Saturday, October 22, 2005
Metro is no bargain even with gas at $3 a gallon
Albert Crenshaw, a Washington Post columnist who focuses on saving people money, does the math and finds that riding Washington DC's Metro Rail is more expensive than driving even at recent high gas prices. He notes that most of the cost of car ownership are fixed, including the car itself and insurance. The variable cost of driving -- gas, oil, maintenance, tires -- are about 18 to 25 cents per mile, while Metro rush hour fares average 25 cents per mile. He adds that Metro now charges to park in many of its suburban park-and-ride stations, which offsets any savings from not having to park at work.
Crenshaw doesn't say so, but his analysis assumes just one person per car. At the average occupancy rate of 1.6 people per car, driving is even less expensive relative to taking the train. Of course, the actual numbers are different for every individual, so some people will find the train less expensive than driving. Certainly the train might be less nerve-wracking than dealing with DC traffic, but of course that traffic wouldn't be so bad if the region had invested in highway improvements instead of trains.
Any consideration of subsidies is beyond the scope of Crenshaw's analysis, but it is worth noting that highway subsidies average about 0.3 cents per passenger mile while transit subsidies average about 60 cents per passenger mile, or about 200 times as much. According to Washington Metro's transit profile, the operating subsidy alone for Washington Metro transit is more than 30 cents a mile. If the rail system cost $10 billion to build (which, considering inflation, is probably low), the annualized cost (amortized at 7 percent over 30 years) is about $800 million, which adds another 40 cents per passenger mile to the subsidy.
So no, Metro is no bargain.
Crenshaw doesn't say so, but his analysis assumes just one person per car. At the average occupancy rate of 1.6 people per car, driving is even less expensive relative to taking the train. Of course, the actual numbers are different for every individual, so some people will find the train less expensive than driving. Certainly the train might be less nerve-wracking than dealing with DC traffic, but of course that traffic wouldn't be so bad if the region had invested in highway improvements instead of trains.
Any consideration of subsidies is beyond the scope of Crenshaw's analysis, but it is worth noting that highway subsidies average about 0.3 cents per passenger mile while transit subsidies average about 60 cents per passenger mile, or about 200 times as much. According to Washington Metro's transit profile, the operating subsidy alone for Washington Metro transit is more than 30 cents a mile. If the rail system cost $10 billion to build (which, considering inflation, is probably low), the annualized cost (amortized at 7 percent over 30 years) is about $800 million, which adds another 40 cents per passenger mile to the subsidy.
So no, Metro is no bargain.
Comments:
From the article:
>>>>>Of course, a saving of $1,592 (Metro savings) is not to be sneezed at, but how much of that could you really keep?
The answer depends somewhat on individual circumstances -- for example, how much would you save by not parking downtown? -- but doing the subway math suggests that many commuters wouldn't save much, at least in the short run.
For example, a rush-hour trip on Metro's Orange Line from Vienna to Metro Center costs $3.55, or $7.10 round-trip. For 220 workdays a year, that's $1,562 -- all but wiping out the savings from not driving.<<<<<<
This is not factual but a mistake for the writer is deliberately overstating Metro to make his point. The actual cost of Metro for $220 work days is $691.00 dollars and not $1,562.00. ($22.00 weekly rail pass X 31 weeks or 220 work days)
>>>>>>Also, remember that while you may be cutting out your downtown parking fee, Metro's lots aren't free. The tab at Vienna is $3.75 a day and at White Flint it's $4 (though you can pay up to $7.75 there<<<<<<
Funny how he includes parking in his totals for Metro but driving into Downtown Washington is not included?? Do you want to know why he didn't include the cost of parking for the motorist wishing to drive into Washington? Because the motorist would have to pay between $15.00 to $25.00 dollars a day to drive in the city! The cost of parking alone for the motorist is enough to pay for Metro for a whole week!
He also forgot to include the cost of tolls, tickets and his time wasted in traffic jams!
This article was so against Metro, no wonder he's spending a fortune traveling.
Post a Comment
>>>>>Of course, a saving of $1,592 (Metro savings) is not to be sneezed at, but how much of that could you really keep?
The answer depends somewhat on individual circumstances -- for example, how much would you save by not parking downtown? -- but doing the subway math suggests that many commuters wouldn't save much, at least in the short run.
For example, a rush-hour trip on Metro's Orange Line from Vienna to Metro Center costs $3.55, or $7.10 round-trip. For 220 workdays a year, that's $1,562 -- all but wiping out the savings from not driving.<<<<<<
This is not factual but a mistake for the writer is deliberately overstating Metro to make his point. The actual cost of Metro for $220 work days is $691.00 dollars and not $1,562.00. ($22.00 weekly rail pass X 31 weeks or 220 work days)
>>>>>>Also, remember that while you may be cutting out your downtown parking fee, Metro's lots aren't free. The tab at Vienna is $3.75 a day and at White Flint it's $4 (though you can pay up to $7.75 there<<<<<<
Funny how he includes parking in his totals for Metro but driving into Downtown Washington is not included?? Do you want to know why he didn't include the cost of parking for the motorist wishing to drive into Washington? Because the motorist would have to pay between $15.00 to $25.00 dollars a day to drive in the city! The cost of parking alone for the motorist is enough to pay for Metro for a whole week!
He also forgot to include the cost of tolls, tickets and his time wasted in traffic jams!
This article was so against Metro, no wonder he's spending a fortune traveling.
