metro is losing $400,000 /day because of the shutdown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The transit authority is losing money because of the shutdown - who cares

Decent people?

What about the revenue DCWASA is losing because less toilets are flushing or PEPCO because of fewer lights and energy use. Clearly you're not as decent as you think if you only care about one poorly run authority lining it's pockets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize: metro fares are so high that only people whose employers subsidize it (feds) can afford to ride.

It’s so much cheaper and quicker for me to drive to work.

Yeah, no. More like the largest employer is currently 1/4 not working, reducing the number of people who would be taking the metro. You really think $10 per day on metro is more than (a) car payment (b) car maintenance (c) tolls (d) gas and (e) parking? Really?

Actually it is. Especially if you have to pay to park at metro stations. Nearly everyone already has a car. So it’s really gas and parking costs vs metros high rates and high parking fees. I don’t have tolls.

Have you compares metro rates to other subway systems? West falls church to Farragut West is $3.95. Reston to Farragut west is $6. Plus $5 for parking. I drive for less and there’s less delays.

So you're generalizing from your own situation in which you don't have tolls, apparently don't accrue extra wear and tear on your car, and have some sweetheart parking deal in Farragut?

You can argue all day. But for most people it’s cheaper to drive. Some might like not driving but it’s at the expense of your time. Metro is not fast.

Maybe if you live in the exurbs it’s slow. But I live 5 minutes from a metro station, and I can get downtown 2x as fast as I could driving because of the traffic. And while we have a family car, if I couldn’t take metro I would have to buy a second car which is way more expensive than metro, since my spouse used the car to get to his non-metro accessible location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean because it’s finally not an over-crowded cess pit of humanity during rush hour?

All public transit gets crowded during rush hour. But I ride metro every day and never thought it was a cess pit of humanity. I'm just glad I don't have to sit in traffic for 40 minutes each way. And yes, now metro is pretty empty. Which is sad. The shutdown is affecting everything in the DC area.

So you’re saying all public transits are overcrowded hell holes during rush hour during normal operations. Look on the bright side - it’s flu season, and less crowding means everyone is less lightly to get sick.

No, I'm saying that I'm not a sensitive snowflake, and that staying on a crowded train doesn't bother me. But I understand that other people find it difficult, and those are the kind of people who prefer driving commutes (I hate to drive in traffic.)

Maybe I'm a sensitive snowflake, but the emptier trains these days are 1000x more pleasant than before. You know it's true and you agree with me, it just doesn't jive with your politics.

Will they be pleasant when metro has to raise fares, cut service, or ignore track and train improvements/maintenance to make up for budget shortfalls?

Yes. Less people always means more pleasant. No one goes on these trains hoping it would packed to the gills; "but at least Metro is going to make budget..." etc.

--> when you're so intent on your partisan politics, you can't even admit to a simple truth.

When metro cuts service or trains are delayed because budget shortfalls mean they haven't been maintained and break down or fires break out in tunnels, there are NOT GOING TO BE FEWER riders on an individual train. That is the simple truth that you are closing your eyes to. Have you never experienced riding during a major delay? Doesn't matter what time of day it is, when a train is delayed 20 minutes it will be packed to the gills.

I swear, people are so shortsighted it's incredible. Look at the big picture, folks, not just your own comfortable little world.

+1 million.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure that Metro has reduced ridership with the shutdown, but it’s also a convenient bucket to muddle the fact that ridership has been steadily eroding due to shitty Metro service and deteriorating conditions in train stations. The shutdown, with resulting lighter road traffic, makes personal driving and Uber and Lyft even more attractive as alternatives to some Metro trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that Metro has reduced ridership with the shutdown, but it’s also a convenient bucket to muddle the fact that ridership has been steadily eroding due to shitty Metro service and deteriorating conditions in train stations. The shutdown, with resulting lighter road traffic, makes personal driving and Uber and Lyft even more attractive as alternatives to some Metro trips.

And with fewer people riding, there's less $ to make service better. It's a vicious cycle, but losing so many government employees/contractors won't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The transit authority is losing money because of the shutdown - who cares

Decent people?

What about the revenue DCWASA is losing because less toilets are flushing or PEPCO because of fewer lights and energy use. Clearly you're not as decent as you think if you only care about one poorly run authority lining it's pockets.

You’re right about DCWASA. There’s obviously no flushing going on in the Senate and the White House because the Republicans clearly are full of shit.

[Anonymous]

METRO's operating expenses are also down too, since it requires far less electricity to run trains that aren't carrying as many people.

That doesn't get factored into that $400K/day figure at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:METRO's operating expenses are also down too, since it requires far less electricity to run trains that aren't carrying as many people.

