Comments on: Link’s Finishing Touches

By: BobA

BobA — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:35:16 +0000

Vancouver’s fares are based on 3 zones with distinct boundaries. Problem is if you get on a Skytrain just inside one boundary and take the train one or two stops across the boundary line you have to pay the 2 zone fare even for a short 5 min. ride. This only applies daytime, after 6 pm all fares revert to the same 2.50 To charge fares by distance would be good for transit pass users once they put turnstiles on the stations that can read your boarding-departing distance like BART.

By: archie

archie — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:40:41 +0000

For what it’s worth, Taipei’s awesome MRT system uses distance based fares. And their TVM’s are probably the simplest, most straight forward I’ve seen anywhere

By: Sherwin

Sherwin — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:26:39 +0000

What? TriMet and Translink are zone-based. Distance based fares include a base charge + marginal charges by mileage.

By: Erik G.

Erik G. — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:25:53 +0000

It is a great thing to see the “Next Train” sign already.

LA Metro only added these to the Red/Purple (Subway) Lines FIFTEEN years after those lines opened.

By: Erik G.

Erik G. — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:24:16 +0000

Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC both use daistance-based fares for their Light Rail (SkyTrain is “Advanced LRT” after all)

So did San Diego until recently.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:39:26 +0000

They’re by KONE of Finland who purchased Montgomery Elevators of Moline, IL in 1985:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=kone

The DSTT elevators and esclators were all installed by Montgomery and I believe are maintained by KONE today. I think the southwest esclator in Pioneer Square is having steps replaced by KONE at this very moment!

Also, I don’t believe that anything is operationally different with the Beacon Hill elevators than you would find in elevators that travel the same distance in an office building or other structure.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:21:41 +0000

DC’s Metro isn’t light rail (nor is BART) but it’s distance-based.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:20:15 +0000

FWIW, I don’t think I’m neglecting the plight of families who can’t afford to or are unable to drive. I was raised by a single mom with two kids, and a car was never even a possibility for us. To this day (I’m 27), I don’t know how to drive and continue to get around by bike, foot, carpool or public transit.

Interestingly, back in 2001 apparently one reason the Council was considering a fare hike (including upping the youth fare to $1) was to pay for the introduction of a 50¢ low-income fare. But

Metro Transit officials expressed concern that the bus system would end up losing money – even with the higher fares – if reduced fares for low-income passengers were approved. So yesterday Councilman Greg Nickels, D-Seattle, offered an amendment to drop the proposed 50-cent low-income fare…

In the end, I agree with you and alexjonlin: it’s unfortunate that the funding for public transit is such that we have to weigh which needy segment of society to charge more in order to spare another needy segment. Transit should be an attractive and affordable option for all folks, regardless of what other options they may or may not have.

By: litlnemo

litlnemo — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:04:20 +0000

I like the accent. It’s odd to hear it here on Beacon Hill, but it makes me smile every time.

By: Pete Lorimer

Pete Lorimer — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:39:38 +0000

I know these were special order elevators, due to their necessary speed (which is why they took so long to receive and thus had become the critical path on finishing Beacon Hill Station). I figured the accent was a product of their country of manufacture. When I get out at Beacon Hill today on my way home, I will take a look and see if there’s a nameplate as to who made these.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:31:55 +0000

I think Seattle is the only place that charges distance-based fares on light rail? The comparison is with BART, which is a much bigger system. Most light rail systems have the same fares as their buses. That makes Link a bit self-aggrandizing, and it remains to be seen whether its distance-based fares last forever. But with the bus fares in wild flux, the rail system not finished, and the middle of a recession, it’s probably best not to mess with the fare structures for a few years.

By: Zed

Zed — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:04:21 +0000

The point of having a youth fare is to not discourage families from taking the bus. Raising the youth fare would unnecessarily penalize families whose only mode of transportation is the bus. Most youth under 15 don’t ride the bus by themselves, they go with their parents. Not everyone who rides the bus is a suburban commuter whose choosing the bus over their car. There are a lot of families in the city who rely on the bus for all of their travel needs and wouldn’t be able to afford the youth fare doubling. It’s not like youths are a huge percentage of Metro’s riders anyways, they’re probably not losing a huge amount of money on the youth fare.

