3 ms·

To this day in D.C., the Metrorail system doesn't even come close to meeting its operating budget using fares. And it's already more expensive to ride Metrorail

by mpyne 13y ago

To this day in D.C., the Metrorail system doesn't even come close to meeting its operating budget using fares. And it's already more expensive to ride Metrorail than to drive in a surprising number of situations.

e2e8 13y ago
I can't find a good reference right now but I remember that in DC the rail fares cover 90% of rail operating costs and bus fares cover 30% of bus operating cost. Public Records Here: http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm? The best I could find on page 21 (numbered 15) of pdf "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/12" does not seperate bus from rail.
- mpyne 13y ago
  That's not what WaPo's free Metro Express newspaper put out when they were talking about the fare increase last year. I'll see if I can find one of the mentions. Edit: An example straight from the horse's mouth (the WMATA proposed FY13 budget). Revenue makes up 80% or so of the MetroRail budget, the remaining 20% to be made up by local jurisdictions. So it does appear indeed that Metrobus is much more subsidized (27% of the budget from fares). Page 67 of the PDF is probably the best overview. So definitely not as bad as I thought, but $183 million is no small chunk of change either. PDF at http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/ProposedFY2013Budget.pdf http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/ProposedFY2013Budget.p...
tehwalrus 13y ago
In the UK, the rail network is similar - cost to the taxpayer is huge, and since we allowed private firms to operate the trains and collect/set fares, it's actually much more expensive (compared to gas/petrol price for a single trip, at least) to take the train than to drive, especially if you're going a long way (a few hundred miles is a long way in the UK, for reference.) Of course, the choice is less stark than that because car tax, insurance, and cost of maintenance make trains cheaper for the journey patterns of many people, especially young people and students - who make a few long journeys a year, and also get discounted tickets (1/2 under 16, 1/3 off under 25.)
adestefan 13y ago
This is because of multiple reasons that include gross mismanagement, design issues from when Metro was constructed, and the unique situation of being located in 2 states and one quasi-state that has little say in their own affairs and gets hamstrung by the Federal government. In the end everyone just points their fingers at the other person and nothing ever gets fixed.

by mpyne 13y ago

e2e8 13y ago

I can't find a good reference right now but I remember that in DC the rail fares cover 90% of rail operating costs and bus fares cover 30% of bus operating cost. Public Records Here: http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm? The best I could find on page 21 (numbered 15) of pdf "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/12" does not seperate bus from rail.

mpyne 13y ago
That's not what WaPo's free Metro Express newspaper put out when they were talking about the fare increase last year. I'll see if I can find one of the mentions. Edit: An example straight from the horse's mouth (the WMATA proposed FY13 budget). Revenue makes up 80% or so of the MetroRail budget, the remaining 20% to be made up by local jurisdictions. So it does appear indeed that Metrobus is much more subsidized (27% of the budget from fares). Page 67 of the PDF is probably the best overview. So definitely not as bad as I thought, but $183 million is no small chunk of change either. PDF at http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/ProposedFY2013Budget.pdf http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/ProposedFY2013Budget.p...

tehwalrus 13y ago

In the UK, the rail network is similar - cost to the taxpayer is huge, and since we allowed private firms to operate the trains and collect/set fares, it's actually much more expensive (compared to gas/petrol price for a single trip, at least) to take the train than to drive, especially if you're going a long way (a few hundred miles is a long way in the UK, for reference.) Of course, the choice is less stark than that because car tax, insurance, and cost of maintenance make trains cheaper for the journey patterns of many people, especially young people and students - who make a few long journeys a year, and also get discounted tickets (1/2 under 16, 1/3 off under 25.)

adestefan 13y ago

This is because of multiple reasons that include gross mismanagement, design issues from when Metro was constructed, and the unique situation of being located in 2 states and one quasi-state that has little say in their own affairs and gets hamstrung by the Federal government. In the end everyone just points their fingers at the other person and nothing ever gets fixed.