I wish someone on the Metro board would ask Metro about this.
To me, Metro's future looks worse than I'd ever thought, as promised service levels from 2006 to 2011 don't appear to have materialized and labor costs continue to balloon, according to data from the National Transit Database (NTD).
The below chart paints a very ugly picture, showing just how much promised rail service appears to have never happened, despite Metro doing everything possible to make it look otherwise.
To me, Metro's future looks worse than I'd ever thought, as promised service levels from 2006 to 2011 don't appear to have materialized and labor costs continue to balloon, according to data from the National Transit Database (NTD).
The below chart paints a very ugly picture, showing just how much promised rail service appears to have never happened, despite Metro doing everything possible to make it look otherwise.
Transit agencies like Metro are required by law to report certain performance statistics to the NTD. According to the website, the stats are used divvy up some $5 billion in Federal Transit Administration funds among the nation's transit agencies.
The "revenue mile" referenced equals one mile traveled by a vehicle, in this case a rail car, with paying passengers on board.
In the chart, the red line shows the number of revenue miles Metro said they would provide (and presumably were funded for) from 2006 to 2013. The numbers can be found in the approved budgets. It shows, as you can see, a steady increase in proposed service--on paper.
However, the chart's blue line is the number of revenue miles Metro reported to the NTD as actually having been delivered. The gaps between projected and reported have grown, sometimes dramatically, yet Metro keeps giving a rosy outlook year after year.
In 2011, for example, Metro budgeted for 81,569,545 revenue miles when it reported to the NTD that it only ran 67,234,252 revenue miles. That's an almost 18 percent difference. One could look at it like an 18 percent cut in promised service.
Perhaps the loss of revenue miles is due to all the track work, but if that were the case, why does Metro continue to raise the estimates in its budget documents?
I wonder how the jurisdictions feel about funding a service Metro appears to not be providing. I know how riders feel when the fares go up and the service doesn't improve.
2009, the year of the deadly Red Line crash, is an inflection point for both budgeted and reported revenue miles, but the reported miles nosedived while Metro's promised service remained flat for the year.
Suddenly, reports of ridership dropping by five percent recently look pretty good considering what looks like an 18 percent cut in service.
Meanwhile, labor costs (salaries, wages and benefits), Metro's biggest expense, rose a whopping 30 percent (19 when adjusted for inflation) from 2006 to 2011. In 2006, Metro spent $831,667,228, and in 2011, it spent $1,082,683,205, according to the NTD data.
It should be noted that the NTD has quite a big caveat on its data, but if they're basing funding on it, it can't be that bad. Both NTD and WMATA data seem designed to be as opaque as possible.
*This article was done in collaboration with Michael Perkins, who due to a misunderstanding, wrote a similar article at Greater Greater Washington.
The "revenue mile" referenced equals one mile traveled by a vehicle, in this case a rail car, with paying passengers on board.
In the chart, the red line shows the number of revenue miles Metro said they would provide (and presumably were funded for) from 2006 to 2013. The numbers can be found in the approved budgets. It shows, as you can see, a steady increase in proposed service--on paper.
However, the chart's blue line is the number of revenue miles Metro reported to the NTD as actually having been delivered. The gaps between projected and reported have grown, sometimes dramatically, yet Metro keeps giving a rosy outlook year after year.
In 2011, for example, Metro budgeted for 81,569,545 revenue miles when it reported to the NTD that it only ran 67,234,252 revenue miles. That's an almost 18 percent difference. One could look at it like an 18 percent cut in promised service.
Perhaps the loss of revenue miles is due to all the track work, but if that were the case, why does Metro continue to raise the estimates in its budget documents?
I wonder how the jurisdictions feel about funding a service Metro appears to not be providing. I know how riders feel when the fares go up and the service doesn't improve.
2009, the year of the deadly Red Line crash, is an inflection point for both budgeted and reported revenue miles, but the reported miles nosedived while Metro's promised service remained flat for the year.
Suddenly, reports of ridership dropping by five percent recently look pretty good considering what looks like an 18 percent cut in service.
Meanwhile, labor costs (salaries, wages and benefits), Metro's biggest expense, rose a whopping 30 percent (19 when adjusted for inflation) from 2006 to 2011. In 2006, Metro spent $831,667,228, and in 2011, it spent $1,082,683,205, according to the NTD data.
It should be noted that the NTD has quite a big caveat on its data, but if they're basing funding on it, it can't be that bad. Both NTD and WMATA data seem designed to be as opaque as possible.
*This article was done in collaboration with Michael Perkins, who due to a misunderstanding, wrote a similar article at Greater Greater Washington.
BrianKal · 639 weeks ago
-Danny
Anon · 639 weeks ago
Cletus Jenkins · 639 weeks ago
John · 639 weeks ago
They get $150 million from the feds, DC, MD, and VA each year.
