Unsuck DC Metro: Does the Transit Subsidy Make Metro Worse?

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Does the Transit Subsidy Make Metro Worse?

From Steve:

I live in Arlington and commute to DC on Metro daily. So does my roommate.

I pay every cent of my Metro costs out of my pocket. No pretax discount, and my employer doesn't chip in a dime. My roommate, on the other hand, is a federal worker and doesn't have to pay a single cent of his own money for his daily commute on Metro.

Our levels of frustration with Metro are quite different as a result.

My question is whether or not Metro would be better if it couldn't count on 40 percent of its riders being heavily subsidized. Shouldn't Metro have to compete for all riders rather than just counting on a large chunk of riders saying "I know it sucks, but at least it's free." (Yes, I know Metro is not completely free for all federal workers.)

Another reason to question the subsidy is that it allows Metro to raise fares with very little grumbling from a huge portion of the ridership. I just don't think that's a fair system.

I ask this question in all seriousness. It's obvious that Metro needs some kind of fundamental changes at the very foundation, and I'd like to know what others out there think about this particular topic.

Other items:
False alarm evacuates McPherson Square (Examiner)
Metro workers lends helping hand (Fox)

Comments (54)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+5 Vote up Vote down

@VeggieTart · 617 weeks ago

While a number of people will have their rides subsidized, isn't there a limit as to how much they get? So if a rider's monthly costs are more than his/her benefit, s/he's still paying out of pocket for the difference. And if Metro raises its fares, that means that people will have to pay more out of pocket to make up the difference.

The idea that Metro wouldn't have such a ridiculous fare structure and regular increases if it weren't for subsidized riders sounds implausible to me. It's easier to believe in a culture of waste and incompetence, and the only cure for that is cleaning house and ensuring that Metro is managed and staffed by competent people.

5 replies · active 455 weeks ago

+25 Vote up Vote down

Red · 617 weeks ago

I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive. There is indeed a culture of waste and incompetence, but perhaps that would be held under higher scrutiny if more of the riders were getting socked with the full fare. Even if an employee's benefit isn't fully covered, they're not paying the $11 a day (or more) that many people pay for subpar service. If I'm paying, say, $5/day for this service and having the rest subsidized, I'm probably not going to grumble as loudly. Sure, when fares go up, they're going to pay more out-of-pocket costs, but the overall effect won't be as bad.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Kara Harkins 81p · 617 weeks ago

The subsidies I have heard of take out a huge chunk of the month. Even the pre-tax one (not technically a subsidy and any company can use it) covers you easily if you are not making long trips.

+7 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

Then again, the subsidy is available nationwide and is an IRS program (as per here: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-032-015.html). We certainly have more people offered it here, as the largest employer is the federal government (which unless I'm mistaken is required to offer it), but it's by no means limited to the DC area.

Just like the pre-tax contributions, any company can offer the subsidy to their employees. All too few do.

+7 Vote up Vote down

dddd · 617 weeks ago

" only cure for that is cleaning house and ensuring that Metro is managed and staffed by competent people. "

So in other words....there's no hope.

+1 Vote up Vote down

@Sasmit5 · 617 weeks ago

I used to work at NIH and have a subsidized fare (I paid a little out of pocket but most of it was covered). When the rates increased, the amount that i was subsidized was also increased. End result= it didn't matter to me if the rates went up.

-22 Vote up Vote down

Dave Alturd · 617 weeks ago

Nothing that encourages more people on Mass transit is bad.

No way this is a bad thing! We need to force people to use this system even at the threat of death!

Read my blog!: www.uneducatedtwit.com

7 replies · active 614 weeks ago

+23 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

For all your whatever-the-opposite-of-hilarious-is-ness, your first sentence, however much spite you were trying to inject into it, is actually dead-on.

0 Vote up Vote down

EconoJones · 617 weeks ago

^ +1,000,000

-5 Vote up Vote down

Dave Alturd · 617 weeks ago

Yes. NO MATTER WHAT.

Blindly support anything that falls under "public mass transit". Don't ever work for improvements or scrapping anything and starting over. Because it's mass transit and we must get as many people on to it as possible we must NEVER talk ill about it.

