Can’t Decide My Preferred Metro Fare Increase Option
Nobody likes cost increases but they are a fact of life. Metro has asked transit riders to comment on three variations for increasing fares.
Options 1 and 2 maintain the current $2 (MetroBus), $2.25 (MetroLink) and $4 (Metro Call-A-Ride) cash fares without any change. Reduced cash fares for eligible seniors, children and customers with disabilities would also remain the same.
Option 1 would increase the prices of Metro passes to more accurately reflect the number of boardings made using these passes. Monthly passes would increase from $68 to $75 ($34 to $37.50 for reduced fare); weekly passes would increase from $23.50 to $26; and the college semester pass from $145 to $155.
Option 2 retains the current cash fare but would increase the price of the 2-hour pass/transfer from $2.75 to $3 (reduced fare would increase from $1.35 to $1.50.) Option 2 would preserve a greater discount rate for the weekly, monthly, and semester passes than Option 1. Option 2 would increase weekly passes from $23.50 to $25; monthly passes would increase from $68 to $72 ($34 to $36 for reduced fare); and the college semester pass would increase from $145 to $150.
Option 3 would implement an approximate 5 percent across-the-board increase for all fares including cash fares, passes and Metro Call-A-Ride fares.
The following chart shows what the changes look like:
This is tough because I switched to paying cash instead of buying a monthly pass. Thinking beyond myself to the typical riders using transit, what is the most fair…fare.
Option 1 those who buy weekly/monthly/semester passes are the only ones that will see an increase — 10%.With option 2 those who buy passes as well as those who uses transfers will see increases. Many, if not most, cash riders get transfers since more than one bus/train is often needed to reach their destination. Option 3 is a 5% increase across the board. This seems the most fair but riders used to paying $2.00 will now have to carry dimes since their fare will be $2.10. Same with transfers, option 2 is a simple $3.00 (up from $2.75) but option 3 is $2.85 — again a dime more.
I don’t know about you but I find change annoying. I’m a “reduced fare” rider so my fare w/transfer is $1.35, I’ve finally gotten used to making sure I’ve got the 35¢ I need for my transfer. Would it be worth it to me to pay $1.50 rather than $1.40 just so I only need to worry about carrying quarters? Maybe. But I often buy (10) 2-hour passes at the MetroRide Store on Washington Ave so option 2 would be a buck cheaper than option 3 and I pay with plastic when I buy the 2-hour passes.
– Steve Patterson
Since Metro seems unable to live within their means, and they can’t make change or read cards, I offer another solution: $2 for single ride, $3 for a four hour transfer. $3 for Metrolink single ride and $4 for ML with four hour transfer. Then, adjust the passes as needed to make up the difference.
What if, a few years from now, Metro feels the need to increase (or decrease…) fares by 10%? At that point everyone will need to use change again, or else a new confusing set of ticket varieties will have to be introduced so that fares still have whole dollar amounts.
The real solution is to pay with fare cards, like those already used in Chicago, NYC, London, Hong Kong, and pretty much every other major Western city.
Since MoDot seems unable to live within their means, I offer another solution: $2 for a single drive on an interstate, $3 for a four hour drive window, etc.
Since MoDot seems unable to live within their means, how about another solution: 4 dollars for an automobile to enter a highway, 2 dollars to get off, transfers a dollar more. Monthly rates available.
As you mentioned Steve, there is a considerably annoying factor to Metro’s fairs at the moment when paying cash. I like Mbroute66’s idea in that it makes things very simple. Sure you can use credit/debit cards in the ticket machines but when the system is busy, like after a game, nothing beats the efficiency of a few dollar coins.
For that matter why does Metro not allow payment by text message and/or refillable fair card (proximity/magnetic) like other operators do? I’m more likely to use public transit when it is made more convenient.
The technologies are expensive and have their greatest benefit on crowded systems – decreasing loading time.
In speaking with one of the Metro representatives, they do have plans to roll out smart cards within two years.
Like Steve, I don’t have a strong preference among the three options, although I did vote for Option One. My concerns revolve around the basic fare structure, how it’s currently “sliced and diced”. I find the basic structure to be needlessly complex and based on some flawed assumptions.
At its core, Metro is (or should be) a transportation SYSTEM. Its primary mission is to move people between two points. This may involve a single-seat trip or it may involve one or more transfers, and in many cases, we have little or no choice. And if that’s the case, we shouldn’t be rewarding the people who have the luxury of a single-seat bus trip with a lower fare / penalizing people who have no choice but to transfer with a higher fare. Metro also insists on branding Metrolink as a distinct, premium service, when, in reality, it’s just another vehicle type. What’s next? Charging more (or less) based on bus type (short or long, low floor or regular floor)?! Metrolink, on a per-rider basis, costs less to operate than a bus, so why charge a premium?