Not only do they have a dedicated source of funding, they have FOUR!
n2deep · 639 weeks ago
John · 639 weeks ago
Just stop with the excuses. Its getting old!
Bike Rider · 639 weeks ago
also metro capital budget is funded largely by the federal government.
this is an old story that never was true
AGP · 639 weeks ago
Mat · 639 weeks ago
guest · 639 weeks ago
Matt G · 639 weeks ago
Hal · 639 weeks ago
meepmeep · 638 weeks ago
SammyDC · 639 weeks ago
Steve · 639 weeks ago
However, are the labor costs there adjusted for inflation? Inflation from 2006-2011 was about 11.6% (BLS CPI-U). So they really rose by about 19% (still crazy for a period when service levels apparently didn't increase by a similar amount).
Adusting the 2006 labor cost to 2011 dollars = $928,140,626
(I'm not a metro employee, I work with these numbers all day for a living).
anon · 639 weeks ago
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 639 weeks ago
Dr Gridlock · 639 weeks ago
Not only did I ask Dan Stessel about it, but I also asked some of the board members. They said everything is going just fine, based on info Dan Stessel told them!
Sweet Bobby · 639 weeks ago
guest · 639 weeks ago
i'll be driving in on saturday. thanks wmata.
Kid_Charlemagne 104p · 639 weeks ago
guest · 639 weeks ago
man, you'd think we didn't have a public transit system in this town... :P
grammarFun · 639 weeks ago
Sorry, nothing personal, just a grammar peeve.
MDE · 639 weeks ago
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17080/do...
With all the legitimate complaints about Metro, why do you feel the need to portray things worse than they really are? Perhaps everything you report is an exaggeration? You're either completely credible or completely incredible. I'm leaning towards the latter.
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 639 weeks ago
The numbers are all there.
The liar is Metro, not me.
Ryan · 639 weeks ago
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 639 weeks ago
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-eichler/6/115...
SLC · 639 weeks ago
John · 639 weeks ago
dcn8v · 639 weeks ago
Matt G · 639 weeks ago
Rush Plussed · 639 weeks ago
Will the new bike racks you're testing restore the 18 percent cut in service?
Also, will endless surveys fix the signal problems that seem to happen every day?
Thanks,
Someone who pays your salary
Ryan · 639 weeks ago
Socket · 639 weeks ago
guest · 639 weeks ago
Steve · 639 weeks ago
If you really worked with charts, you'd understand there really isn't a problem with displaying a non-zero y axis scale. The interest is in showing the drop in service, which looks identical on both charts. All unsuck did was zoom in on a section.
This may have been hammered into your head in high school statistics that you need a zero on the y-axis, but most people know how to read a chart. Metro's extreme service cuts look really bad any way you graph it.
John · 639 weeks ago
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 639 weeks ago
Bob · 639 weeks ago
He's a moron and so are you for quoting that site.
Socket · 639 weeks ago
Bob · 639 weeks ago
I like how he band dissenting opinion on his page too. you must love the metro or youre just being unruly. Whatever.
Fred · 639 weeks ago
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/axes-...
chartsFarts · 639 weeks ago
Lrn2chart.
Bob · 639 weeks ago
mike · 639 weeks ago
Sad thing is nothing will ever come of it.
@JaundiceJames · 639 weeks ago
Let's sell the whole thing to some European company and let them run it.
Pissed · 639 weeks ago
<Catherine.hudgins@fairfaxcounty.gov>; <tom.downs@veoliatransportation.com>; <mortdowney@verizon.net>; <info@NicholsCreativeDevelopment.com>; <jdyke@mcguirewoods.com>; <mbowser@dccouncil.us>; <marcel.acosta@ncpc.gov>; <mbarnes@ciponline.org>; <mhynes@arlingtonva.us>; <terry.bellamy@dc.gov>; <ahampshire-cowan@howard.edu>; <william.euille@alexandriava.gov>;
· 639 weeks ago
Stan Dessel · 639 weeks ago
Nothing to see here.
You're welcome!
JRW · 639 weeks ago
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 639 weeks ago
I agree the GGW explainer sounds as if I pulled something underhanded. I can assure you I did no such thing, and Perkins and I are still friends.
Hope that helps.
@perkinsms · 639 weeks ago
Bro · 639 weeks ago
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 639 weeks ago
Bob · 639 weeks ago
Why does GGW refuse to call out the issues with Public transportation and public funded projects and ban any dissenting opinions on that blog?
artimus · 639 weeks ago
Put the squabbling behind and focus on Metro.
K-anon · 639 weeks ago
john · 639 weeks ago
Matt G · 639 weeks ago
@proxli · 638 weeks ago
Another interpretation: Say WMATA is the only one doing this. While it seems like they are cheating local commuters, they're actually cheating other rail services out of funding. I almost want to give them a pat on the back.