Salaries and Firms - DC

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, they're really profit-maximizing.

No one ever argued that they were competent monopolists.

[MisterEbola]

Originally posted by WHTFH
Wait... we lose an additional 10% on top of the fare increase? I was getting that additional 10% pre-tax also (extra 10% on the farecards purchased with pre-tax income), which I'll have to pay for after-tax now, so make that 13-14% or so. So, in all, we're looking at like a 25% increase in fare prices, plus the huge hike in parking.

Bastard monopolists.

One idea that was pushed was to do a flat fee of about $2.00 across the board for all rides/all times.

Guess who objected to that one...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by MisterEbola
One idea that was pushed was to do a flat fee of about $2.00 across the board for all rides/all times.

That's odd, since I'm guessing once other transit systems get their electronic fare card systems going, they'll move towards graduated fares as well.

Originally posted by MisterEbola
One idea that was pushed was to do a flat fee of about $2.00 across the board for all rides/all times.

Guess who objected to that one...

Me? Why should I subsidize your suburban sprawl, mcmansion pansy, pay lower tax asses? You fuckers get all the seats and I have to stand. If anything, you should pay more for the privilege of sitting when I have to dangle off of those handrails.

[MisterEbola]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Me? Why should I subsidize your suburban sprawl, mcmansion pansy, pay lower tax asses? You fuckers get all the seats and I have to stand. If anything, you should pay more for the privilege of sitting when I have to dangle off of those handrails.

It was your choice to live where you live - taxes and all.

As to standing or sitting, I would much rather sit than stand near the D.C.ites - the ones who rarely bathe, the ones who wear tank-tops on the metro (exposing their hairy armpits to the entire world), etc.

[George Bush]

Ummm... no, WE subsidize YOU--who provides Metro with the bulk of its fares? Suburbanites. Would there even *be* a Metro system without the traffic demands of suburbanites? Not no, but Hell, no. The system was built and maintains itself fare-wise not for the week-end quality-of-life for the Columbian, but for the rush-hour usage by suburban Virginians and Marylanders. Of course, a flat $2 fee would definitely lessen the amount by which we subsidize your off-peak use of our commuting system.

What's this "Judiciary Square to Dupont Circle in rush hour--an extra fifteen cents over non-peak, vs. Judiciary Square to White Flint, an extra two bucks over non-peak" nonsense from our incompetent monopolists? Lady, your handrail-holding ass is taking a space from someone who is paying an extra $1.85 for the same right to imitate a sardine.

It all goes back to the keg-floating jokers who laid out this system in the days of polyester and disco, the same Einsteins that gave us escalators that go directly outside: aaahh, the contraction and expansion of freezing effects, the corrosive capabilities of salt *AND* precipitation to ensure that the salt gets distributed throughout the machine, the narrower flow-area of escalators vs. stairs, and... the piece de resistance... moving parts. Fabulous.

Similarly intelligent is the track layout that requires 85-90% of ALL riders to go through Metro Center or Chinatown, which guarantees that anything remotely approaching an efficient use of the system at the periphery will *necessarily* be guaranteed overload the core, and leading our discussion to...

A bowl (instead of dome) shaped surcharge for rush-hour use.


The peak fare structure is bowl-shaped: it penalizes Virginians and Marylanders. While I have no love for Maryland, the system exists primarily to divert surface traffic away from cars and the surface. There is no logical reason to penalize the people who live on the periphery: the crunch is in the center. It is in Metro Center that trains are so full that passengers cannot get on, no in Vienna. It is in Metro Center that the system is filled well beyond capacity, and it is in Metro Center that the rush-hour surcharge should be levied. Thus, a fair fare might be an extra $1 to ride in the center during rush hour, period the end.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by George Bush
Ummm... no, WE subsidize YOU--who provides Metro with the bulk of its fares? Suburbanites. Would there even *be* a Metro system without the traffic demands of suburbanites? Not no, but Hell, no. The system was built and maintains itself fare-wise not for the week-end quality-of-life for the Columbian, but for the rush-hour usage by suburban Virginians and Marylanders. Of course, a flat $2 fee would definitely lessen the amount by which we subsidize your off-peak use of our commuting system.

What's this "Judiciary Square to Dupont Circle in rush hour--an extra fifteen cents over non-peak, vs. Judiciary Square to White Flint, an extra two bucks over non-peak" nonsense from our incompetent monopolists? Lady, your handrail-holding ass is taking a space from someone who is paying an extra $1.85 for the same right to imitate a sardine.