At least, that's what my strategy is....

Read my blog!:
www.imnotagainstmasstransitjustpeoplewhowontcriti...

+1 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

We're all having a constructive discussion here about what might actually improve things. We all criticize Metro. GGW criticizes Metro. We all agree that WMATA is the worst. I don't know what your hysteria is all about.

-8 Vote up Vote down

EconoJones · 617 weeks ago

I think he is just a sad tea-partying conservative who can't think of anything else to complain about. Or maybe he complains about "obamacare" on other forums.

+4 Vote up Vote down

hrh king friday 13 · 617 weeks ago

I think these comments are funny becuase there are pople in this town who think and speak just like this. It's like that show Protlandia. Yes it's absurd and over the top, but seriosuly people do act, think and speak like commenter Dave does. I don't know if they're on that Greater Washington blog or not, but I've met people face to face who sound just like those comments, usually at dredded dinner parties or at a bar where I'm like the oldest dude in the room. They're either young and still captivated by thier first job in the big city or are serving as elected officals in DC government. The former I forgive but the latter terrify me.

0 Vote up Vote down

Appalled · 614 weeks ago

Holy crap - so MANY typos!!!

+15 Vote up Vote down

EconoJones · 617 weeks ago

My opinion is that if anything, metro should have overall lower fares because of the subsidy.

Logic works like this: without the subsidy, a large percentage of those federal workers would probably drive/carpool because it would be cheaper or more convenient. With the subsidy, they say "might as well take metro." Because all of these feds do this (40% as you say), metro has this huge chunk of income they can rely on. Without that reliable income, metro would probably have to cut service or charge more for fares.

+11 Vote up Vote down

@JimLCunningham · 617 weeks ago

Steve makes good points. Maybe some federal oversight should come with those federal subsidies.

I think I finally found a good use for all those cantankerous Tea Party Republicans. I hate to say it, but maybe we need some rightwing tool harping about Metro on the floor of Congress for this stuff to get attention. Sure, he'll probably compare it to Hitler or something but at least it'll make the news.

+7 Vote up Vote down

UnSuck Fan · 617 weeks ago

Interesting. I never thought about how the difference of whether or not being able to subsidize my commute would reflect how I would view Metro and my commute. The private industry employer I used to work for would allow its employees to deduct Metro pre-tax fare and yet I STILL found Metro's problems & delays to be annoying & frustrating.

I'm not sure my view would change if I worked for the government & they paid for my commute in it's entirety; I think I would still find it annoying & frustrating. At least when it comes to delays, I would consider myself to be in the same hot car as everyone else (I know not everyone feels the same way). While Metro can't hold themselves accountable & it shows a poor reflection on themselves, I'd like to think that my reliability was a reflection on myself.

Yes, I've had serious problems with commute, but I'm grateful I had an understanding boss. Yes, I have seen disagreements about calling the boss ALL the time when Metro causes you to be late, but with our phone system, I knew how to bypass talking with her directly and leave a message letting her know I was going to be late. This way I wouldn't interrupt her & she had some information about the delay.

+6 Vote up Vote down

Hal · 617 weeks ago

Employees of the IMF get $60/month (for me this comes out to about half off). Telling is the fact that that most people at my office choose to drive and pay full price to park in our garages (there's even a wait list to do so).

Also, they recently started discounting Capital Bikeshare to $25 (normally $75) and now many people use that as an alternative to WMATA/driving.

+12 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

As a couple of people have mentioned above, I don't think it necessarily plays a role. I mean, I'm close enough that my subsidy covers everything and still allows about $10 a month for personal rides and that sort of thing, and yet I was furious enough at WMATA to start a twitter account and a blog and attend RAC meetings and think about starting a DC version of NYC's Straphangers.

7 replies · active 614 weeks ago

+9 Vote up Vote down

Veteran Rider · 617 weeks ago

A DC Straphangers'? YES PLEASE!

+8 Vote up Vote down

Heather · 617 weeks ago

My boyfriend feels the same way that you do. He's a fed, and has to go all the way up to the Suitland facility for work. His subsidy covered most of it, he was coming from the Ballston area to Suitland. He got so fed up with the lack of service and reliability, that he stopped taking Metro. He bought a good, fuel-efficient car and he drives now, and his facility doesn't charge him to park.