I also have concerns about how the discounts are determined. The basic fare is either $2.00 or $2.25, but includes no transfers. For that, you have to upgrade to a $2.75 fare, which is either a significant discount from paying two separate fares or a noticeable premium to pay to use a system that provides limited service (and forces transfers). Next up is the 10-pass book, which offers no discount, only convenience. After that is the Day Pass, which costs about the same as three basic fares – who does that? Most people are either going to do one round trip or two, not one and a half. The weekly pass equates to 8.5 two-hour passes, or, for the typical commuter, pay for four days and get the fifth one free. Finally, the monthly pass equals 25 two-hour passes, 12.5 days of commuting, which for full-time workers equates to 7.5 – 9.5 “free” trips each month.
If you can afford to pay more at one time now, you’re rewarded with increasingly large discounts – the effective daily rate for a monthly pass is $3.40 a day or $1.70 in each direction. Why should someone buying a monthly pass pay more than a dollar less than someone who uses a two-hour pass for exactly the same trip?! What justifies the nearly 40% discount?! The only thing I can think of is predictability. In my world, I’d switch to a much simpler fare structure. One basic $2.50 (or $2.75 or $3.00) fare for everyone, good for two hours. I’d continue to offer 10-pass booklets, but sell them for $24.00 (or $26.00 or $28.00, a small discount) and sell them at grocery and convenience stores. I’d offer a monthly pass for $90.00 (or $100.00 or $110.00, a 10% discount from daily fares). Finally, I’d offer an annual pass for $1000.00 (or $1100.00 or $1200.00, a 20% discount).
I’d eliminate the single-ride fares and I’d eliminate the daily and weekly passes. Finally I’d also eliminate the double fare charged at Lambert to ride Metrolink. We want to attract visitors, and it’s a false economy to “stick it to ’em” on their first local interaction, and many of the people buying tickets at Lambert are locals who either forgot to or didn’t know they had to buy their “locals” tickets on the way out of town. Plus, it’s an unneeded complexity and likely generates more ill will than actual, incremental revenues. And, last but not least, I’d do no fare that’s not an increment of a quarter. Expecting passengers to always have exact change for a $0.35 or $0.40 fare increment is stupid – KISS!
Under no circumstances should they raise the price of a transfer. Rather, Metro needs to realize that extra fare for transfer is ludicrous: forcing customers to pay more for less effective service!
That’s a good point
I think we need to know the average boardings used per monthly pass to know if the discount for the monthly pass is fair. It sure would be great to have a smart card. I think I am getting my money’s worth from a monthly pass as opposed to buying individual tickets, but a smart card would give me a monthly statement which I could use to make a decision.
Smart cards have been on the horizon for Metro, for years. I moved here over ten years ago and was told in two years we would be using smart cards. Saying: two more years? By then we should be able to buy used equipment from transit systems that stay up with the times.
The option that is not included is reducing fares. Is there a point at which reducing fares will generate more ridership so that revenues actually increase? This would warrant an increase of frequency, thereby making service more convenient and so on. I’m not convinced raising fares is the answer.
Isn’t the capitalist dictum of free market that if you have lower prices you will sell more? I would ask what are the nature of the studies done to examine the impact of decreased fares?
In any case charging more for riders willing to commit to long term fares is ridiculous, especially if it is the only rate hike. A super bargain quarterly pass (or variance) would be better yet, but nothing is offered but the usual linear solutions.
The problem with the system today is that it is not well laid out, well thought out, glamorous or a real addition to the urban fabric. If it was, it would solve many problems.
A broad conception of what transit should look like should be thrown open to discussion, it never has been the object of public discussions. Why not?
Focus on getting the city and inner ring of suburbs right first. the city is especially crucial. The transit system as a whole will not function if the city is not right. Besides, if we are too stupid to get city transit right, why waste money on distant locations when the inability to solve problems has already been demonstrated?
To your first question – since the taxpayer covers more than 80% of Metro’s budget, reducing the less-than-20% portion generated from the farebox is politically unsustainable. In a perfect world, transit would be free and no one would drive, but we don’t live in a perfect world . . . .
We do live in a perfect world. You avoid the question. What is to say that reducing fares, using volume to compensate for raising rates is not a viable strategy? You sound like you work for the oil cartel, (what can we do to make Metro worse, blah, blah, blah.)
You seem to make off limits the discussion of the full range of options and possible strategies. Your reply is for those who hunger for the status quo.
The question of whether revenue can increase with a reduction of fares has not been answered.
Of course it would require consideration of the whole transit system, reviewing issues such as frequency of transit directly connected to amount of fares collected, the shape of the city in receiving transit and so on. There are many key discussions that have never taken place in public.
Metro’s budget has absolutely nothing to do with my comments. It is not so much the budget needs to change, but more exactly how that budget is applied to the transit system to make it successful. It is the unanswered question. Fares should be lowered.
Basic economics – you can’t “lose money on each sale” and then expect to make a profit from increased volume. In the perverse world of transit economics, transit systems are their most profitable when one of their unions decides to go out on strike. The taxpayer subsidy continues while operating costs drop to near zero. We’re already walking a fine line, here in the city, when it comes to transit funding. The county is a net donor, generating / contributing substantially more in tax revenues than it receives in transit services, while the city is a net consumer, receiving more transit service relative to the taxes it generates / contributes.
