The Latest Captive Market: Commuters

One calculation showed that even if parking fees and fares go up, the cost of parking at a Metro lot and commuting in would still be about 70 percent of what it would cost to drive downtown and park.

Experience further shows that the passengers who are least willing or able to defect to other forms of transportation are those who commute downtown from the suburbs at peak times.

Based on those analyses, Metro planners concluded that the best strategy would be to skew the fare increases to their captive suburban peak-hour commuters. Fare hikes would be lower for the more price-sensitive, off-peak passengers. They'd also go easy on "reverse" commuters who work in the suburbs, where lower parking fees make commuting to work by car a more attractive alternative. Bus fares would go up only modestly on average, in the hope that some passengers who now ride the subway for short distances might switch to buses during peak hours.

The idea of charging a premium for peak-hour commuters to crowded stations also makes economic sense if you consider the capital costs associated with adding capacity.

The subway system is approaching its limits during peak commuting hours on certain lines (Red and Orange) as they pass through the downtown core. What that means is that adding capacity soon won't be a simple matter of buying a few more cars and hiring a few more train operators. Rather, it will involve the enormous costs of making stations bigger to accommodate longer trains, or digging tunnels for express trains.

This raises a different fairness issue. Is it fair to ask all passengers to pay for expensive new capacity that is required only to handle downtown commuters for a few peak hours? Or is it fairer to put the bulk of that burden on those who will benefit from the new capacity?

There is no right answer to these questions -- it depends on whether your goal is to maintain market share for public transit, align fares with costs, or try to use fares over the long run to alter people's behavior. The best approach is probably a mix of all three.

As I see it, Metro planners are on the right track, though perhaps they ought to use a narrower window for peak hours. In the future, perhaps they should set fares according to the actual cost of service, rather than distance traveled. And it may be worth considering different fare levels for each line, with lower fares to boost ridership on underused lines and higher fares to dampen peak-hour demand on lines nearing capacity.

Then again, we could just follow the New York City model and charge a flat rate, say $2.25, for any ride at any time. But what fun would that be?

Steven Pearlstein can be reached atpearlsteins@washpost.com.