The bonus is that he often can pick me up at Rosslyn, so I'm not using Metro very often anymore, either. We love being almost completely Metro-free!

+7 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

I feel so guilty for even *thinking* about buying a car - half the reason I moved to DC was because I *wouldn't* need one - but every time I feel like going somewhere on the weekend or am late for work AGAIN...

+4 Vote up Vote down

James · 617 weeks ago

Why would you feel guilty about buying a car? Would that make you a bad person?

-1 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

It would certainly make me a hypocrite.

It's also fairly impractical, given where I live and the areas in which I'd like to keep living (and that's before getting into my utter inability to afford one).

+5 Vote up Vote down

Heather · 617 weeks ago

I totally understand! Boyfriend thought like that for awhile too, he wanted to save money and get more exercise by walking. But with me having no car, and with Metro making it darned insane to get around, he decided that enough was enough. If we had a system similar to Philly or NYC, it wouldn't be so bad, but here we are. The nation's capital, and a crappy transit system that is unsafe, subpar, and just ridiculous.

+1 Vote up Vote down

EDD · 614 weeks ago

umm......you realize that that $10 personal a month is illegal, right? the transit subsidy is only to be used for travel that is work related.

+7 Vote up Vote down

Veteran Rider · 617 weeks ago

I think the fare increase issue is the stronger of the two points raised in this popst. In the last couple of of fare increase discussions there did seem to be a muted response from the ridership priot ot the increase, and I think this might be connected with the federal susidy.

However, the second point raised, about subsidized workers taking the train rather than driving, no matter how bad the service is, I think is much less likely to be true. I know that for me the subsidy does not make it worth my while to endure the annoyance of the 50 bus lines anymore; I have started walking to a metro station much further away rather than to the 14th st bus stop. Also, I have colleagues who have switched to driving daily, and paying for parking, rather than ride the subsidized train. So, that's anecdotal, but it suggests to me that the subsidy is not enough to counterbalance the lousy service, or at least that it only goes a short way. I think there are a lot more issues involved before people get to "I know it sucks, but at least it's free[subsidized]."

-5 Vote up Vote down

Marie · 617 weeks ago

I don't believe that plays a role....either way Metro is receiving their money whether it's coming out of our pockets (Federal Workers) or the governments. The amount I receive only covers me for about a week and a half anything else I have to come out of pocket with. Sorry if you are not subsidized but don't come for us that are when you don't even know how the system works. The problem with metro is their mismanagement with money NOT the riders being subsidized. Metro has more than enough money to make the needed changes and fixes to the numerous issues facing passengers but when they are paying Metro station managers close to 90k to sleep in their booths or worrying about new seat covers for the buses the money that trickles to actual improvements is very little. I can understand frustration but honestly I believe that is a problem within metro and the way they manage their money.

1 reply · active 617 weeks ago

+10 Vote up Vote down

noAnimosity · 617 weeks ago

I don't think this is a call to end subsidies ( no one's " coming after you"), but, rather, postulating that the subsidy is a factor in metro's quality.

+19 Vote up Vote down

Anonymous · 617 weeks ago

As a federal worker who has their entire metro trip subsidized, I have to say, I am up in arms with every single increase in fares. There is no corresponding service increase to go along with fare hikes, and frankly, I live on the yellow line and have trains every 7 minutes at rush hour instead of every 5 minutes (or less). The ONLY reason I take metro is because my employer pays for my trip, otherwise I would drive every day. Parking at my institution is actually half the cost of my monthly transit costs and takes the same or less time each day as metroing.

I also patently refuse to use metro on the weekends. A 20-30 minute wait, even without single tracking or bussing between stations, in unacceptable. Then you add in delays due to track work on top of that and it makes my trip unbearable. I would much rather pay to park or pay a cab the $35 to get home than deal with that mess.

1 reply · active 616 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

6 stops · 616 weeks ago

I'd have to pay $22/day to park if I drove.

I don't bother with Metro on the weekends.