You can argue that Metro’s budget is irrelevent, but the amount of service that Metro can put out on the streets is directly tied to how much the agency has available to spend on vehicles, fuel, maintenace, salaries, benefits for current employees and pensions for retired employees. More service will require more revenues (from the farebox and/or from taxes) and/or paying employees and retirees less (good luck with that) and/or lower vehicle, fuel and maintenance costs (good luck with that, too).
In theory, it may be easier to argue for a larger tax subsidy IF fares are lowered significantly. When I served on the RTD board, we had similar discussions. What if we eliminated all discounts and charged everyone the same fare? No discounts of any sort? The problem we encountered is that every discount had a constituency that didn’t want to see “their” discount reduced or eliminated (if anything, they wanted it increased), so it was nearly impossible to change the status quo. The other half of the equation is that free and low cost services end up attracting “undesirables”, people who are less interested in transportation and more interested in either shelter (the homeless) or recreation (bored teenagers, looking to get into trouble).
You may believe that we are spending too many tax dollars on sprawl and poor urban planning, but there’s a reason we are – the majority of the taxpayers are OK with it, or don’t care enough to vote out the people who support it. Your “perfect world” is run by majority rule, and it seems like you hold the minority position.
The public remains “OK with it” because they are ignorant. No elected officials talk about these issues meanwhile the fourth estate tows the line.
The net consumer argument ignores the built environment and residential segregation patterns that establish that structure. They city is not at fault but rather came into this problem through planned divestment.
There is no majority or minority in art. City building is an art.
Economics are only a small part of the equation. In fact if city building achieves a harmony of beauty and use so that the city becomes desirable and attractive then the economics actually become more favorable.
So it goes with transit and current city planning in St. Louis, it is less than desirable.
If the emphasis is on good design it means frequency and robust routing in the transit system is desirable. This means lower fares to increase ridership, searching for the revenue neutral point and building from there, lower fares equals more volume, hence more income.
It is possible to build the city that includes space for pedestrians, transit and the automobile.
It is not a question of a majority or minority position. That is another attempt at labeling, labels are distractions. Then there is a whole debate about what label to use (and on and on).
All of this instead of discussion of city design.
Nor can one pretend that the City is the source of all contempt and bad planning. When the County and it’s many townships realize that we are all in this together, then perhaps some serious planning can be done. Until then……
G – I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m trying to say. I don’t disagree that both public transit and urban planning can and should be done better here. I’m trying to explain why. It takes strong political leadership to buck the development community, especially when we have a tradition of micro-“management” by small political entities (multiple small wards in the city, multiple small “cities” in the county) and an overwhelming belief in private property “rights”. It’s simply way too easy to play entities off against each other and to overwhelm non-expert elected officials with a good dog-and-pony show to get the built environment we have here today. 40 or 50 years ago, places like Portland and Boulder had the testicular fortitude to tell farmers, “No, you don’t have an inherent right to sell your land to create new subdivisions and shopping malls”, aka urban growth boundaries, and now they have the density and transit that you and I want.
. . . . and on a related note: http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/funkhouser/col-expensive-folly-government-tax-incentive-economic-development.html
I vote for passes as this gives riders flexibity to actually get their money back by taking more trips.
Metro needs to get one ride tickets at Lambert! Now they only have hourly passes and up.
I disagree that the County is a net donor and the City is a net consumer. Please provide statistics to back this up. There are way, way too many people that live in the City and work in the County. Does that mean their use of the system is posted against the City, yet they benefit the County? And too many tax dollars spent on sprawl? Planned divestment? The City did not plan to send everyone to the County, and the tax dollars spent on sprawl are the constant TIFFS being used to compete one township against the other….being played masterfully by the businesses.
Approximately 80% of Metro’s budget comes from taxes, including the 50% that is generated from city and county sales taxes. Approximately $100 million in sales taxes is generated in the county and approximately $25 million is generated in the city. Show me where Metro is providing the county with four times the transit service that is being provided in the city.
See page 106: http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Annual_Financial_Reports/FY_2011_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf
Upon further review, Metro’s own numbers seem to show that there is no real justification for charging a higher fare for Metrolink and a lower fare for Metrobus. On page 10 of their latest financial report*, they state that the current fare recovery from Metrolink is 27.8%, while the fare recovery from Metrobus is only 19.9%. The best way to both increase revenues and fare recovery ratios and to start viewing the Metro system as a true system would be to eliminate the base Metrobus and Metrolink fares (of $2.00 $2.25, respectively) and to require all riders to buy “2-hour passes”, but to reduce that fare to $2.50 (and $1.25 for reduced-fare riders). If this presents political and/or marketing issues, it could be rebranded as a new base fare that includes free transfers for up to two hours.
I’m a big believer in KISS – there’s really no reason for the current level of fare complexity, other than to appease a vocal minority of riders. Most riders just want to know what they need to pay, and most riders don’t want to be fumbling for nickels and dimes (or know that they’re “giving” Metro “more that they deserve”). Most riders just want to get from point A to point B as quickly and easily as possible.
* http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Annual_Financial_Reports/FY_2011_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf
An interesting idea JZ.