Erica C. Barnett complains a bit about escalating Metro fares (and pass prices) but, in the mark of a good piece, keeps perspective and recognizes tradeoffs:
Eighty-one bucks is a lot for me… Even as agencies are making service more expensive, they’re reducing its quality and frequency.
Riding the bus is still a great deal compared to owning a car… With prices that high, I’ll take a $9 monthly fare increase over car ownership any day…
The problem with ever-higher fares, of course, is that fare increases are a known disincentive to riding the bus (as are cuts to service). At some point, you get a drop-off in ridership, creating a vicious cycle: Fewer riders means less fare revenue means cuts to routes means fewer riders, and so on. The solution, instead of raising the regressive general sales tax even higher, is to create sustainable, long-term options to fund transit, something groups like the Transportation Choices Coalition plan to push for next session in Olympia.**
Of course, there is some revenue-maximizing fare level. My suspicion is, based on the political pressures at play, that we are well below that level, at least with certain types of service.
But really, I want to take this occasion to remind anyone in a position of influence at an employer that there are low-cost ways to help out your transit-riding employees. First, transit expenditures can be deducted from paychecks pre-tax, up to $230 per month, at no cost to the employer aside from the paperwork.
Secondly, if your workforce largely uses transit, cutting pay and replacing those dollars with a transit subsidy has positive tax benefits. Not only is the pay no longer subject to payroll or income taxes, but the subsidy itself is also tax-deductible to the employer.
As a dorky sidebar, I got my first bus pass today! Work offered the transit expenditure from paycheck pre-tax option, and I’m now a regular on one of the 5 different buses that drive by my neighborhood. Yeah!
When I read Erica’s article I was surprised she didn’t have to go for the $90 pass. She must not need to use the bus during peak times.
Still a pretty good value to me – less than a third of monthly parking at garages near my office (not to mention the costs of having a second car to commute in).
I wouldn’t suggest cutting pay for transit benefits, but instead offering a parking spot buyout option as either the subsidized orca card or a new commuter bike etc.
oddly my company has always offered free parking downtown without a transit option, but then again we also have the option of being 100% telecommuters. go figure
I would advocate for some subsidizing/cost-shifting. Regular-rider ORCA passholders should get a bigger subsidy on an average cost basis; this is the case on the New York rail system (Metro North, for the curious) I grew up riding. There, the single-trip cost is much, much higher than the average trip cost of the pass over an entire month. The problem here is that the pass takes almost the entire month to break even, while in New York, it takes only about 2/3 of the business days of a given month. (ORCA transfers really make a huge difference though: my $4.00 pass covers a $6.25 trip, immediately adding marginal value to the pass despite not lowering average cost in a given month.)
Building regular ridership has additional residual benefits: additional non-commute ridership (say, the Seahawks/Sounders trains), system familiarity, environmental benefits, the “friend” benefit (If I have a pass and transit is an option, I’ll encourage my friend to ride with me instead of driving, even if two is better than one in a car), and so on.
Agreed. At this point if I take a 1-3 day business trip, a single day of vacation, extended weekend, work from home, or there are holidays in the month I do the math and often end up not breaking even on a peak PugetPass. If it were faster to break even, say it took 10 business days (2 weeks) I would still buy the pass when I have scheduled out of office time. Unfortunately thanks to the convoluted transit benefit program my company uses (PayFlex) I have to make my pass selection before the 8th of the prior month, long before my business trips are planned. It’s already almost time to make a decision for February. Don’t get me started that PayFlex only just today found out that fares increased and gave everyone the wrong value pass with customer service suggesting I go buy a roll of quarters to make up the difference.
I had to make a decision for February a full month in advance – by December 31st. I know what you mean.
You bring up a good point. Does anyone know if Metro has considered re-examining their formula for setting the price of the monthly passes? All the fare increases in the past few years that I’ve noticed have resulted in a direct equivalent percentage increase in the cost of the passes. I wonder if a more favorable formula would result in more revenue (and ridership) from more people purchasing passes.
In this specific case, it’s tough to connect ridership directly to revenue, as all of the revenue is earned up-front and is based on a specific period of time. Ridership for the pass holder is (for the sake of argument) unlimited during that time – it becomes a guessing game. Ride too few times, and your pass ain’t worth it (average unit cost > single-trip cost); ride enough times and you’ve stuck it to the man (average unit cost < single trip cost). By lowering the break-even point for passholders, you give them more incentive not only to have a pass, but to use it. Hiking single-ride fares will cover the difference, but this requires enough care so as not to alienate those who really don't need a pass. The solution? Give em' options! Suggestions directly taken from the east:
– 10-Trip: 10 rides for the price of 9. Use it when you need it. (Or, as goes the NYC subway, $12 for the price of $10, something like that.)