-10 Vote up Vote down

Mike · 617 weeks ago

Yes, your sample of 2 people reflects the entire universe of subsidized users of Metro vs. unsubsidized users of Metro.

+18 Vote up Vote down

Jason · 617 weeks ago

I think that's probably a big part of it--people are generally less inclined to gripe about things that are free on their end.

But I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that a significant number of people in this area come from places with *no* public transportation. Nobody from New York City is going to be happy with the DC Metro no matter how heavily subsidized their trip is, because the Metro is a joke compared to the NYC subway. But so many people are from places where you *have* to drive, so even the DC Metro seems wonderful by comparison.

1 reply · active 616 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

6 stops · 616 weeks ago

THIS! If you don't know public transportation, it's great.

If you have used Tokyo's subway/JR system, then Metro is a fucking abomination.

+13 Vote up Vote down

@MetroDerp · 617 weeks ago

I think you might also find a significant impact from the fact that 36-37% of DC households do not own a car. If we HAVE to take Metro, there's no real choice to not do so, regardless of the subsidy or not.

+4 Vote up Vote down

BMK · 617 weeks ago

THank you for raising this point, we will be adding a federal government surcharge of $1 per trip to those who work for them. You are welcome. ^DS

+11 Vote up Vote down

Sweet Bobby · 617 weeks ago

I think that's a matter of attitudes. While I get a transit subsidy, I see it as part of my income and completely understand that WMATA is getting paid to provide a service. The subsidy has no bearing on the intense levels of frustration and rage that I experience as a WMATA commuter nor on the accountability I expect from them.

Does the subsidy provide them with a more captive ridership? Absolutely.

Would removing the subsidy make WMATA act more responsibly with revenues? Doubtful.

I don't think the subsidies should be viewed as a deterrent to more responsive management, but should rather be used as a counter-argument against WMATA's constant cries about funding from the DC/MD/VA governments. If management is inept with the additional revenues that come from subsidized ridership, there is absolutely nothing that would suggest they'd do better with even more limited funding. I will know the WMATA leadership is serious about its sustainability when they ask that their employees contribute SOMETHING to their pension funds.

And no, I do not still believe in slavery.

+3 Vote up Vote down

consider · 617 weeks ago

As a broke selfish govt-contractor applicant, I can say that being subsidized would greatly affect my opinion of ( or at least response to) metro performance.
I am not currently subsidized, and have little money-- metro fare is rather significant. When I was told that my hopefully soon-to-be employer would pay for my transportation, I was pleasantly surprised. Now a significant portion of my pay would go into my pocket rather than down the toilet. Granted, I am of the underemployed & underpaid generation and this job would pay double my last ( which would be a reasonable starting salary in my field)-- so any additional money is a blessing.

I cannot see the justification against the argument that federal subsidies do not affect metro operation. If you, personally, are passionate about metro service ( or lack thereof), and we see more in this thread that are as well, please consider a seemingly large proportion of passionate riders in this forum is a reflection of unsuck's audience--few of us will claim that we DGAF about metro ( we're reading this blog!)
Rather, please consider the affect money has on decision making ( which we see very often in, for example, political decisions).

Let's assume metro is a huge game of money-grab ( which you may believe already, based on actions that prove inefficient, funding from multiple jurisdictions and regular requests to increase this funding, as well as actions reflected in the work culture ( like dangerously high overtime, carelessness, union shenanigans))--what motivation is there for efficiency when money spent poorly does little too affect how much you and your employees take home? What decisions will you make if there is little ( minute!) chance that your business will fail? I can't imagine decisions would be made as carefully as in a small business, where you struggle every day to continue to hold a high standard of quality and efficiency ( if your customers are unhappy, they can easily choose another option, likely one that is cheaper).

Please consider those of us who are part of the working poor or unemployed. We don't have the option to drive or take a cab, and, for many, carpooling/ biking is not an efficient option. When a significant amount of metro's income is almost guaranteed, it's not the less wealthy that " talk with their wallets". Metro is reactionary by nature ( much like Washington), and a guaranteed reward for substandard performance is not a motivator for improvement.

That said, delays would still piss me off if I was subsidized-- BUT that is not the argument. It would piss me off that I am inconvenienced, but it would not be a significant part of my salary-- which, when there's not much, becomes a source of daily(constant) anxiety.