“I always thought the (main) point of increasing transit use was to get cars off the streets”

The main point of transit is to provide an alternative to driving and to provide social equity for people who can’t afford to, or are unable to drive.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:52:47 +0000

It just seems counterintuitive to me to encourage youth ridership whilst simultaneously discouraging adult ridership. I always thought the (main) point of increasing transit use was to get cars off the streets, but as most youths can’t drive or already carpool (e.g. if only one of the group has a car or a license), increasing youth ridership does little to reduce congestion & pollution. Raising adult fares, on the other hand, would seem to pretty clearly discourage drivers from switching to transit. Perhaps the idea was to get kids to take transit so that they’d be more apt to take transit as adults. But I wonder if Metro collected any data to see if it worked.

The 75¢ youth fare was apparently introduced in 1993; it was 8 years before it dropped to 50¢, and another 8 years before it was raised back. That seems like enough time to collect data if Metro bothered to do so. If the fare drop actually decreased car travel and encouraged long-term transit usage, I’d say it’s worth keeping. But if it did neither, it seems like a complete waste of money which Metro can’t afford to lose right now.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:15:13 +0000

@alexjonlin: If Orca is indeed overcharging youths, that’s something to take up with Orca, and I sincerely hope you have complained and demanded refunds. But those overcharges are separate from the fare, and as far as fares go, Link does not cost more for youths than adults. For adults, just as for youths, “If the value of the pass is less than the cost of the one-way fare, you must purchase a pass upgrade at the ticket vending machine (TVM) located on the station platform.”

It’s only because Metro peak adult fares are as high as Link fares that adults generally don’t have to pay extra. But if, for example, you have a $1.75 off-peak pass and take a $2 Link trip, you’re still supposed to pay a 25¢ upgrade. Even with a one-zone peak pass ($2), if you rode the length of Link you’d owe an extra 50¢. Only the two-zone peak PugetPass ($2.50) will get you a fully-paid, full-length ride on Link.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:01:33 +0000

That fare decrease was to get more youth to ride transit.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:59:11 +0000

I think a zone based system could definitely simplify things. Somewhere I saw an idea for having a couple stations that are on the edge of two zones just be part of two different zones at the same time so that it’s a one-zone fare from either zone so you don’t have the paying twice as much to go just a mile or so problem.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:58:14 +0000

Ah, thanks for correcting me on the fare increase. I’d found a 2001 Times article that said Metro was considering raising the youth fare for the first time in 3 years from 75¢ to $1, so I figured that it had been stuck at 75¢ since 1998. But now that you mention it, I do recall the youth fare being lowered a few years back, at the same time that the adult fare saw a 25¢ hike. Then, as know, my reaction was pretty much WTF? I doubt Metro has ever reduced any other fare category in its history, and I’ve yet to hear any convincing arguments as to why youths deserve a break more than any other category of rider.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:56:54 +0000

I think it would be cool if there is any future new development on the triangle block where the Westlake streetcar stop is to put in another tunnel entrance with a little walkway to the station.

By: aw

aw — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:32:42 +0000

Why? The TVMs and Orca are already set up for distance-based fares.

In fact, it would probably make sense to not charge a lot for the lake crossing to give people a financial incentive to take Link instead of buses.

By: pds

pds — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:10:28 +0000

I notice that the people who say “The buses are adequate” or “We just need to add a few more buses” have never tried to spend a week without a car. If they did they’d understand how anemic the system is, and how much that prevents transit from achieving its ridership potential. Or they could just visit NYC or DC, where most people do not use cars for their daily errands.

Ab-so-lutely! No car here, and it is really shameful how long everything takes (and I live on a main corridor within city limits). I would say we have an adequate commuter system, but that is not the same as a comprehensive transportation network.