Proof of the system’s failure is reflected in the fares Metrorail customers pay. Currently, fares cover less than half of the system’s operating and maintenance expenses—and little to no capital costs. WMATA officials, fearing public backlash, have no interest in raising fares to recover more of the cost. Put simply, Metrorail’s own users judge the system to not be worth its cost.
He offers this shocking solution:
Public officials would better serve both Metrorail customers and the broader public by terminating the rail system and shifting attention to bus transit and the road system.
I think it is fair to say that the idea of terminating the DC Metro rail system is inconceivable to most people, no matter how much its costs exceed its consumer value.
Rail-based transit systems are a symbol of the central planning mindset. They are rigid, impersonal, and in most cases economically unsustainable.
“Rail-based transit systems are a symbol of the central planning mindset. They are rigid, impersonal, and in most cases economically unsustainable.”
Yes. And sadly, those are all features, not bugs. The rigidity is intended to force development to conform to the transit system, not the reverse. The high-expense (which starves funds from roads and bus transit) serves, likewise, to ultimately force more and more people onto the trains. And the fact that the systems are funded by subsidies rather than fares is also desirable to the leftish mind — in their view, the government should be providing ‘free’ transport to all on the same terms. Ideally, everyone should be jammed together in the same subway cars and have no ability to opt out by paying more.
My own small city of about 100,000 is flirting with the idea of building a billion-dollar light rail system. We like living here, but if those plans move beyond the stage of just frittering away money on consultants, it may be time to move out to that place in the countryside before the scale of the impending disaster becomes apparent.
Look at these photos comparing life in LA to that of NYC. Notice how prevalent the subway is in NYC life.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/erinchack/photos-that-prove-how-different-la-and-nyc-really-are#.yxnRjyn3Xw
Proof of the system’s failure is reflected in the fares Metrorail customers pay. Currently, fares cover less than half of the system’s operating and maintenance expenses—and little to no capital costs. WMATA officials, fearing public backlash, have no interest in raising fares to recover more of the cost. Put simply, Metrorail’s own users judge the system to not be worth its cost.
I gotta call BS on that. Based on the traffic situation in the DC area and how much worse it would be without the metro system, I have to believe there are an awwwful lot of upper middle class professionals who would be willing to pay higher fares; they object to the idea now, though, because they can. It allows them to pass on the cost to their fellow DC area taxpayers who don’t often ride the metro.
In DC, a good portion of the “upper middle class professionals” who use the METRO are transit-subsidized government workers. So already the poor single taxpaying mother from rural West Virginia is subsidizing their METRO use.
I expect a lot of the private government-affiliated enterprises subsidize their employee public transit use as well.
It goes back to the ecological analogy. Bus transit can easily and quickly evolve to better serve the customers, as it did successfully in Austin. Rail is profoundly difficult and expensive to modify, and involves large sunk costs.
“Rail is profoundly difficult and expensive to modify, and involves large sunk costs.”
…as it did in Austin 🙂
Is there any mode of transportation that does not require extensive central planning?
To me, this is an area where economists can make a difference. Are roads and vehicles really cheaper or more expensive? Can they suffice in a high density city?
I’d want to see a case for comparison of modes.
Asphalt roads are more versatile that rail roads. Asphalt roads can accommodate a wide range of vehicles and transportation choices, such as bicycles, motorcycle, automobile as well as individualized transport for hire for people, as well as service trucks, freight trucks and emergency vehicles. Asphalt roads can in low traffic conditions also accommodate farm vehicles, horse transport, etc.
Railroads do not have the versatility to effectively accommodate freight trains and passenger trains in high use areas without centralize control limiting one use or the other to inflexible schedules.
We can’t forget that -outside of central cities – cars are usually extremely subsidized through the mandatory provision of free parking. Usually, parking minimums require developers of buildings to put in enough parking that if every customer and worker wanted to all drive in at once, there would be enough spaces.
In many cases, the cost of the parking spot exceeds the cost of the car parked in it. This is true in any business district where a city has built a parking garage. Even in modest towns, the subsidy from mandated free parking may be larger than the subsidy for rail.
