) not have a unified pass yet?

You would need to somehow be able to verify the expiration date on the bus, which is established by running the card through a farecard machine.  Otherwise, you could ride forever on the same pass on the bus by never starting it.

I think we can all agree that WMATA has blown the opportunity to unify the bus/rail fares and to introduce passes (or to eliminate them entirely if that is your personal persuasion). 

[Tritransit Area]

If it was a "flash pass" why can't that policy still be in effect for the buses?   Why must they wait until it can be "uploaded" until the Smartrip?  Why can't WMATA take what they have and try to make it work to the best of their ability until they can do better? 

They used to be so good with the organization of the Regional Day Pass and the Regional Bus Transfer.  What happened?  How can an organization that forces many of its passengers to use both bus and rail (by terminating routes that formerly went into DC at Metrorail Stations) not have a unified pass yet?

You would need to somehow be able to verify the expiration date on the bus, which is established by running the card through a farecard machine.  Otherwise, you could ride forever on the same pass on the bus by never starting it.

I think we can all agree that WMATA has blown the opportunity to unify the bus/rail fares and to introduce passes (or to eliminate them entirely if that is your personal persuasion).

I was under the impression that with first use on the Metrorail, it would print the Expiration Date onto the card.  However, I do see your point if the passenger decides to use the pass only on Metrobus.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

If it was a "flash pass" why can't that policy still be in effect for the buses?   Why must they wait until it can be "uploaded" until the Smartrip?  Why can't WMATA take what they have and try to make it work to the best of their ability until they can do better? 

They used to be so good with the organization of the Regional Day Pass and the Regional Bus Transfer.  What happened?  How can an organization that forces many of its passengers to use both bus and rail (by terminating routes that formerly went into DC at Metrorail Stations) not have a unified pass yet?

You would need to somehow be able to verify the expiration date on the bus, which is established by running the card through a farecard machine.  Otherwise, you could ride forever on the same pass on the bus by never starting it.

I think we can all agree that WMATA has blown the opportunity to unify the bus/rail fares and to introduce passes (or to eliminate them entirely if that is your personal persuasion).

I was under the impression that with first use on the Metrorail, it would print the Expiration Date onto the card.  However, I do see your point if the passenger decides to use the pass only on Metrobus.

Brandon, you are correct.  But what does a rider do if they want to ride the bus, or if the first time they need to use the card is on a bus?  Buy the card, enter the system, exit the system, and then catch the bus?  What if you bought it today but don't need to use it until tomorrow, and then you need to use it on a bus?  Those were my thoughts on the matter. 

[WayneNYC]

My employer doesn't offer transit benefits, but our benefits package overall is quite competitive (some would say it's generous).  A question I'd ask McKay is that using my employer as an example... If an employer already offer good benefits and competitive salaries, should they also be expected to add in transit benefits (a significant expense)?    Also, if employers took on this expense, I think it would be naive to think that they could simply absorb this added cost.  In many cases something would have to give like: Lower salaries, cuts in other fringe benefits of worst of all, a possible reduction of personnel.

Hold on, it's not necessarily a HUGE expensive if people are paying for their passes out of pre-tax pay.  Plus, the employer saves as the amount an employee deducts for the pass is not subject to:

FICA, Unemployment, or Workers' Compensation/Disability Insurance. 

They'd really just have to worry about the service fee and shipping and handling.  At least, this is how the TransitChek program works, which is, I imagine, VERY similar to the SmartBenefits.

Just wanted to clarify that.  I do agree with your other points, though.  Out of curiosity, how much does WMATA promote their weekly/7 day passes?  How many people use them?  The short trip pass could be a great deal if you travel during off-peak times.  Why can't the Metrorail pass be used on the buses?

I actually don't know how large the expense would be for my employer (or any employer) to offer the subsidy.  I will certainly ask around though as I'm curious about it.  That said, large or small, it would still be an additional expense to the employer.  I guess one reason I didn't care for McKay's remark is simply out of fairness to the employer.  I know that my employer, in particular has gone to great lengths to cut expenses (and thankfully) minimize any need to cut jobs.  Perhaps, I'm a bit sensitive on this issue, but it sounds (to me) like he's making this out to be the employer's (those who don't offer SmartBenefits) problem.   

[WMATAGMOAGH]

My employer doesn't offer transit benefits, but our benefits package overall is quite competitive (some would say it's generous).  A question I'd ask McKay is that using my employer as an example... If an employer already offer good benefits and competitive salaries, should they also be expected to add in transit benefits (a significant expense)?    Also, if employers took on this expense, I think it would be naive to think that they could simply absorb this added cost.  In many cases something would have to give like: Lower salaries, cuts in other fringe benefits of worst of all, a possible reduction of personnel.

Hold on, it's not necessarily a HUGE expensive if people are paying for their passes out of pre-tax pay.  Plus, the employer saves as the amount an employee deducts for the pass is not subject to:

FICA, Unemployment, or Workers' Compensation/Disability Insurance. 

They'd really just have to worry about the service fee and shipping and handling.  At least, this is how the TransitChek program works, which is, I imagine, VERY similar to the SmartBenefits.

Just wanted to clarify that.  I do agree with your other points, though.  Out of curiosity, how much does WMATA promote their weekly/7 day passes?  How many people use them?  The short trip pass could be a great deal if you travel during off-peak times.  Why can't the Metrorail pass be used on the buses?

I actually don't know how large the expense would be for my employer (or any employer) to offer the subsidy.  I will certainly ask around though as I'm curious about it.  That said, large or small, it would still be an additional expense to the employer.  I guess one reason I didn't care for McKay's remark is simply out of fairness to the employer.  I know that my employer, in particular has gone to great lengths to cut expenses (and thankfully) minimize any need to cut jobs.  Perhaps, I'm a bit sensitive on this issue, but it sounds (to me) like he's making this out to be the employer's (those who don't offer SmartBenefits) problem.   

Or he just wants to go to a socialist model, which I doubt would ever work in the US.  I'm not well versed in Israeli labor law, but it seems as if under certain visas for non-Israelis, and possibly for Israelis themselves, some or all employers are supposed to give a commuting stipend to their employees.  (They also have socialized health care and lots of other services provided by the government, and an extremely high tax rate to provide for all these services.)