Fairfax Connector proposes bus line changes

Fairfax County has proposed cutting bus service for FY 2010 to close a $650M budget gap.

Among the cuts are the complete elimination of fifteen routes, decreasing bus frequency on nine routes, cutting off weekend service on one route, and other cuts.

Proposed route eliminations:

Metrorail/VRE feeder routes:

• 303,304,305 - Metrorail feeder service for Island Creek, Saratoga, and Newington Forest, respectively
• 307 - Lorton VRE feeder bus
• 402,403 - Weekday Rush Hour service for the town of Vienna to the local Metro stations (Vienna and Dunn Loring)
• 556 - Weekday service between Reston Town Center and the West Falls Church Metro
• 952 - Reverse commute route for West Falls Church Metro and the Herndon Park and Ride.

These routes to be cut are Metrorail or VRE feeder services, and their elimination may adversely affect both congestion along the region's highways, and Metrorail's ability to attract customers during rush hour, when higher peak fares contribute more to the costs of running the system. 

Highway Express Routes:

• 380 - Franconia/Springfield to Pentagon express bus
• 595,597 - Weekday rush hour service between Reston East Park and Ride and the Pentagon/Crystal City

One of the routes (the 380) duplicates Metrorail service between two points.  Two other routes largely duplicate service that's provided by a combination of bus and rail.  It's not clear whether eliminating this route will merely shift people between the bus and rail or whether they will start driving.

Local Routes:

• 306 - Midday service from GMU to Pentagon
• 922 - Herndon local route
• 929 - Herndon/Centerville local route

The rest of the routes (306, 922, 929) are local connector bus routes that more likely than not primarily serve the transit-dependent.  I do not have data to support this assertion, it's based on my knowledge of the area (highly car-oriented) and the bus route description (doesn't serve rail, appears to travel local streets only).

Public Hearings:  The service cuts will be discussed at public hearings on March 30 at 7pm, March 31 at 3 pm and on April 1 at 3 pm.  All hearings will be at the Fairfax County Government Center in Fairfax.  To speak at the hearing register here prior to 10 am on the day of the hearing or call 703-324-3151 prior to noon.  You can also submit comments in writing here or by calling 703-324-9400.

The final budget will be approved on April 27, 2009.

Metro's options for balancing the budget

There are essentially four options at this point for closing Metro's $29M budget gap. In order of my preference:

1. Jurisdictional subsidy increases. This would require local area governments to search hard in their budgets for any additional funding that can balance Metro's budget. The amounts needed by jurisdiction are:
   
   
   District of Columbia $4.9M
   Montgomery County $7.8M
   Prince George's County $6.9M
   City of Alexandria $0.9M
   Arlington $2.6M
   City of Fairfax $0.1M
   Fairfax County $4.1M
   City of Falls Church $66K
   
   
   

   In the case of my home county, Arlington, since the County has already advertised the maximum tax rate, this will require service cuts as opposed to tax increases. If you know how your home jurisdiction's budget process works, please provide insight in the comments.

2. Fare or other fee increases. According to the presentation given yesterday at the FAO Committee meeting, a ten-cent raise across the board would raise over $30M. However, such a flat raise doesn't take into account differences in price between services. It's a pretty large increase on a $1.25 bus fare relative to a $4.50 rail fare. To me that proposal seems inadequately designed and researched, but that's probably because Metro staff were never really allowed to consider fare increases as part of the plan. If a fare increase proposal were better designed and supported by subsidy increases, I could support it. There's also the revenue WMATA could gain by applying performance parking at crowded Metro lots, which has unknown revenue potential.
3. Shifting capital repair to operating funds. Under budget rules, Metro could shift money between budgets and spend some of the money designated for capital, such as new buses, faregates, fare machines, track equipment, and maintenance facilities. This would hurt the system's long-term reliability and usability prospects, and would cause old equipment to be used even longer before it's retired. A lot of this equipment, like Metro's Flxible buses, are at the end of their design life. This would make the problem worse. Metro's capital budget is already underfunded. We'll need to fix this problem sooner or later. Because of economic conditions we may decide to fix it later, but the problem will still be there, and it will grow.
   