It all goes back to the keg-floating jokers who laid out this system in the days of polyester and disco, the same Einsteins that gave us escalators that go directly outside: aaahh, the contraction and expansion of freezing effects, the corrosive capabilities of salt *AND* precipitation to ensure that the salt gets distributed throughout the machine, the narrower flow-area of escalators vs. stairs, and... the piece de resistance... moving parts. Fabulous.

Similarly intelligent is the track layout that requires 85-90% of ALL riders to go through Metro Center or Chinatown, which guarantees that anything remotely approaching an efficient use of the system at the periphery will *necessarily* be guaranteed overload the core, and leading our discussion to...

A bowl (instead of dome) shaped surcharge for rush-hour use.


The peak fare structure is bowl-shaped: it penalizes Virginians and Marylanders. While I have no love for Maryland, the system exists primarily to divert surface traffic away from cars and the surface. There is no logical reason to penalize the people who live on the periphery: the crunch is in the center. It is in Metro Center that trains are so full that passengers cannot get on, no in Vienna. It is in Metro Center that the system is filled well beyond capacity, and it is in Metro Center that the rush-hour surcharge should be levied. Thus, a fair fare might be an extra $1 to ride in the center during rush hour, period the end.

An entertaining diatribe that's completely wrong:

1) It costs more to transport someone from Vienna to Metro Center than from Dupont Circle to Metro Center. THis is true both with respect to marginal costs (fuel/energy to move your flabby suburban ass many more miles) and fixed costs (Metro had to build a lot more miles of rail to reach your flabby suburban ass). Given these costs, there is no reason not to charge more for longer distances travelled.

2) Suburbanites benefit even more from metro than downtowners. Downtowners can either drive or walk/bike. Suburbanites don't have that choice. Moreover, the traffic problems of the area are not limited to downtown DC. They're even worse on highways during rush hour. Finally, whatever delays more traffic will cause will have a greater impact on anyone who has a longer-distance commute. Again, it's appropriate to charge suburbanites more for coming all the way downtown.

3) Anyone from the suburbs is able to get a seat well away from paigow's ass. I think, although I can't be sure, that most would be willing to pay for that privilege.

4) The design of the system has nothing to do with suburban/downtown pricing. If you add a surcharge, then the surcharge should be applied to everyone.

[George Bush]

Burger, C.J.--glad you found my post entertaining; in many ways, it is better to be entertaining than right. I am afraid that this post is going to be much less entertaining... sorry.

In terms of my diatribe, I take it that all of us agree that machines with many moving parts (such as... oh, I don't know, escalators) belong under rooves, if not behind walls, not heading unprotected into snow and salt and rain; and that the Metro's infamous "hub and spoke" design *might* have made sense in nineteen-seventy-whenever, but causes ridiculous overcrowding today.

Sorry for blowing of so much steam at once, but there is so much about our subway that we can all agree to hate, I sometimes get carried away.

As for fare structures, though, I fear that my penchant for attacking the Metro may have obscured my point... I was not attacking graduated fares. Graduated fares may or may not make sense, but my argument in that post was about the EXPONENTIALLY GRADUATED SURCHARGE for peak usage. Let me respond to your points by the numbers:

1) the fixed cost of serving the suburbs are greater than of serving downtown... maybe, BUT NOT A RELEVANT POINT if true, because you get access to far more revenue if you go out to the burbs, so that the cost and revenue increase together. Not increasing this costs will not save you money.

It is a network effect, sort of like telephone usage: the value of every subway stop increases with the addition of each other stop, becuase more riders and more destinations come within reach of each other. I doubt very much that a downtown-only subway could come close to paying for itself, because as I mentioned earlier, COMMUTERS PROVIDE THE VAST BULK OF REVENUE. Week-end/off-peak usage just doesn't pay the bills.

Variable costs? Probably not. If variable cost were the only issue, the trains would only run during rush hour, when they are profitable.

2) Suburbanites benefit even more from metro than downtowners... check.

I was trying to make that point when I said that WE subsidize YOUR (well, Pai-Gow's, anyway) week-end use of what is effectively OUR commuting system. The system was not built for urbanites, but rather for commuters... which is why it irritates us that you ride for so much less.

3) People are willing to pay for space... check.

4) The surcharge should apply to everyone... check. What I was trying to say was that

Peak: White Flint-Jud. Sq. = $3.50
Dupont Circle-J. S. = $1.35

Off-Peak WF-JS = $2.25
DC-JS = $1.10

*BUT* (key point) during Peak, EVERY SPACE ON THE TRAIN AT METRO CENTER is filled. Two stops later, Mr. Dupont Circle leaves, ending his revenue contributions to the subway. Mr. White Flint remains on for another hour, paying the whole time.