The best solution would be to stop mandating free parking and therefore make it feasible to price it. At that point, rail and bus systems could charge higher fares and compete on their own merits.
+1 for raising a point I had never seen before.
“We can’t forget that -outside of central cities – cars are usually extremely subsidized through the mandatory provision of free parking.”
Nah. Outside of central cities, most parking is provided on site in surface lots. In those places, A) land is relatively cheap, and B) developers are putting in parking not because of zoning requirements but because their customers demand it. And in any case, even if developers WERE putting in more parking than they’d prefer due to regs, there STILL would be no subsidy, since developers would have no choice but to pass on those costs to the businesses leasing the retail space and ultimately onto the customers parking their cars.
Even where I live (Ann Arbor) where there are downtown garages (which not the case in most of ‘flyover country’), those garages are built and maintained by a downtown development authority which runs them at a profit (which stays with the DDA — to the dismay of some city politicians):
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/01/ann_arbor_parking.html
Where do zoning laws mandate free parking for commercial development? Some areas do mandate parking spaces to accommodate residential development.
If free parking is provided in a dense development for retail customers, it is usually at the behest of merchants as a means to compete with far suburban retail that provides parking as a consequence of customers needing to drive to such locations.
Seems to me that there’s the external benefit that rail provides to road users – folks talking the metro on not on the roads, thus lessening congestion. How much should road users be willing to pay for that somewhat hard to measure benefit. Why should the rail users shoulder the entire cost when they don’t get the entire benefit?
Also as mentioned, roads and parking costs are pretty well socialized as well.
“How much should road users be willing to pay for that somewhat hard to measure benefit. ”
I stay off the roads and out of mass-transit when I work from my home office — should transit and road users alike be willing to pay me because I’m providing them the ‘benefit’ of not competing for space? What about when I order something from Amazon rather than drive to the store (or cook rather than go out to eat) — should I get a little congestion-reduction micro-payment each time I forgo a hypothetical trip?
Maybe you should have to pay for not helping raise property values!
I don’t understand why fare-based pricing should be the only way to pay for public transit. Public transit has positive externalities.
A good public transit system raises property values. I see no reason why not to support public transit with property taxes.
A good public transit system also leads to higher incomes. I see no reason why not to support public transit with income taxes.
Just because Metro is undercharging does not mean you have sufficient information to reach the conclusion you did about shutting it down.
Only if the fares were high enough to cover all costs and ridership was insufficient
could you reach that conclusion.
Meanwhile, the riders are earning a nice consumer surplus but that is not at all uncommon in in many purely capitalist situations.
Fares should obviously be raised. Buses have an unfortunate problem with social stigma; white collar workers and above wouldn’t be caught dead riding the bus. Presumably, at some price point, buses will be the preferred alternative to subways no matter how vulgar it seems.
Aren’t they opening some new streetcar system in DC soon, also? It will be interesting to see if that winds up holding the same stigma as taking a bus or whether it earns “all the cool kids are doing it” status like the Metro.
50%? That’s great! City of Vancouver WA had a farebox recovery ratio of 10% on their bus system when I did a study for them in the late ’90s. I asked the CFO why they didn’t just make bus rides free. He said “We presented it to the board, but they didn’t want our buses to be the only dry place on a rainy day.”
Why not lease the whole system at auction to the operator who will charge the lowest fares, even if they might be higher than current ones? (See Harold Demsetz) The winner of that auction will, presumably, have figured out how to cover the operating costs. Any capital costs would still be borne by the city, but the annual deficit will be much lower.
A few of the words found in intractable issues;
Public
Affordable
Fair
Equitable
Equal
Just
Morally
Disparate
community
As long as full-recovery road tolls and (as pointed out above) parking meters at all public parking are put in place at the same time, I would be all for eliminating the subsidies for rail. It would be interesting to see how ridership and road usage would change if every mode was full recovery direct to the user. Would probably vary a lot by city size.