– Weekly: Sunday to Saturday at the desired fare. (According to the fares here, you break even when you take 7 trips – that means your journey home on Thursday is effectively on the house. Friday, too.)
Like with most current Metro policy (the RTTF report distinctly excluded), the formula is currently set at a level that makes sense for commuters alone. At a 36x multiplier (18 round-trips), a transit pass is a great deal for someone who makes at least one round-trip every business day. But it sucks for anyone who has a more sporadic schedule, or who uses transit for primarily non-commuting purposes.
I think it would be a great idea to lower the multiplier for passes at the off-peak rate. It’s probably safe to say that most of them aren’t using it to commute. And that wouldn’t lose any revenue from commuters, who are generally perfectly happy to pay the higher fare.
Metro North has perhaps the most generous monthly pass discount compared regular fares in the entire country. Last time I checked, a monthly pass cost 24 times the price of a one-way ticket, so you break even on day 13.
Metro’s monthly pass (36 times the fare) is one of the worst values, although NYC is now at $104 for a 30-day MetroCard, which is 41.6 times the $2.50 base fare.
That would explain the disparity. I’m not calling for that kind of extreme, but still, the point remains the same.
Just yesterday I was riding Link from SODO to downtown and sat down in front of a couple that were traveling from Sea-Tac to downtown. Turns out they were from Taiwan (International Students studying in Minnesota) and asked about ORCA. So I pulled mine out and explained it to them. They were interested if it would work as a 3 day visitor pass. I told them no unfortunately but told them to go to the Metro customer service office at Westlake Center to buy a pass for Metro buses.
Metro/Sound Transit, please get your stuff together and get ORCA based temporary passes done.
Why did you send them to Westlake to get passes? Metro only sells monthly passes–and you can buy those at a TVM.
Because I’m “new” in town and didn’t know better. :-) I figured Metro customer service would best be able to help them.
If Metro eliminated paper transfers, they would see an increase in revenue. Sound Transit immediately noticed an increase when they ceased paper transfers last year. Transfers are only supposed to be good for 90 minutes. People expect to use them all day.
There isn’t any reason for paper transfers anymore. If one has an e-purse on an orca card, an electronic transfer is issued on the card for two hours from the moment of scanning. Tourists and occasional users can invest $5 on an orca card if transfers mean that much to them.
This increase in revenue should be passed on to Puget Pass Orca users. If it were more cost effective to have a monthly pass, more people would purchase them. More passes sold, more guaranteed revenue.
1) Cite your source
2) Not everyone can afford a pass. This issue has been brought up time and time again; read previous comment threads for debate back and forth.
Tim, it is total incongruous to argue that the same people who “can’t afford” to plunk down $5 for an ORCA card can instead be expected to absorb a much more significant fare increase every nine months!
I never said anything about fare increases. 9 months? Dude I wish it was as irregular as that.
My point being that not everyone can afford $80 at the beginning of the month–not $5 every time you need a card.
I’m certainly in favor of discounted fares and easier access to them, just not at the expense of any of the improvements that ORCA incentives and the elimination of paper transfers would bring.
If you’re going to spend that kind of money on transit over the course of the month anyway, there needs to be a mechanism for doing so without damaging systemic function (as we currently do in every possible way).
A one-time program to distribute ORCAs in poorer communities should be explored. Weekly passes should also be considered. The status quo is an unacceptable option.
I can’t recall my source. I tried a bit of recall, but to no avail. I tried the Seattle times. I can’t recall my source, but I still remember reading it. Maybe someone else has better enquiring skills then mine?
I am a bus driver. Can I tell you how many people a day ask me to extend their transfers? At least three. That doesn’t count all those that hide their time cutoff, or show the incorrect transfer. They aren’t go-back-and-forth-ers. They are intended for transfers.
Metro has built up a sad culture of entitlement. Do you go into Bartell’s and steal a $2.50 candy bar because you don’t feel like paying for it?
Its one thing if it was an absolute necessity, I have seen that rarely. The offenders that bother me the most are the expired u-passes. They have the cash in their wallet- why should they pay if no one else does?
It isn’t even the impoverished. I have never been in any downtown city like ours. Everywhere I have traveled, both internationally and nationally, I am expected to pay for my transportation. The best lunch joints in Seattle? Open 11am-4pm tops, Monday through Friday. What other downtown city has rent so cheap the lunch counters in buildings stay open only for business lunch? Wait, they aren’t cheap. Of course it is much easier to get a line out the door when no one pays to get there.
Metro needs to really rethink their fare structure. No one has an absolute entitlement. You SHOULD pay for what you use. Most importantly, those that pay WILLINGLY shouldn’t be paying for those that don’t. For every person, that “Man, I don’t have the fare.” rides; 7 others have to pay his fare as an increase, 8 at peak.
