6 ms·

The D.C. Metro has a daily ridership of 612,652 and an annual ridership of 179,693,126. Farebox recovery is 62%, which exceeds that of Vienna and is almost as h

The D.C. Metro has a daily ridership of 612,652 and an annual ridership of 179,693,126. Farebox recovery is 62%, which exceeds that of Vienna and is almost as high as that of Munich. If you look at how people use transit, it skews toward lower-income people [1]. High-income people like the lawyers and government officials you mention use it a lot too, but not as often. If you want to pick on a failing transit system, pick on VTA in Silicon Valley, not the D.C. Metro. [1]: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-on-public-transit-in-the-u-s/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-o...

oh_sigh 8y ago
That still means it is 38% subsidized by the taxpayer, right? Farebox recovery is important but you need to also take into account in absolute terms the cost minus recovery.
- melling 8y ago
  Don’t we spend a lot of federal dollars on roads, bridges, etc? https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-government-spending-highway-infrastructure-en.jsp https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-govern...
- function_seven 8y ago
  It might be partially funded by taxpayer money. Is that benefiting the taxpayer by reducing road congestion or having cleaner air? (I don’t know the answer to this for any given metro, but it’s the question that needs answering)
- wolco 8y ago
  subtract the additional taxes gained by new business / housing along the line.
- kiba 8y ago
  Just because we couldn't recover it based on accounting doesn't mean it is not a net benefit.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  We don't even do that for roads. If you required transportation infrastructure to all make profit nothing would ever get built.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    That’s probably the wrong way to think about things. Good roads or any transport system allows frictionless trade of goods and services. This means more money moving in the economy and hopefully a boost for the country. This means more taxes back to the govt. Taxes is how the govt makes money so it’s in their interest to make its citizens wealthier by making it easy for them to move around and do businessy and worky tings.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      I agree. Which is why I pointed out the silly hypocrisy of fixating on farebox recovery.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  Other people have pointed out that roads are subsidized heavily through taxes, but just to be blunt: nobody is asking you to specially subsidize public transit. We are just asking taxpayers to treat public transit with the same deference they treat the road system. The people who use our public transit system in Washington are taxpayers too as we all pay sales tax equally. And if they rent they pay property tax indirectly via their landlord. Nobody is getting a free ride except if we continue to disproportionately fund the road system at the expense of denser forms of transportation.
  - phobosdeimos 8y ago
    "same deference they treat the road system" Well that's not saying much. The US highways aren't in optimal condition.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    State and local governments spend about $170 billion a year on highways and roads, for the 115 million or so people who commute by car each day: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/10/03/americans-commuting-choices-5-major-takeaways-from-2016-census-data/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven... That’s about $1,500 per commuter. Note that is an overestimate, because it ignores the commercial uses of roads (package delivery, ambulances, etc). Also it ignores bus riders, who make up most of the 7 million or so transit riders. State and local sources spend $1.8 billion on WMATA each year. There are about 600,000 linked trips per day, so at most 300,000 commuters. That’s $6,000 per commuter. (Note both numbers above exclude federal spending, but Metro is heavily subsidized by federal dollars.)
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      How much of the WMATA spending is on buses? Seems like you attributed all spending to the subway. If the 600k daily rides weren’t taken on the train, how much more would we have to spend maintaining roads due to the higher traffic levels?
      - 8y ago
- ergothus 8y ago
  You dont have to use public transit to benefit from it. You will see reduced traffic and a healthier economy (low income people can get to jobs at all, everyone can get to more jobs in a shorter time span, reducing friction in the basic capitalism of the job market, heck, even things as simple as "can a one car family drop off their car for repair?" (Meaning fewer on-the-road incidents, less stressed people, etc) It is possible for a transit system to not be worthwhile, but "Do I user it? and "Does it pay for itself?" are inadequate to determine that.
