Obsidian Potency 3.0
Metro to raise fares...again.
posted Thursday, 14 December 2006
D.C.'s Metrorail transit system is about to raise fares for the third time in 10 years, if the changes get past board review.
Am I the only one asking why they have to raise them again so soon? Metro is the second-busiest rail system in the country - and possible the most expensive (although San Francisco's BART and Philly's SEPTA might dispute that pricing claim). Ridership has skyrocketed in recent years, but flattened this year...which is one of the reasons why fares are going up. Hello - this isn't a 'growth business.' This is public transportation. Now they're setting budgets based on previously-unprecedented growth? Seems a bit sketchy to end up in a budget shortfall because of such optimistic forecasts.
It's possible that for some, the maximum cost of a rush-hour trip might increase to $4.70. That doesn't affect me so much now that I live in the city. But it will affect a lot of other people who live farther away, as I used to. That's right: some riders will pay almost $5 TO TAKE A TRAIN ONE WAY during rush hour. Are you kidding me? The distances aren't even that vast. Why should anyone pay $5 to travel for (at most) 10-12 miles? What's the point?
The one redeeming thing about this plan is that it affects riders travelling to certain overcrowded stations the most, and leaves bus fares virtually unchanged - which means that the poorest transit users should be the least-affected by the fare changes. That said, when I watch New Yorkers pay $2 to get anywhere on the system, it does get me a bit miffed. Even during off-peak times, $1.45 will only take you about 2-3 stops at most.
If anyone has a reasonable explanation as to why Metrorail is so expensive, I'm dying to hear it.
Am I the only one asking why they have to raise them again so soon? Metro is the second-busiest rail system in the country - and possible the most expensive (although San Francisco's BART and Philly's SEPTA might dispute that pricing claim). Ridership has skyrocketed in recent years, but flattened this year...which is one of the reasons why fares are going up. Hello - this isn't a 'growth business.' This is public transportation. Now they're setting budgets based on previously-unprecedented growth? Seems a bit sketchy to end up in a budget shortfall because of such optimistic forecasts.
It's possible that for some, the maximum cost of a rush-hour trip might increase to $4.70. That doesn't affect me so much now that I live in the city. But it will affect a lot of other people who live farther away, as I used to. That's right: some riders will pay almost $5 TO TAKE A TRAIN ONE WAY during rush hour. Are you kidding me? The distances aren't even that vast. Why should anyone pay $5 to travel for (at most) 10-12 miles? What's the point?
The one redeeming thing about this plan is that it affects riders travelling to certain overcrowded stations the most, and leaves bus fares virtually unchanged - which means that the poorest transit users should be the least-affected by the fare changes. That said, when I watch New Yorkers pay $2 to get anywhere on the system, it does get me a bit miffed. Even during off-peak times, $1.45 will only take you about 2-3 stops at most.
If anyone has a reasonable explanation as to why Metrorail is so expensive, I'm dying to hear it.
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it.
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 287,501
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004