Hmmmm…how about replacing escalators with good-old fashioned stairs? Removing the station elevators…Americans With Disabilities Act be damned. Metro would save a huge amount of money because elevator and escalator repairs are a huge drain on income. I heard of one mechanical contractor who makes a six-figure salary fixing Metro station elevators. Not bad work for someone who never went to college.

Of course, I think WMATA employees are paid very handsomely. I think train operators make about $75,000 per year on average. There’s not much work involved being a train operator since the trains run on automatic pilot. Good way to make a living.

WMATA not only needs a steady stream of funding from MD, VA and DC; it needs a larger contribution of public funds to purchase new train cars and maintain the track infrastructure. The number of train breakdowns is escalating year-by-year. I think 2007 was a record year for service delays on the rail system. Current Metro cars are terribly dated and rife with mechanical problems. We are riding 30 year old train cars everyday. The Philly and NYC subway cars are far more modern than our system.

Once upon a time, WMATA was seen as an innovative subway system that earned the envy of transit authorities from New York to London. How sad to see our regional transit system fall behind other US cities in terms of service.

“Me’d think that a newer system would have notably lower maintainance costs.”

Maybe the cost of system repairs isn’t as high as those of the century-old New York system, but gas, juice and labor take a big bite out of the operating budget. Again, to quote WMATA’s Karas:

“Transit is a very labor-intensive enterprise. The largest part of the operating budget is the payroll.”

Despite the big payroll, Karas said WMATA was understaffed. So why is the payroll so big? Fewer staffers mean longer work hours just to keep things rolling. Translation: Overtime pay.

I’ll have to re-examine those public budget numbers, I thought I had compared the right numbers when I did that a year or so ago… apparently not.

As for the capital budget covering the construction debt… then I’m totally confused as to why our fares are higher… me’d think that a newer system would have notably lower maintainance costs…

Admittedly, I don’t know jack dick about economics, so here’s what WMATA has to say on the issue of pricing and subsidies.

WMATA cannot offer a flat fare (like New York) because it does not have a dedicated source of funding. According to Doug Karas, WMATA spokesperson, New York’s transit authority derives its subsidies from one source: the city of New York.

On the other hand, WMATA has to squeeze blood from three different stones: Maryland, Virginia and the District. When one jurisdiction holds out, the rest follow suit.

As far as which mass-transit system receives more subsidies, Karas said New York and Washington are nearly equal (44 percent in New York vs 45 percent here).

Regarding the debt of constructing Washington’s system, that’s probably paid with WMATA’s capital budget. Federal, state and local dollars — not fare revenues — feed that budget.

Fare revenues, as well as advertising revenue, flows into the operating budget, Karas explained. That budget covers the cost of fuel, electricity and labor.

Hope that explains some stuff, Paul.

Now.. in my mind.. metro should be priced to compete with driving. The purpose should be 1) to provide transportation for folks’ without the means to get and maintain a car and 2) encourage those who do to not get in it as often. That being said… why is the pricing based on distance of track covered, rather than as the crow flies? Why is Shady Grove to Glenmont the highest priced trip on the redline? That’s zero encouragement for anyone to take the train if the option of driving exists for them! It’s only 15 miles away… about the same distance as glenmont to union station. Pricing should be based on the end result of the service provided, not the difficulty involved in providing that result due to a strangely designed system.

Secondly… while we need to pay for rising costs somehow, no argument there. I think metro is getting to the point where they need some third party to come in and do a thorough review of why the heck it costs so darn much to move people compared to transportation systems in any other major city. Why can I get anywhere in NYC for 2 bux… and ride from queens to brooklyn back and forth 24 hours a day if I want all for ~$75 monthly pass. Is it simply economy of scale? Is entirely the fact that they aren’t paying off the debt from building the system in the first place? You’d think the age of the system means much higher maintainance costs up there. Or are there other factors at work? Is it carpetting, air conditioned stations, escalators that only scale 8 feet of height, etc..? And I don’t know how significant all those items actually are, I’m just speculating. All I know is that NYC’s subway is more useful (goes to more of the city) and efficient (can you say express trains?) and still has lower fares ($2 flat fare, monthly and weekly commuter passes) and lower public subsidy (I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I looked it up last year and it’s about half of metro’s on a per-ride basis I think).

I do think however, that the comment comparing the subsidy with the cost of roads and highways is silly. Considering that metrorail is already subsidized 25-30%, and metrorail 50% (And I personally do think that’s a good thing)… unless we want to start paying for folks’ gas, insurance and oil changes… I think we’re about even on how much of our commute is subsidized already.