That doesn't get factored into that $400K/day figure at all.

Is that true? Is it that much more in electricity costs to run a train if there are less people on it?

How much of Metro's expenses are electricity? I assume it pails in comparison to labor costs and probably other things.

If metro were cutting back on trains, that would have a more meaningful reduction in electricity costs and would presumably allow them to cut some labor costs.

I wouldn't think that would make a meaningful difference in the $400k lost, but maybe I am wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if it didn't tolerate all the fare-jumpers (especially the ones on the buses) and enforced their own rules, there wouldn't be such a shortfall.

I agree

Makes me feel stupid for paying when others don't

[Anonymous]

It's only going to get worse. If there isn't a deal by the 21st, which seems nearly impossible, Feds won't get their SmarBenefits for February. So, even if there is a deal reached in late January/early Feb, Feds won't get their SmartBenefits for February.

I am sure many people will suck it up and just pay for Metro, but many people will find other options once Metro is no longer free.

[Anonymous]

Be prepared for metro to increase prices. They'll blame the shut down and lost revenue.

Metro is very expensive, and I'm curious how it compares to commuting in NYC, SF, Chicago, Philly, etc. Anyone know

I have a colleague who is married to a metro driver. He makes good money, an she can commute by metro for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:METRO's operating expenses are also down too, since it requires far less electricity to run trains that aren't carrying as many people.

That doesn't get factored into that $400K/day figure at all.

Is that true? Is it that much more in electricity costs to run a train if there are less people on it?

How much of Metro's expenses are electricity? I assume it pails in comparison to labor costs and probably other things.

If metro were cutting back on trains, that would have a more meaningful reduction in electricity costs and would presumably allow them to cut some labor costs.

I wouldn't think that would make a meaningful difference in the $400k lost, but maybe I am wrong.

It requires more power to move more weight, yes. A heavy train requires a lot more electricity to move than a lighter one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:METRO's operating expenses are also down too, since it requires far less electricity to run trains that aren't carrying as many people.

That doesn't get factored into that $400K/day figure at all.

Is that true? Is it that much more in electricity costs to run a train if there are less people on it?

How much of Metro's expenses are electricity? I assume it pails in comparison to labor costs and probably other things.

If metro were cutting back on trains, that would have a more meaningful reduction in electricity costs and would presumably allow them to cut some labor costs.

I wouldn't think that would make a meaningful difference in the $400k lost, but maybe I am wrong.

It requires more power to move more weight, yes. A heavy train requires a lot more electricity to move than a lighter one.

When you say it takes "a lot more" energy, are you able to even remotely quantify that? Plus, passenger weight certainly isn't irrelevant, but in the scheme of the weight of the train itself, I am not sure a 25% or so reduction in passengers makes a huge difference. And your response didn't address how electricity costs compare to other expenses.

How much in electricity costs do you think they are saving per day? $1,000, $10,000, $100,000? Unless it meaningfully offsets the $400k in lost revenue (and I am quite skeptical unless you can provide further support), it really doesn't make a difference in the overall equation and issues faced by metro because of the shutdown.

[Anonymous]

The red line is PAINFULLY slow in either direction once you get out of DC. The metro is not bad using the blue/orange from VA through DC or even Rosslyn going south to Reagan, or the yellow line from VA to DC. The redline once you get out of DC is horrible slow and metro center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:METRO's operating expenses are also down too, since it requires far less electricity to run trains that aren't carrying as many people.

That doesn't get factored into that $400K/day figure at all.

Is that true? Is it that much more in electricity costs to run a train if there are less people on it?

How much of Metro's expenses are electricity? I assume it pails in comparison to labor costs and probably other things.

If metro were cutting back on trains, that would have a more meaningful reduction in electricity costs and would presumably allow them to cut some labor costs.

I wouldn't think that would make a meaningful difference in the $400k lost, but maybe I am wrong.

It requires more power to move more weight, yes. A heavy train requires a lot more electricity to move than a lighter one.

When you say it takes "a lot more" energy, are you able to even remotely quantify that? Plus, passenger weight certainly isn't irrelevant, but in the scheme of the weight of the train itself, I am not sure a 25% or so reduction in passengers makes a huge difference. And your response didn't address how electricity costs compare to other expenses.

How much in electricity costs do you think they are saving per day? $1,000, $10,000, $100,000? Unless it meaningfully offsets the $400k in lost revenue (and I am quite skeptical unless you can provide further support), it really doesn't make a difference in the overall equation and issues faced by metro because of the shutdown.

Until I see the evidence (ie a reliable source) that electricity is a major share of Metro’s fixed cost structure and that cost has been substantially reduced by less weighty trains, this sounds a whole lot like BS.