  - mrfredward 8y ago
    Traffic is a great point. Every time someone chooses to take the subway or a bus over driving, traffic becomes slightly more tolerable for people in cars.
    - acheron 8y ago
      "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others" "Expanding mass transit isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity," Holland said. "My drive to work is unbelievable. I spend more than two hours stuck in 12 lanes of traffic. It's about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars off the road." https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837 https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-...
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Except it won't because there's so much pent up demand for transit. A little extra capacity will be instantly used up by the people who were formerly inconveniencing themselves by leaving late/early. Increasing throughput doesn't prevent you from being able to max out the system at peak usage times (rush hour), it just means that the rush hour traffic doesn't last as long.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Right, but then you also have to account for the value created by the transit system that isn’t captured in fares. A lot of property has higher value because it’s near a transit stop, and a lot of economic activity is created by the ease of access it facilitates. Imagine if you were the government of NYC (also sub-100% farebox recovery) and someone offered to remove the subway system for free. No more losing money to subsidize it! Would you take that offer? No, that would be insane.
rayiner 8y ago
The DC Metro area has 3.3 million non farm jobs, which means WMATA is serving just 20% of taxpayers in the area (even less if you consider that many riders are tourists). Moreover, each ride is subsized by MD, VA, and DC. There are 8 million non farm jobs among those taxpayers, but virtually none can use Metro. Finally, the average income of Metro riders is north of $100k: https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/RailSurveyIncomebyStation/IncomeofMetrorailRidershipbyStationofEntry https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/Rai.... That means rides for well-off Metro riders are being subsidized by less well off taxpayers. Its wealth transfer from poor to rich (especially considering that the state and local taxes that fund Metro are regressive).
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  > Finally, the average income of Metro riders is north of $100k: https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/Rai... https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/Rai.... That's got to be talking about mean personal income of riders, right? I just looked up some stats for DC. I started with the numbers from here: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US1150000-washington-dc/ https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US1150000-washingto... And also made some conversions between personal&household stats, by estimating that 16% of people in DC are under 15 and thus not counted in per-capita income, together with the average household size being 2.3. Altogether, in DC: Median per-capita income: $42k Mean per-capita income: $52k Median household income: $82k Mean household income: $100k I'm really surpised that the average income of riders is around $100k. That hasn't been my perception with other public transport.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    Yeah, it's rather odd. BART's equivalent data (though not as nicely plotted) is here: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/StationProfile2015_HomeOriginOnePagers_rev0629.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/StationProfile... Pulling up some random stations shows that the median income at most BART stations is $50k-$75k, which is right what I would expect. Even at the downtown/FiDi ones like Embarcadero and Montgomery, it's just a bit above $75k. Median income in SF is about $95k, so BART ridership skews less wealthy than the area as a whole.
reap_and_sow 8y ago
Your farebox recovery ratio is way off - the DOT statistics I see show 42% [1], significantly lower than both Vienna and Munich. [1]:https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2016/30030.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_...
- tptacek 8y ago
  I believe you're looking at the average of the MTA bus system and the DC Metro. This thread is exclusively about the latter.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  I got the number from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#Financing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#Financing
msla 8y ago
It hasn't gone zero fare yet? Even Missoula has zero fare! Great way to take the mass transit system out of the reach of the poor.
- msla 8y ago
  Wow. A lot of people are threatened by poor people riding mass transit. Quelle surprise.