4. Service cuts. Right now, the Metro jurisdictions' staffs are probably working furiously through lists of bus lines, trying to come up with their allotted amount of cuts in service. But with ridership at all-time highs and service that already doesn't come more than once and hour in some locations, does that even make sense? It doesn't have to be all or nothing, though. The way the FAO Committee left it at the meeting, service cuts would have to be made on bus service only, which doesn't make sense. There are some rail system cuts that could be done without too much pain, like closing some station entrances during non-peak hours where there are more than one entrance (worth $700K per year), and reducing the frequency of trains during the 6-7am timeframe (when I commute!). I would want a plan for how this service gets restored quickly, but I don't think rail should be immune to service cuts because of a quirk in how Metro calculates its subsidy.

In reality, we'll probably solve the budget crisis with a combination of all four of these. There's probably some addiitonal money each jurisdiction could come up with, but not the whole thing. We may consider fare increases that are better designed and more targeted, but smaller than the whole $30M. There might be some capital expenses we defer to flusher years, and we may make some service cuts. From listening to the committee's discussion yesterday, I was glad to hear somebody on the panel articulate the same arguments I would have made, most of the time more eloquently than I could have.

Crossposted at Greater Greater Washington

Metro "punts": Schedule data to be released by March 23

Metro listened to the riders. Yesterday at the DC Council oversight hearing for WMATA, General Manager John Catoe announced that Metro will release schedule and routing information in the open Google Transit Feed Specification format. They will post the information online for all to access March 23, according to Catoe:

Graham: Now you've got this "Google Transit" issue. And you know I'm going to mention this, because we had testimony [from Michael Perkins] earlier about this. And people have strong feelings about this question. Where are we on giving access to our bus, rail and other information to Google?

Catoe: You know, there's an old statement from football, there's a time to pass the ball, or a time to run the ball, or a time to punt the ball. From this perspective, we've listened, and as a result, Metro is planning on making its bus schedule data available on our website in the [Google Transit Feed Specification] format no later than the 23rd of this month. So we're working as we speak to make that information available.

Catoe said "bus schedule data" but he probably meant "bus and rail." I'm going to call to confirm.

This is even better than just doing a deal with Google, because anyone will be able to use the data. Actually, Catoe didn't give any updates on a specific deal with Google. Other agencies have signed specific deals. Metro might still do that, but it looks likely they might not at all.

How great is that? Metro figured out a compromise position based on feedback from you, the riders. Perhaps they didn't feel that partnering with Google on Google's terms would work for them, so they decided instead to just give the data away and let anyone use it.

For other transit systems, it's been typical for the agency and Google to sign an agreement together. Some provisions of Google's agreement had been a sticking point for Metro in the past. Metro might still be working on a special Google deal. Or, maybe they aren't.

If not, this shouldn't pose a problem if the goal is for Google to index and search the data. Google doesn't get an agreement from every website out there it indexes into its search engine, so why should they require an agreement to index Metro's schedule information? The data will be out there, just waiting to be used by application developers. That's Google, but also anyone else who comes along. Now let's hope (and advocate) for other transit services like Ride On, The Bus, Arlington Transit "ART", Fairfax Connector, DASH and more to follow Metro's lead and release their schedules, too.

Crossposted on Greater Greater Washington

Long-term Trends in Metro fares and Budget

Metrorail fares increased recently in 2003, 2004 and in 2008.  What used to cost $1.10 now costs $1.65.  What's going on?  Are Metrorail fares growing too fast?  Or is Unsuckdcmetro.com right, and the fares haven't gone up enough compared to inflation?  What about bus fares, those have been pretty stable, have they kept up with inflation?  How has government support of rail, bus and paratransit changed over time?  I took a look at some historical data to figure it all out.

