Ravenwood - 04/23/04 06:15 AM
Since the nearest Metro stop is only a block away, I used to take the D.C. Metro to work every day. But after several months, I discovered that riding the train was actually taking much longer than driving. I didn't even have to change trains, and the commute on the Metro was taking 45 minutes. Driving to work only takes 30 minutes on average. Sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's shorter, but 30 minutes is definitely the average.
Something else that amazed me is that it also cost less. The Metro was costing almost $6 per day. Parking runs about $100 a month, or $4.50 a day. I might use a dollar or two in gas, but the freedom of driving coupled with the shorter commute make it worth my while.
I wasn't down here for last years Metro fare increase, but I was aware of it. Metro also did away with their 10% fare discount for purchasing more than $20 on your fare card. They refused to call it a fare increase, but without the volume discount, it sure was costing me 10% more to ride.
This year, Metro is asking for yet another fare hike.
Trains Would Cost 15 Cents More, Buses a Dime; Service for Disabled Would Rise 20 CentsThree nickles may not sound like much, but considering Metro riders already pay more than any other similar sized transit system, it adds up. They are estimating that the extra 30 cents a day will cause 22,200 people to start driving instead of riding Metro. Considering this is a government estimate, you should probably at least double it. Considering most riders don't live as close and must pay for Metro parking on top of the Metro fare, I think it's pretty safe to say the fare increase won't be very popular. Add to that he inconvenience of changing trains, and I'm surprised anyone uses the system at all. Remember all this the next time the enviro-wackos start screaming about global warming.
I also live in NoVA and take the Metro to work almost every day. My situation is similar to yours in that driving would cost about the same as taking the Metro and it would save me about 20 minutes/way/day. For me, the added flexibility of driving is about equal to the benefit of being able to read or fall asleep during my commute.
But Metro is cheaper because its costs are known and fixed. Since I rarely drive except for around town, I put few miles on my car, helping it retain value. I reduce the wear and tear on the car, cutting down the number of oil changes, tire rotations, etc I have to do each year. My insurance is cheaper by a couple hundred bucks because I do not drive to work regularly. Another small benefit is that in my budget I can put down a single line item for "Metro" and I will know exactly what the cost will be -- as opposed to dealing with fluctuating gas prices.
Certainly I do not particularly enjoy taking Metro but it is still cheaper for me in the long run.
Great blog.
BEN
You're talking about how much it costs YOU to ride this METRO, but that's nowhere near the actual cost of this train. New York has some of the best Mass Transit around, but even in NYC the fares collected for the subway and busses only pay for something like 80% of the OPERATING costs... not to mention construction to put in new lines and building new trains and busses. Mass Transit, even where it is effective and widely used, still costs taxpayers (many of whom never use the system) way too much!
Posted by: Aaron Van Der Veen at April 24, 2004 2:02 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