This last rate increase is totally unfair. Those that don’t pay, and never have, still don’t. Those that do are punished.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I want to give you a hug if I ever get on your bus!
Also, I’m amazed that S.T.B. has rarely debated the absolute-vs-proportional fare increase issue.
Every time an additional quarter has been added (an across-the-board fare increase in absolute terms), it has equated to a much larger proportional increase to the off-peak and in-city peak fares than to the multi-zone peak fares. Off-peak fares are up 80% in the last four years; in-city peak fares are up 67%; two-zone peak fares are only up 50%.
Proportionally, off-peak and counter-commute riders, who suffer the worst service, are subsidizing the resource-intensive one-way express services more than ever!
(Oh, wait… it’s all right there in a nearby post’s Angry Transit Nerd link: http://angrytransitnerd.com/on-fares-and-fairness)
http://angrytransitnerd.com/on-fares-and-fairness
I’d love to challenge the county council to ride the 132 from end to end. Besides experiencing the scoliosis of that route, they’d be begging for mercy over the amount of time the bus has sat while people fumble for change by the end of the 2-hour tour.
With global warming, peak oil, congestion, they really should make the bus free and frequent, and tax the crap out of oil until it’s gone. It’s going to happen anyways (peak oil) this will help with the transition.
I mis-read the title at first–instead of “Save” I read “Share”. This is true, and even with employer passes, allowable. Example one: Use your pass to commute to work M-F while your kid commutes via Petermann. On the weekend, let your kid use your pass.
From the comments section of that Publicola piece:
“Mr Baker 1 day ago in reply to Barleywine
Metro eliminated my bus schedule and route after I specifically purchased a home within walking distance to the bus stop, and after I donated my car to KUOW.
Now I own a car, thanks Metro!”
What route could he possibly be referring to? Metro hasn’t cut any Seattle routes that I know of (except duplication with Link), and it’s hard to imagine that someone would move to unincorporated King County and donate their car because of a once-hourly bus…
I take it Mr. Baker had a very cheap car.
“riding the bus is still a great deal compared to owning a car”
Maybe if you’re keeping legit. But if you’re driving uninsured, the bus is FAR more expensive on a per-trip basis.
All my low-wage underlings at my job drive as long as they have a vehicle; suspended licence or cancelled insurance be damned. There’s no way they’re shelling out $5 a day for that commute as long as their car still runs. It’s easily double the cost of driving.
Transit fares are too high. No one saves money riding the bus unless they eliminate an insured car from their lives.
There’s one very large white elephant with this scheme: licenses aren’t suspended and insurance isn’t canceled without a really good reason – these people shouldn’t be driving. One slip, and really bad things start to happen in a real hurry. And when someone who works for you is driving on the job with canceled insurance and a suspended license causes even a minor fender-bender, you can be pretty sure that a big fat lawsuit (among other possible things) is coming your way. Maybe when you find yourself drowning in legal bills, perhaps then you’ll consider the bus.
(Although, your final point contains a massive truth: one definitely does save money by eliminating an insured vehicle from their life.)
Where do you work?
Besides, why do your underlings care what the fare is? They can just get on the bus without paying, or use counterfeit money.
That works if parking is free and the distance is short (gas is over $3 in town). Buying the car in the first place is the upfront expense for your underlings. When the time comes to replace a car, they may have different thoughts.
Nah, they’ll just steal a car… :P
Outside of Seattle proper, both of these are often true, especially the first.
Well, we have cars for other things than just commuting to work, so the cost is amortized in a way.
“insurance isn’t canceled without a really good reason – these people shouldn’t be driving”
Insurance in this context (“low wage) is often canceled due to lack of payment, not because of bad driving skills.
“And when someone who works for you is driving on the job with canceled insurance and a suspended license causes even a minor fender-bender”
Suspended license yes, but Wouldn’t on-the-job insurance be the responsibility of the employer?
Doesn’t matter — they’re breaking the law all the same. Driving is dangerous (which is why all drivers are required to have insurance), and an uninsured driver represents a serious negative externality for all parties. Even the driver faces a $450 fine per traffic stop, which is 5 months of transit passes. If an uninsured driver can avoid getting caught for 5 months, then we’re doing a pretty shitty job at enforcing a pretty important law.
You’re correct, but if I’m reading Lack’s comment correctly, he’s just referring to regular commuting.
The ticket for no insurance is $550. You’re only required to have liability, which is cheaper than that.
However, most all courts will dismiss the ticket if you can prove that you acquired insurance. They usually charge a fee in the $20 range for this. I don’t know if there’s anything preventing you from canceling the insurance after your court date, other than the fact that it’s illegal.
I’m reminded of the guy in Tennessee whose house burned down because he didn’t pay the fire department…
Martin, I simply will never understand your near-advocacy of exorbitant fares on the basis of a revenue-generating abstraction!
