METRO’S FREE RIDE Suggesting that the transportation agency is “too concerned with the bottom line” — and not focused enough on the riders who depend on it to get around town — Mayor Parker proposes lowering fares on all Metro bus and rail rides. Or (why not?) dropping them altogether: “While acknowledging that Metro would have to cope with the loss of fare revenues — $66 million in 2009, about 20 percent of its expenses — she said it is a discussion the agency needs to have. . . . Metro says its operating ratio — the share of its costs covered by fare collections — has increased from 17 percent in 2005 to an estimated 21 percent this year, still well below the national average of 33 percent. Eliminating fares, of course, would make cost-benefit analysis meaningless, since every route would be fully subsidized. But allowing passengers to ride for free might attract enough riders to reduce congestion for drivers and produce other benefits, Parker said. ‘I don’t really care so much what they collect at the fare box,’ the mayor said. ‘I’m not going to tell them to do this, but I am personally interested in exploring — unless we’re leveraging those dollars in some ways for other kinds of matches — dropping the fares to get more people on board.'” [Houston Chronicle]
Sign up for the Newsletter
I suspect someone is going to make a fortune selling “Don’t blame me. I did’t vote for her” bumperstickers.
I absolutely agree with this. Finally some honesty. People are fooled into believing that it only costs a few bucks to ride public transportation all over the map, and don’t realize how heavily subsidized it all really is. By eliminating fares, it would finally make perfectly clear that public transportation is a government benefit. And if ridership numbers go up due to the elimination of fares, then hey — just like google ads, where eyeballs are king — sponsorship on metro vehicles may also increase, thus actually REDUCING the deficit. Can you imagine…?
It might also help metro to consider that not all people in the suburbs want a ride downtown. I’d ride the bus, or rail if I could catch it in Humble, and then ride the beltway to my office.
Instead, all routes during rush hour do directly downtown.
Also, how about running the routes 24/7, as far as I can tell all the eastex routes are weekday only.
For $66 million, which is super-cheap as transportation projects go, that is a fantastic idea. I would take the rail way more often with no fare. I know it isn’t rational—it isn’t like I would ever notice the dent the already cheap fare makes—but it’s just one of those psychological things.
For me, the holy grail of free transit would be the airport express shuttle from downtown (linked to by free rail and bus, of course). My friends from other cities might even shut up about Houston’s terrible airport transit. I doubt it would happen, though—it would compete even more with the private shuttles, and it wouldn’t directly relieve routine traffic. Oh well.
I will take just about any opportunity to evangelize about that Airport Shuttle. I just tried it out the other day for a Christmas flight. Both ways were precisely on time, comfortable, wow. A neighbor turned me on to it– can’t believe it took me so long to catch on…….
The economics of what are called “natural monopolies” are pretty interesting (if you’re an economics geek, anyway, and I am) and the point is this: it really is not possible to operate a transit system that covers its costs and satisfies public need for mobility. If we assume that it’s good when people – including those who can’t afford cars, or who cannot drive for various reasons – can get to jobs, schools, and so on, then transit can be considered as a public good like roads, public water systems, and so on.
Given that, the right question is, what fare provides maximum benefit (accessibility for those who need it, but just enough of a charge to encourage rational use of the system). It’s probably not zero. It probably is less than $1.25 in Houston.
Remember that even if you don’t use it, more people using the system means fewer cars on the road with you, less demand for parking (meaning more of it at a lower cost), etc. When I lived in DC I could not take Metro to my suburban job, but I figured, at least all those people riding it were not sitting in their cars next to me, and that was a good thing. So I was always perfectly happy to see my taxes supporting the Metro system, even though i rode it at most once or twice a month.
Well, the dangertrain has had another traffic mishap yesterday. Oh, and let’s hope that none of the riders injured incur more than $100k of medical bills resulting from the accident……….. http://www.houstonpress.com/content/printVersion/233927, because Metreaux is shielded by the Texas Tort Claims Act http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.101.htm.
Officials still are not certain as to who was at fault, in spite of the fact that a Metreaux bus allegedly ran a red light and turned in front of the Metreaux dangertrain.
For the 842nd time, buses had to come to the rescue of stranded rail riders, immobilized by a ruined fixed guide way vehicle.
Clean diesel/hybrid electric buses make far more sense than hyper-expensive fixed rail (especially at-grade) transit. For the money already spent on the one underutilized dangertrain, Houston could have state of the art buses actually serving every facet of the metro area. Instead we have a quasi-governmental agency attempting to force area residents to travel the way it wants them to, all the while ignoring large portions of the population that have (been able to in the past) depend upon mass transit.
It isn’t about who “wants” to ride mass transit. It’s about what is the most economically feasible method of mass transit available that will serve the segments of society that must depend upon mass transit. Then, we can focus on (if the funds are available) providing mass transit options to the segment of society that “wants” to travel in a whirled class mass transit way.
One of the worst things a regional planning entity can do is to accept federal dollars for local projects, which requires implementation of absurd federal edicts that have no bearing on local and regional needs.
CK, I share your sentiment that at-grade light rail is suboptimal, however you’re bringing up some embarrassingly weak points that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter presented in this article.
One of the worst things a regional planning entity can do is to accept federal dollars for local projects, which requires implementation of absurd federal edicts that have no bearing on local and regional needs.
________________________
You overlook the main reason why the politicians love those federal dollars – their buddies make a bundle of money off them which tends to keep their campaign war chests well funded.
As for the “choo-choo train” the advantage to monorail is buses, and cars, tend not to collide with them. But of course the proponents of monorail weren’t “political insiders” so we ended up with the “choo-choo train.”
As for incentives to ride the rail, most are already riding them for free. Given the fact they can’t get a transfer for the bus to actually get them where they need to go, you can’t blame them for not wanting to have to pay twice.
Most gave up on Metro a long time ago. Offering a “free” Metro isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. Buses that run every 40 to 60 minutes are an incentive for most to just buy a clunker and pollute the air some more.
Can’t wait to see who the mayor appoints to the Metro board although I guess at this point anyone would be an improvement.
From Harold Mandell:
I will take just about any opportunity to evangelize about that Airport Shuttle. I just tried it out the other day for a Christmas flight. Both ways were precisely on time, comfortable, wow. A neighbor turned me on to it– can’t believe it took me so long to catch on…….
____________
Please tell me more! What is the Airport Shuttle? Is there a website??
I think there’s some local version of Godwin’s Law about the terms “Metreaux” and “Danger Train.”