Simply consider: if employees were paid whether or not they showed up at work on time, how many would be punctual every day? I am NOT saying this is the mentality of metro workers, but it reflects what I perceive to be metro's attitude, as reflected in its poor decision-making ( cheap parts, poor management, bad choices regarding contracted work, ( and to perhaps a smaller extent due to the union's influence) retaining employees who perform poorly).

Consider the hypothetical: would metro perform better if its income were based purely on performance.
Feel free to opine, but that is the heart of this post.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Stan Dessel · 617 weeks ago

This is part of our long standing and highly acclaimed customer experience improvement program called PayitForward. You're welcome.

+5 Vote up Vote down

@perkinsms · 617 weeks ago

I argued that the federal transit subsidy should be ended, here: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/5859/is-...

+1 Vote up Vote down

Joe · 617 weeks ago

This is a very interesting point. On the one hand, were no transit subsidies issued it would probably spark greater outrage (though there's a pretty high level of that already). However, it could also create a big drop in ridership. This could lead to a much higher burden on the already overtaxed roadway network and possibly higher parking prices (since supply would be rising relative to demand). In turn, this could lead to people returning to Metro, even without the subsidy. It'd be very interesting to see someone work out all the economics of this (ideally factoring in the negative externalities of higher pollution and more frequent required road maintenance).

+6 Vote up Vote down

@perkinsms · 617 weeks ago

What I found based on looking at the WMATA budget is that the subsidy allowed fares to be raised faster, and for subsidies by jurisdictions to grow slower than what you would expect.

So the subsidies have resulted in essentially a transfer of the burden from the jurisdictions (i.e., local property taxes and other local taxes) to the federal government and to riders that do not get the subsidy.

-5 Vote up Vote down

Jimbo · 617 weeks ago

The only semi-decent Metro experience is by express buses. I drive, metro and bike. I prefer the latter. I can shower at work, my commute time rarely varies by more than 5 minutes, and I get to look at a river, monuments, and hot chicks running on the bike paths. Sure beats smelly homeless bums on overpriced trains or brake lights as if it were Christmas season.

+6 Vote up Vote down

Kara Harkins 81p · 617 weeks ago

I changed to the disability rate for metro last year. My opinion of them did not change at all.

+4 Vote up Vote down

Guest · 617 weeks ago

The transit subsidy doesn't make Metro worse, the union does.

+1 Vote up Vote down

guest · 617 weeks ago

OT: watch yourself around the buses:
http://www.mymcpnews.com/2013/05/23/police-invest...

:(

less OT:
http://www.wtop.com/654/3331314/SmarTrip-cards-co...

so in order to retain the subsidy/pre-tax, we have to retain our smarttrips....

+1 Vote up Vote down

jay · 617 weeks ago

yes, makes a big difference. people are less likely to care if they are not paying for it out of their pocket. DC needs a Strap Hangers Campaign like NYC

+2 Vote up Vote down

@Sasmit5 · 617 weeks ago

I used to work at NIH and had (mostly) subsidized fares and now that I work for a non-profit, I pay it entirely out of pocket and it absolutely makes a difference. I didn't really care about fare increases before b/c someone else would pay for those increases. If a huge chunk of the people patronizing metro don't actually feel those increases, they're not going to push back when the increases become excessive (and when service continues to decline), and the increases will continue- which hurts the rest of us who actually are paying out of pocket. In retrospect, if they'd just put that subsidy amount toward my paycheck and left me to pay for metro out of pocket, I'd probably have cared more about the rates.