oh_sigh 8y ago

That still means it is 38% subsidized by the taxpayer, right? Farebox recovery is important but you need to also take into account in absolute terms the cost minus recovery.

melling 8y ago
Don’t we spend a lot of federal dollars on roads, bridges, etc? https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-government-spending-highway-infrastructure-en.jsp https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-govern...
function_seven 8y ago
It might be partially funded by taxpayer money. Is that benefiting the taxpayer by reducing road congestion or having cleaner air? (I don’t know the answer to this for any given metro, but it’s the question that needs answering)
wolco 8y ago
subtract the additional taxes gained by new business / housing along the line.
kiba 8y ago
Just because we couldn't recover it based on accounting doesn't mean it is not a net benefit.
bobthepanda 8y ago
We don't even do that for roads. If you required transportation infrastructure to all make profit nothing would ever get built.
- nojvek 8y ago
  That’s probably the wrong way to think about things. Good roads or any transport system allows frictionless trade of goods and services. This means more money moving in the economy and hopefully a boost for the country. This means more taxes back to the govt. Taxes is how the govt makes money so it’s in their interest to make its citizens wealthier by making it easy for them to move around and do businessy and worky tings.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    I agree. Which is why I pointed out the silly hypocrisy of fixating on farebox recovery.
jschwartzi 8y ago
Other people have pointed out that roads are subsidized heavily through taxes, but just to be blunt: nobody is asking you to specially subsidize public transit. We are just asking taxpayers to treat public transit with the same deference they treat the road system. The people who use our public transit system in Washington are taxpayers too as we all pay sales tax equally. And if they rent they pay property tax indirectly via their landlord. Nobody is getting a free ride except if we continue to disproportionately fund the road system at the expense of denser forms of transportation.
- phobosdeimos 8y ago
  "same deference they treat the road system" Well that's not saying much. The US highways aren't in optimal condition.
- rayiner 8y ago
  State and local governments spend about $170 billion a year on highways and roads, for the 115 million or so people who commute by car each day: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/10/03/americans-commuting-choices-5-major-takeaways-from-2016-census-data/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven... That’s about $1,500 per commuter. Note that is an overestimate, because it ignores the commercial uses of roads (package delivery, ambulances, etc). Also it ignores bus riders, who make up most of the 7 million or so transit riders. State and local sources spend $1.8 billion on WMATA each year. There are about 600,000 linked trips per day, so at most 300,000 commuters. That’s $6,000 per commuter. (Note both numbers above exclude federal spending, but Metro is heavily subsidized by federal dollars.)
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    How much of the WMATA spending is on buses? Seems like you attributed all spending to the subway. If the 600k daily rides weren’t taken on the train, how much more would we have to spend maintaining roads due to the higher traffic levels?
    - 8y ago
ergothus 8y ago
You dont have to use public transit to benefit from it. You will see reduced traffic and a healthier economy (low income people can get to jobs at all, everyone can get to more jobs in a shorter time span, reducing friction in the basic capitalism of the job market, heck, even things as simple as "can a one car family drop off their car for repair?" (Meaning fewer on-the-road incidents, less stressed people, etc) It is possible for a transit system to not be worthwhile, but "Do I user it? and "Does it pay for itself?" are inadequate to determine that.
- mrfredward 8y ago
  Traffic is a great point. Every time someone chooses to take the subway or a bus over driving, traffic becomes slightly more tolerable for people in cars.
  - acheron 8y ago
    "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others" "Expanding mass transit isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity," Holland said. "My drive to work is unbelievable. I spend more than two hours stuck in 12 lanes of traffic. It's about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars off the road." https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837 https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-...
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Except it won't because there's so much pent up demand for transit. A little extra capacity will be instantly used up by the people who were formerly inconveniencing themselves by leaving late/early. Increasing throughput doesn't prevent you from being able to max out the system at peak usage times (rush hour), it just means that the rush hour traffic doesn't last as long.
SilasX 8y ago
Right, but then you also have to account for the value created by the transit system that isn’t captured in fares. A lot of property has higher value because it’s near a transit stop, and a lot of economic activity is created by the ease of access it facilitates. Imagine if you were the government of NYC (also sub-100% farebox recovery) and someone offered to remove the subway system for free. No more losing money to subsidize it! Would you take that offer? No, that would be insane.

rayiner 8y ago

The DC Metro area has 3.3 million non farm jobs, which means WMATA is serving just 20% of taxpayers in the area (even less if you consider that many riders are tourists). Moreover, each ride is subsized by MD, VA, and DC. There are 8 million non farm jobs among those taxpayers, but virtually none can use Metro. Finally, the average income of Metro riders is north of $100k: https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/RailSurveyIncomebyStation/IncomeofMetrorailRidershipbyStationofEntry https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/Rai.... That means rides for well-off Metro riders are being subsidized by less well off taxpayers. Its wealth transfer from poor to rich (especially considering that the state and local taxes that fund Metro are regressive).

justinpombrio 8y ago
> Finally, the average income of Metro riders is north of $100k: https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/Rai... https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/Rai.... That's got to be talking about mean personal income of riders, right? I just looked up some stats for DC. I started with the numbers from here: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US1150000-washington-dc/ https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US1150000-washingto... And also made some conversions between personal&household stats, by estimating that 16% of people in DC are under 15 and thus not counted in per-capita income, together with the average household size being 2.3. Altogether, in DC: Median per-capita income: $42k Mean per-capita income: $52k Median household income: $82k Mean household income: $100k I'm really surpised that the average income of riders is around $100k. That hasn't been my perception with other public transport.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  Yeah, it's rather odd. BART's equivalent data (though not as nicely plotted) is here: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/StationProfile2015_HomeOriginOnePagers_rev0629.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/StationProfile... Pulling up some random stations shows that the median income at most BART stations is $50k-$75k, which is right what I would expect. Even at the downtown/FiDi ones like Embarcadero and Montgomery, it's just a bit above $75k. Median income in SF is about $95k, so BART ridership skews less wealthy than the area as a whole.

reap_and_sow 8y ago

Your farebox recovery ratio is way off - the DOT statistics I see show 42% [1], significantly lower than both Vienna and Munich. [1]:https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2016/30030.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_...

tptacek 8y ago
I believe you're looking at the average of the MTA bus system and the DC Metro. This thread is exclusively about the latter.
pcwalton 8y ago
I got the number from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#Financing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#Financing

msla 8y ago

It hasn't gone zero fare yet? Even Missoula has zero fare! Great way to take the mass transit system out of the reach of the poor.

msla 8y ago
Wow. A lot of people are threatened by poor people riding mass transit. Quelle surprise.