Metrorail

The most interesting thing about Metrorail fares is that they are pretty stable over time.  We've had a huge increase in ridership since the 1990s, added a lot of new service (more frequent trains, early morning and late night service, longer trains), had the WMATA workforce age and start drawing pensions (the first Metrorail operators working when the system opened in 1975 must have at least 34 years of service by now), and had a few energy crises.  Even absent all these changes, the real price of Metrorail service for the same distance has stayed pretty constant (you have to take into account the fact that before 2003, you got a 10% bonus when purchasing $20 or more*).  Interesting to note, between 1980 and 2003, bus and rail had the same base fares, and from 1977 to 1980 it it was actually more expensive to ride the bus than to go three miles on the rail.

The other interesting trend is the timing of fare increases.  Before 2001, Metrorail fares appeared to increase just after recessions and recede somewhat during boom times.  I attribute this to situations similar to the current Metro funding shortfall, where during a recession the local governments are unwilling or unable to increase operating assistance to transit, and rather than cut service to balance the budget, the agency increases fares.  Recently, the trend has been a more steady increase.

Over the past five years (since FY2004, earliest data available), Metrorail subsidies have stayed flat or declined slowly (about $3.3M less per year) over time after correcting for inflation (2.2% per year real decline, not statistically significant).  This is likely because fare increases have kept up with added system costs.

Metrobus

Metrobus fares have declined fairly steadily over time at a rate of about half a cent per year after accounting for inflation (about a 0.5% decrease, and statistically significant).  This doesn't sound like a lot but over 33 years of operation it adds up to just about 20 cents per ride, meaning that Metrobus fares should be about $1.45-1.55 today to keep up with inflation.  Additionally, since Metroaccess fares are based on bus fares, this would improve the Metroaccess funding gap.  The timing of Metrobus fare increases does not appear as tied to economic trouble as Metrorail.

The long-term Metrobus subsidy trend is upward, at a rate of $14.4M per year (5.5% per year - statistically significant).  Service is gradually becoming more expensive for the localities to provide.  This is probably driven by real increases in personnel costs as well as the fact that increased ridership cannot be handled as easily with increased vehicle size like with Metrorail.  Additionally, as mentioned before, fares have not kept up with inflation, especially over the past five years.

Metroaccess

Metroaccess fares are based on Metrobus fares, so they also have not kept up with inflation.  Metroaccess subsidies are increasing rapidly (13.6% per year - statistically significant).  These costs have been growing at a rate of about $5.8M per year since FY2004.

Overall Trend

The overall trend for WMATA subsidies is up in inflation-adjusted dollars at a rate of $16.9M per year (about 3.7% per year - statistically significant).  The two charts to the right show the real percentage growth rate and the contributions to the overall subsidy from FY 2004 to FY 2010.  For FY 2010, I knew the Metroaccess subsidy from Board reports, but for Metrobus and Metrorail I had to assume that the decline in real subsidy was shared equally as a percentage of the previous years' subsidy.  This may or may not be correct, the cuts in bus service or rail service may be more severe, which would change the subsidy balance.

Conclusion

Contrary to what unsuckdcmetro.com found, Metrorail fares have stayed flat relative to inflation for trips of equal length**.  Also, the fare increases we have had recently, combined with other operating revenues, have been enough to keep Metrorail's government subsidies from increasing.  Therefore, it would not make sense to increase Metrorail fares based on an argument that fares have not kept up with prices, or that rail customers are not paying enough for their service. 

For Metrobus and Metroaccess, it's a different story.  Based on real subsidy increases over the past five years and a steady downward trend in fares, Metrobus and Metroaccess fares and operating revenues have not kept up with system operating costs.  However,such a difference brings up important social equity concerns, as Metrobus riders are more likely to be poorer, more transit dependent and less likely to have full time employment (demographic information here).  Additionally, Metrobus acts as a feeder service for Metrorail, and at least some of Metrorail's success in terms of attracting riders is the inexpensive bus service that extends the reach of stations beyond those who can find a parking space or walk to the station.  

