Photo by craigwortman on Flickr.

Unlike many other transit systems, Metro started out as a regional rail provider that got a bus system tacked on in the middle of the process. Ever since that time, the bus and rail systems have had separate fare systems, joined at the hip through the transfer discount.

What if Metro instead let people transfer for free between rail and bus?

It’s an appealing idea, but would cost Metro about $30 million a year that they can’t afford.

Recent changes with SmarTrip have transformed the original one-way transfer discount from rail to bus to a transfer discount that works in both directions and is half as much. But the underlying philosophy is still the same: You’re transferring to a different service, and therefore you’re going to get charged new fares.

There’s a discount to lessen the pain, but it doesn’t feel like you’re using an integrated network. The fare system is still designed as if you’re carrying around a transfer slip that provides a discount.

Contrast this with other transit systems, which grew up organically as city transit companies, like those in Chicago, New York City, and Seattle. These systems work under a philosophy that you only have to pay for one ride to get unlimited access to the transit system for a set period of time. The ride you pay for is generally the most expensive ride you take; typically, the rail portion of a trip that includes both rail and bus.

This is similar to the way the Metrobus network operates. When you transfer from a cheaper local bus to a more expensive express bus, you pay the difference in fares, effectively paying only for the express bus and getting the local bus free. When you transfer the other way, the local bus is free. You only pay for the most expensive vehicle.

Should Metro’s fare policy change to embrace this idea?

Jarrett Walker of Human Transit writes against making customers pay more to transfer between vehicles, arguing that transfers are made necessary out of convenience to the transit system operator, rather than the customer. In his view, customers don’t choose to transfer because they want to, but because the transit system did not provide them with a one-seat ride.

He also argues persuasively that a transit system that requires transfers is more efficient to operate and more convenient to the customer than one that provides a one-seat ride for every possible combination of origin and destination.

Additionally, it’s how our current Metrobus system operates, and part of integrating the rail and bus systems into one overall transit network is removing the barriers that discourage people from taking the trip that’s best for their need.

On the other hand, Metro has trouble balancing their budget every year. Increasing the discount from 50 cents to whatever your cheaper trip costs is bound to reduce revenue unless something else changes, either in the fare system overall or ridership. There’s also concern with the way system revenue is allocated, and how an increase in the transfer discount could affect the budget balance for the rail and bus pieces of the budget separately.

An estimate of the revenue loss from allowing free transfers is about $30 million per year. That could be covered by a fare increase of about 20 cents on every rail trip. For that same amount of money, Metro could invest in bus line supervisors to help keep buses from bunching on popular routes, or they could hire more operators to increase the number of trains that operate off-peak.

Free transfers between bus and rail is appealing and would be helpful in some ways, but I think that the money would be better spent on improving transit service.

Michael Perkins blogs about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia.