Comments on: Metro’s Fares Analyzed

By: Nez

Nez — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:50:42 +0000

Rob, your analysis was quite interesting and informative! I plan to do a high-level study for MARTA (my primary customer). I’m interested in your opinion. What would be your take on MARTA converting their fare structure to distance-based? Do you think that their current all-smartcard system is a great foundation for converting to a distance-based system?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:34:24 +0000

This is a comment for Michael on his trip cost calculations. I would like to see a vehicle (besides the Prius) that gets 25 mpg in DC commuter traffic. My car only gets 15 and I don’t even deal with much traffic (Communiting from DC to McLean is not as bad as most people might thing). Do you know what your MPG is when you are sitting in traffic? Less then zero miles per gallon. How is that possible? You are not moving, but burning gas as your engine idles. Every time you step on the pedal to inch forward 10 feet you are probably getting <5 mpg. I ask you to fill your tank up, reset your odometer and run a real world calculation after a week of commuting by filling up, and then dividing the trip odometer miles by the amount of gas you put in the car. I think you will be un-pleasantly surprised. Also where are you getting gas for $3 a gallon? I wish I could find a place like that…

By: The Goodspeed Update » Blog Archive » D.C.’s Metrorail Fares in Context

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:33:44 +0000

[...] completing my recent analysis of WMATA’s Metrorail fare increase, I decided to do some more research to better put the [...]

By: Rob Goodspeed

Rob Goodspeed — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:41:31 +0000

Some additional data, partly thanks to my friend Matt. The chart shows the fares for all the American heavy rail systems, and those with variable fares are shown as bars with just the midpoint marked. I'm trying to do a direct comparison with BART, but finding the trip lengths is providing difficult.

By: Umang Varma

Umang Varma — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:48:26 +0000

The IRS allows a driving cost of 50.5 cents per mile for tax purposes (which drives reimbursement rates at most companies). That’s probably the best number to use for your analysis. The problem with the AAA analysis is that depreciation is based on a new car (which has very high depreciation rate) but most people who are cost conscious drive old cars.

By: Kwest

Kwest — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:06:07 +0000

For some people, the fare increase will be a “tipping point.” These are people who have free parking at work. If you have to pay for parking, metro is always cheaper no matter what.

People may think that the cost per mile you quote isn’t realistic, so maybe they should think in terms of cost per hour the car sits doing nothing. At least you only pay for metro when you actually use it. And even if you consider taxes, you pay far less in taxes for metro than for roads, most of which you’ll never drive on.

By: Rob Goodspeed

Rob Goodspeed — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:07:34 +0000

Michael, at the very least, you must agree commuting driving will include wear and tear on the vehicle that has a real cost, the potential for accidents that has a real cost. For some households it forces them to have additional vehicles, meaning we should fully include the cost of the vehicle. 12% of the households in the entire urban area and 37% of the households in D.C. have no vehicles whatsoever, meaning a lot of people are making these calculations. My analysis also did not attempt to quantify time considerations – if Metro helps riders avoid traffic congestion, then this would save them additional money. (If it takes longer this could of course make driving cheaper also)

Regardless, our disagreement will be determined starting Sunday, when we will see if there is a statistical dip in system ridership as suburban commuters opt to drive.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:53:22 +0000

Repost from DCist:

The problem with Metro, transit planners, and the assumptions in this article is that the following statement is not true: “The cost of operating an automobile range from $.50 per mile to $1.50 per mile.”

This is a fully loaded cost that takes into account full depreciation, insurance, and all maintenance. The actual variable cost of operating a vehicle is $0.12 per mile ** plus gas. At $3.00/gallon and 25 MPG, gas comes to another $0.12 for a total of about $0.24/mile. Of course your mileage and vehicle costs may vary. Remember, most people in the suburbs still need a car to get to the Metro, to get to the grocery store, to transport kids to soccer games, and live a life outside of commuting.

So for my last two commute locations, the 17.03 to 17.31 mile trips calculate out at $0.23 to $0.24 per Metro mile … even extended by about 2 miles each way because of road miles being longer, mean I have reached a tipping point where the cost to drive and the cost to take Metro are about equal.

Given an opportunity to have personal space, and the travel time being shorter on good days and most mornings … why take Metro?

The extra $2.00 daily that Metro is taking out of my pocket for peak-fares and parking has created a tipping point that makes no economic sense.

** http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0501.pdf – Table 5.1-3 adjusted for inflation

By: Rob Goodspeed

Rob Goodspeed — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:44:25 +0000

Why is it ludicrous? This measure is a composite usually including not only the cost of the vehicle but also insurance, maintenance, oil and gas, and other expenses. AAA calculates the per mile cost of an automobile is $.50 to $.80 per mile. Many think the AAA values are actually under estimates. This calculator from California's Santa Cruz County begins with $.86 per mile in direct costs for the driver, and then after adding societal costs like pollution and road maintenance brings the total to $1.19. If you disagree, please cite some evidence.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:44:46 +0000

The $.50 to $1.50/mile for driving figures are ludicrous – that assumes depreciation is a function of miles, which it really isn’t (much).