All wonkiness aside, to most users with options (be they lower middle class or wealthy), $1,080/year is a lot for something that simply doesn’t work very well!
To the just-getting-by, $1,080/year is an outrage for something that hinders more than it helps!
Exorbitant? Compared to what, walking (cost of shoes), biking (bike plus expensive shoes), driving (vehicle purchase, insurance, maintenance, registration and licence fees, fuel, and you still need to buy shoes).
It’s not a chauffeur service. You get what you pay for. Actually, for the cost of your pass you get about 5X what you pay for.
“You get what you pay for.”
Seattle is a city of transplants. A good number of them have experience much better, for much lower cost. Thus the prevailing sense that Metro is not worth the bother!
(My point being that the comparative cost and comparative quality of service in comparative cities is a far more vital comparison than fare-recovery metrics, or even than other modes of transporation!)
(And it doesn’t help that Seattle is an relatively inexpensive place to own and operate a car, compared to many other large cities.)
Here’s a silver lining: It will be cheaper to take Link than ride the bus to a number of destinations.
For example, riding the 7 from downtown to Mount Baker neighborhood now costs $2.25-$2.50 by bus, and $2 by train. The same goes for riding the 106 from downtown to Rainier Beach. Moreover, using 106 during peak hour for a 1-seat ride from downtown to Renton would now be $3, vs $2.50 for Link+transfering at RBS. Taking the train from downtown to Beacon Hill is a savings of 50-75 cents over the bus.
For riders on the 101, this is one more reason to wish for a linkage at RBS: The trip downtown would drop to the one-zone bus fare.
Unfortunately, the reverse is true for Sounder. Riding the 152 from Seattle to Auburn is now $3, vs. $3.75 for taking Sounder. This is an improvement, but still a disincentive to filling up seats on Sounder. For the trip from Seattle to Tacoma, Sounder still costs a whopping $4.75 vs. $3 for an ST Express. If the goal is to get people to ride express buses instead of the train, this fare structure makes sense. If that isn’t the goal, Metro and ST need to put their heads together.
If ST is wanting to push up Link ridership, they may want to forestall the planned mid-year Link fare increase, and give the invisible hand time to work its magic. At least wait until the 2-year reports are due to the federal government.
Don’t touch my 152. I enjoy a bus that’s a mile away from home and heads straight to downtown. Further reasons why the 152 exists:
a) Serves more than one stop in Seattle. I’ve seen guys get off at Spokane heading towards the OMF (the ST garb was a dead giveaway)
b) Serves the Auburn Park & Ride
Though the 152 does take longer to get to 2nd & Jackson than Sounder does, once you factor in the time and inconvenience of transferring to get to your final destination, it’s about a wash.
Why was the Auburn P&R built so far away from Auburn Station? (Sorry if this is digressing from Topic.)
The P&R was built years and years ago. Closest reference I can find is aerial imagery from July 1990 showing it there. Auburn Station opened around the time Sounder did–turn of the century–and most routes moved there to provide better multi-modal connections. King County owns the P&R and Sound Transit owns the Transit Center.
On the Link fares, I wonder how much of a difference it really is. I’ve walked from station to station in the Rainier Valley, and if getting downtown was my intent, I’d much rather wait for the 7 unless I was at or very close to Mount Baker station. But I don’t know if everyone is like me–some may walk an extra 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile to save a quarter or two. Cool beans for them if they do, cool beans if they don’t. I don’t really care.
Small comfort if you’ve already bought the higher-priced pass because Link doesn’t meet your daily needs.
Actually, thanks to the magic of ORCA, you can buy a pass for the value of your cheapest daily trip, and use e-purse to make up the difference for the more expensive, but less frequent, trips.
I get a $90 pass and a $5 addition to my e-purse each month, from my employer, to cover the full cost of riding Link, and have the extra 25 cents for peak bus trips come out of the e-purse on the occasions it is necessary.
Yes, I know. I almost never use the AM peak period, and I only use the PM peak about three times a week, so I buy an off-peak pass (formerly $72, now $81) and go through about $3 in extra quarters per month.
But that off-peak pass is still more than the face value of the occasional Link trip to Columbia City, so I don’t get to enjoy the lower Link fare as you suggest.
ST ought to be able to use the ORCA data from January onward to determine how many people are actually benefitting from Link’s lower fare. If it isn’t that many, then by all means, Link should raise its fare as scheduled in July and get a slightly larger revenue share.
The annual Metro-only reduced fare pass was also canceled on the 1st. I’m kind of bummed as I will have to start buying a monthly PugetPass at $27 once my annual expires. My annual cost will be going from $99 to $324, quite a big increase. I realize that these fares could be a lot higher but feel that the increase could have been more gradual. An extra $20 a month can be quite a bit for a fixed income, especially during years that social security benefits haven’t increased any.