EACH of them has forced someone else to stand on the platform.
Surcharge for Dupont: 15 c.
for White Flint: $1.25

loss to system: $1.10 for Dupont passenger, whose space could have been filled by someone going to White Flint.

My proposal: a FLAT SURCHARGE if your trip goes through Chinatown/Metro Center/L'Enfant Plaza DURING RUSH HOUR. So,

Peak: WF-JS = $3.25
DC-JS = $2.10

and both are paying $1 TO RIDE DURING PEAK TIME because they are preventing someone from getting on at MetroC/CT/L'EP. No surcharge if your trip doesn't go through MC/CT/L'EP, though, because you aren't forcing people off the train.

THAT BEING SAID....

They should not be trying to raise revenues with subways. All transportation systems cost money. Maybe something like the Brooklyn Bridge, as a toll, turns a profit, MAYBE... but the Beltway doesn't. ALL of us, both PaiGow, me, and the rest of you, are paying for the Beltway, but the USERS of the eco-friendly, quality-of-life-enhancing subway pay a good chunk of what the system costs. Hmmm...

Unfortunately, the lay-out of the stupid thing means that only a select few can take advantage of it. Our earlier Old Town Alexandria poster can no more take advantage of the subway than could someone living in G'town, and those are DESIREABLE areas.

Still, I think that people should be encouraged to take advantage of the subway, so at the end of the day, I think that I favour a flat fare. For one thing, you don't need to worry about swiping out at the far end. Anyway, that's my two cents.

[MisterEbola]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
An entertaining diatribe that's completely wrong:

1) It costs more to transport someone from Vienna to Metro Center than from Dupont Circle to Metro Center. THis is true both with respect to marginal costs (fuel/energy to move your flabby suburban ass many more miles) and fixed costs (Metro had to build a lot more miles of rail to reach your flabby suburban ass). Given these costs, there is no reason not to charge more for longer distances travelled.

Actually, the opposite is true. The cost of laying down track on open ground - or on elevated bridgeworks - is minimal in comparison to the cost of laying track in underground tunnels. The L.A. subway cost, I believe, a million dollars for every few yards of tunnel. The same cannot be said of surface rail.

[MisterEbola]

DUPE

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by MisterEbola
Actually, the opposite is true. The cost of laying down track on open ground - or on elevated track - is minimal in comparison to the cost of laying track in underground tunnels. The L.A. subway cost, I believe, a million dollars for every few yards of tunnel. The same cannot be said of surface rail.

a) cost per mile yes, but the distances are much greater.
b) you still have to go through a tunnel to get into DC. If you're going from Vienna to Ballston, the fare is still pretty cheap.

[MisterEbola]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
a) cost per mile yes, but the distances are much greater.
b) you still have to go through a tunnel to get into DC. If you're going from Vienna to Ballston, the fare is still pretty cheap.

$2.15 for a rush hour fare is not that cheap...

Originally posted by George Bush
Burger, C.J.--glad you found my post entertaining; in many ways, it is better to be entertaining than right. I am afraid that this post is going to be much less entertaining... sorry.

In terms of my diatribe, I take it that all of us agree that machines with many moving parts (such as... oh, I don't know, escalators) belong under rooves, if not behind walls, not heading unprotected into snow and salt and rain; and that the Metro's infamous "hub and spoke" design *might* have made sense in nineteen-seventy-whenever, but causes ridiculous overcrowding today.

Sorry for blowing of so much steam at once, but there is so much about our subway that we can all agree to hate, I sometimes get carried away.

As for fare structures, though, I fear that my penchant for attacking the Metro may have obscured my point... I was not attacking graduated fares. Graduated fares may or may not make sense, but my argument in that post was about the EXPONENTIALLY GRADUATED SURCHARGE for peak usage. Let me respond to your points by the numbers:

1) the fixed cost of serving the suburbs are greater than of serving downtown... maybe, BUT NOT A RELEVANT POINT if true, because you get access to far more revenue if you go out to the burbs, so that the cost and revenue increase together. Not increasing this costs will not save you money.

It is a network effect, sort of like telephone usage: the value of every subway stop increases with the addition of each other stop, becuase more riders and more destinations come within reach of each other. I doubt very much that a downtown-only subway could come close to paying for itself, because as I mentioned earlier, COMMUTERS PROVIDE THE VAST BULK OF REVENUE. Week-end/off-peak usage just doesn't pay the bills.