-1 Vote up Vote down

poopmaster · 617 weeks ago

I moved here after living in two other large cities with mass transit infrastructures. I could not believe how nobody seemed to care about the high price to ride the subway when such shoddy service wasn't an exception, but pretty much a guarantee. Then it hit me, half of the people on the train aren't paying fare/full fare. THIS is why the incompetence is accepted, not because nothing can be done, but because half of the ridership doesn't care much because they're not feeling the increase. Anyone, even those on subsidized or free fares, HAS to see this as the main issue here, unless they're biased. Sure, I would love to have my employer pay my way, and if they did I wouldn't really notice or care much about it going up $.30, but let's say it goes up $.60, you'd be damned sure I'd be angry then. Everyone should have to pay their own damn fares, get rid of the subsidy, it's hurting everyone, and some much more so than others.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jon Visa · 616 weeks ago

Life in this (and all cities) is full of choices. Not having a car and taking metro is a choice. Skipping metro and paying for gas/parking/insurance is a choice. The government is trying to influence that choice with incentives to their employees for social welfare - less cars on the streets and less pollution is in everyone's interest. I have lived on both sides of this - several years ago I chose to sell my car and accept the federal subsidy to get to work. My frustration with Metro was absolutely no less than if I paid out of my own pocket. While I wasn't spending my own money, I was spending my own time on an unsafe system, and that was much more valuable than the $100 per month I was getting to cover expenses.

Recently, I decided to purchase a car and give up the government subsidy. I now pay an extra $300 per month out of my pocket that I can't really afford, but life couldn't be better. I have an extra hour per day and feel MUCH safer on the highways around the city than I ever did on the train.

My point is this - we all have choices, and those choices have costs and benefits associated. Complain about service, reliability, safety, and the general crappy way that Metro treats this whole city, but please don't complain about my employer's choice to try to do something positive to influence everyone's lives for the better. You can chose to find another way to work if Metro is disappointing you. If you're paying enough on Metro to compare to the subsidy federal employees get, then you can afford a payment on an older used car. If that doesn't work, you might want to find employment in a suburb.

1 reply · active 616 weeks ago

-1 Vote up Vote down

Matt · 616 weeks ago

You are crazy if you think the highway is safer than the train. Seriously crazy.

+3 Vote up Vote down

6 stops · 616 weeks ago

Sigh...

I'm a Fed with the subsidy.

Yes, Metro is garbage. Yes, I've almost been hit by a bus (along with 3 others) when I had the light/signal. Yes, I filed a complaint. No, nobody cared.

The subsidy is part of a "package" that offsets not making what my private sector counterpart makes.

It is in the regions best interest to keep Feds on the rails and off of the road. Consider what will happen to a road commute when the Govt shuts down (weather).

WMATA's ills can be tracked to [mis]management and lack of a dedicated source of funding (in which all participants see this as regional need and contribute accordingly).

Metro foolishness keeps us from making meetings, makes us late for kids/dinner and annoys us too. Blaming the evil gummint (especially since some were furloughed Friday) is cheap and lazy.

Change won't occur if you take your eye off of the ball.

0 Vote up Vote down

sarah · 616 weeks ago

As a contractor who works with a federal transit subsidy program, metro does have some competition. Federal employees have a range of mass transportation options outside of WMATA, such as vanpools, MARC, VRE, etc. I'm sure if they were to provide a better service, more people would use WMATA. For the record, my commute is not subsidized, and we get plenty of federal employees grumbling at us about their free money and how much they hate WMATA.

0 Vote up Vote down

@Hell_on_wheelz · 615 weeks ago

As someone who is a registered (conditional) Metro Access user I get to use Metro bus and train for free. The conditional designation has to do with weather/health conditions coupled with the occasional "that destination isn't accessible" issue that can make travel difficult. My employer matches the first $60 pre-tax transit deduction - which goes to defraying my van fares (which average $6-7 each way).

I started using Metro before I had wheelz and have watched it go downhill. I missed being in the 2009 train wreck by 1 train. I have testified at public hearings, been on TV, talked to print journalists, sent emails, posted on blogs, and attended numerous meetings (RAC, AAC, etc). My subsidy hasn't influenced my participation - but then I am aware that as a local/federal taxpayer AND a rider I am paying for this mass transit THREE TIMES.

It astounds me how docile and compliant the general ridership is - this is PUBLIC transportation and unless the PUBLIC gets involved, stays involved, and continues to push... WMATA will do nothing.

The federal subsidy is their cash cow. If you listen to the Board meetings, there seems to be a bit of nervousness at the drop in riders and revenue. Staff are running out of "reasons". Numbers and projections can only be massaged for so long.... and no amount of facelifting the Bethesda station is going to fix it.