I think a reasonable compromise would be that bus fares should increase with the rate of inflation (meaning about a $1.50 bus fare today, probably too big an increase all at once, but maybe a 10 cent increase each time the fares are increased), but that it's not necessary and would likely be counterproductive to increase the fares enough to keep the subsidy cost growth rate as low as it has been for Metrorail. 

In summary, it looks like the fare increases we've had recently for Metrorail have kept up with inflation, which has been enough to keep subsidy growth in check, but for Metrobus and Metroaccess, fares have not kept up with inflation, and subsidies have increased even after accounting for inflation.  These subsidy increases have occasionally been resisted by member jurisdictions, and in this case are leading to service cuts, which decrease the benefit of having a transit system in the first place.  Would it be better if fares kept up with inflation, and there was less pressure for service cuts?  Maybe with fare increases, there would be money for increased service after the recession is over. 

*I was not able to determine when the 10% bonus started, therefore I applied it to all fares before 2003 by multiplying them by 0.91.

**regressions of Metrorail fares for 5, 10 and 15-mile trips with respect to time were not statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.

Sources:  WMATA budgets for FY 2007, 2008 and 2009, WMATA Board Reports from January 2009-present, CPI data from Bureau of Labor, and author's calculations. 

Happy Birthday, Infosnack.

Infosnack is now one year old.  Thanks for reading, everyone.

CA Legislator Proposes State-wide Parking Reform - what about rural areas?

California State Senator Lowenthal (D - 27th - Long Beach and vicinity) last week introduced a bill (pdf) that would require all California cities, counties and city/counties to reform parking laws.  The bill includes a menu of reforms, and localities would be required to enact reforms totaling 20 "points" by 2012.  For example, eliminating minimum parking requirements is worth 20 points, while requiring on-street parking meter rates to fluctuate to achieve a maximum 85% occupancy is worth 10 points.

The whole menu of points includes reducing required parking minimums, implementing maximum allowable parking, requiring parking to be underground or be "wrapped" in retail or active uses, increasing density limits or floor area ratios to promote infill on existing parking lots, requiring residential and commercial unbundled parking (with a minimum price set equal to a monthly transit pass), performance parking, parking benefit districts, residential parking benefit districts (where commuters can pay to park in a resident zone but the money funds improvements to that zone), parking sales taxes, and parking impact fees with the proceeds going to alternative transportation.  Localities can pick any 20 points off the menu, but must have the changes in place by January 1, 2012.  Localities are also allowed to propose reforms that are not on the menu, and points would be awarded proportional to the reduction in vehicle trips compared to items on the menu.

The bill includes a carrot for localities to go beyond the minimum requirement, after 50 points localities get a bonus for competitive loan and grant programs.

For many localities in California such as San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose, I would agree with this bill and advocate its passage.  But I wonder what rural Siskiyou County, CA (largest city Yreka, population 7,300), as an example, is going to do with this mandate.  Where are they going to find 20 points from this menu that make sense for such an area?  In this case I don't think the "one size fits all" approach is going to do it.

For these low-density localities, a potential selection could be to cut minimums in half, to 2 spaces per 1000 square feet of building (developers can always build more than the minimum - 5 points), require employers to offer transit passes to employees on a pre-tax basis (costs employers nothing - 2 points), establish a parking benefit district (5 points) to devote parking revenue back to improvements, install meters where parking was crowded (probably not many places except downtowns - 2 points), remove restrictions on mechanical parking and tandem parking (2 points each) because those practices are not likely to be followed, and establish a "shared parking ordinance" for the last two points.

This minimum amount of reform might reduce vehicle trips in rural areas, but it's not likely to make a huge difference like implementing 50 points off of the menu in San Franciso or Oakland would.

I think this bill probably will not pass in California but it would be an interesting change if it did.