Variable costs? Probably not. If variable cost were the only issue, the trains would only run during rush hour, when they are profitable.

2) Suburbanites benefit even more from metro than downtowners... check.

I was trying to make that point when I said that WE subsidize YOUR (well, Pai-Gow's, anyway) week-end use of what is effectively OUR commuting system. The system was not built for urbanites, but rather for commuters... which is why it irritates us that you ride for so much less.

3) People are willing to pay for space... check.

4) The surcharge should apply to everyone... check. What I was trying to say was that

Peak: White Flint-Jud. Sq. = $3.50
Dupont Circle-J. S. = $1.35

Off-Peak WF-JS = $2.25
DC-JS = $1.10

*BUT* (key point) during Peak, EVERY SPACE ON THE TRAIN AT METRO CENTER is filled. Two stops later, Mr. Dupont Circle leaves, ending his revenue contributions to the subway. Mr. White Flint remains on for another hour, paying the whole time.

EACH of them has forced someone else to stand on the platform.
Surcharge for Dupont: 15 c.
for White Flint: $1.25

loss to system: $1.10 for Dupont passenger, whose space could have been filled by someone going to White Flint.

My proposal: a FLAT SURCHARGE if your trip goes through Chinatown/Metro Center/L'Enfant Plaza DURING RUSH HOUR. So,

Peak: WF-JS = $3.25
DC-JS = $2.10

and both are paying $1 TO RIDE DURING PEAK TIME because they are preventing someone from getting on at MetroC/CT/L'EP. No surcharge if your trip doesn't go through MC/CT/L'EP, though, because you aren't forcing people off the train.

THAT BEING SAID....

They should not be trying to raise revenues with subways. All transportation systems cost money. Maybe something like the Brooklyn Bridge, as a toll, turns a profit, MAYBE... but the Beltway doesn't. ALL of us, both PaiGow, me, and the rest of you, are paying for the Beltway, but the USERS of the eco-friendly, quality-of-life-enhancing subway pay a good chunk of what the system costs. Hmmm...

Unfortunately, the lay-out of the stupid thing means that only a select few can take advantage of it. Our earlier Old Town Alexandria poster can no more take advantage of the subway than could someone living in G'town, and those are DESIREABLE areas.

Still, I think that people should be encouraged to take advantage of the subway, so at the end of the day, I think that I favour a flat fare. For one thing, you don't need to worry about swiping out at the far end. Anyway, that's my two cents.

a) you are scary
b) I dunno about Ju Square to Dup Cic, but Farragut North to an exit the same number ofstopsduring peak is only $1.10. Considering its only about a mile or less,I would say the price is right. I dont know where the hell White Flint is but it sounds many many miles away. Why one would live there and thus becaume an embitterd commuter cog on the metro wheel spenind too much time going toand fro just so he can get to his beige office and back to his cultureless office max town is beyond me, but i would say the mileage alone justifies whateve ryou spend. It is still WAY cheaper and less aggravating than driving, no?

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
a) cost per mile yes, but the distances are much greater.
b) you still have to go through a tunnel to get into DC. If you're going from Vienna to Ballston, the fare is still pretty cheap.

i'd assume that the tunnel from rosslyn to foggy bottom was probably pretty expensive. given the depth of the tunnel at that point due to the need to go under the potomac and the fact that it is over a mile between those two stations, it had to be one of the most expensive streches of metro to build. the same would hold true for the section of the green line that goes under the anacostia river. underwater tunnels tend to be most expensive of all.

ms. naughty diplomat

[George Bush]

I'll bet that you are absolutely right, the underwater tunnels probably cost an arm and a leg to build, and the bridges were undoubtedly not cheap, either. Is there a point that you wanted to make about that cost, or was that cost the point itself?

Maybe PaiGow princess is right... perhaps I should have hit urban planning instead of law.

That being said, your poker Highness, I am not *personally* harmed by the cost of the trip to White Flint, except inasmuch as it leads people to drive in instead of taking mass transit, clogging our roads and polluting our lungs. (and probably acidifying our lakes and rivers, although the Potomac might be protected by the tidal waters)

I just used to get on at Judiciary Square. I AM embittered by the stupidity of the morons who designed this system, not by my own commuting preferences. White Flint? In BF Maryland? Goodness, no, I live in Alexandria, less than 10 minutes from the Metro. (10 minutes on foot)

You are absolutely right about the suckiness of being a cog in the commuting wheel... and no, where I live, the Metro is not cheaper than driving, unless I travel off-peak.