Pros and cons of fare-free transit. (Transit Tangents)
Free parking is always an illusion. The tax break behind it. (Urban3)
With free transit it’s obvious taxpayers are paying for the buses and trains. With free parking, people just imagine there’s no cost to provide it.
Early News Roundup items are below the fold. Monday-Wednesday will have a 3-part series, so the midweek roundup will be on Thursday.
Beacon Hill station is closed Sunday and Monday to replace ventilation-fan switches. Trains will go through without stopping: passengers will transfer to a shuttle bus at SODO and Mt Baker running every 10-15 minutes. On Saturday, November 8, Capitol Hill station will be closed for the same work.
East Marginal Way cycletrack ($) officially opens.
Community Transit’s 2026-2027 budget. 18% more service and expanded Swift. Comments accepted through November 14.
The ST Express restructure survey is extended to November 11.
The movement for bus lanes ($) on Aurora, Denny, and Rainier gains political momentum.
Bellevue’s job growth continues ($).
This is an open thread.
They completely missed:
-The costs of buying, installing, updating and maintaining the readers.
-Paying the vendor to operate the back end payment connections.
-paying the army of fare enforcers, or worse, taking time away from busy cops
-From a driver perspective, the increased risk of confrontation when trying to enforce, creating an unpleasant conflict prone environment, and potential resulting injury or death.
Many of the folks against free bus service are college educated and are currently getting “free” rides from their employer paying their fare. I’d like to see employers pay a small “transit tax” and not be allowed to purchase transit service for their workers while lower income blue collar folks pay for transit “out of pocket” every ride. No more free rides for upper class I say!
I’m not sure who ever thought developing a transit system where a bank president is currently riding to work for free while the dude making pizzas gets hammered for every ride. But I shouldn’t be surprised I guess… the Washington State tax system of property and sales tax is possibly the most regressive in the who USA where the “little guy” pays the highest percentage of taxes.
It’s not free, but there’s ORCA LIFT for eligible households. Fares are $1.
https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/fares-and-payment/reduced-fares/orca-lift
JonC
Why doesn’t everybody just pay a dollar out of pocket?
The problem with any “reduced” fare program is who exactly is eligible? And what is the cost to figure that out? What happens with Seattle Metro is there is class of folks who get a pass from their employer and then is this super broke class riding for a dollar and last all, a middle class that pays out of pocket.
Let’s tax employers for bus service and let everybody ride for buck a ride. Then let’s empty out the Metro back office, shut down the employer pass sales and reduced fare office and retrain those workers to drive bus. Or they can clean buses. More front line service providers, less office people. Metro needs to much more service forward.
I think employers providing transit passes at no cost to the employee is a good thing even though I’ve never been eligible for it. Before that shift, employers often provided free parking but no transit-cost reduction.
Saying most riders have free employer passes, or that’s the only reason they’re on transit, and they’re the ones opposing free fares, are assertions that are crying out for facts to back them up.
A lot of employees are getting free transit passes, and not using them. But it is part of their benefits, paid for by their employer.
Some employees have a co-pay on their monthly pass, with their employer covering the rest.
UW-Seattle students are not riding for free. They are paying quarterly for the Husky Card. The AI and UW’s webpage differ on whether 18-year-olds have to pay the transit fee.
As for what the fare ought to be, cost-of-collection is not impacted by fare level. The lower the fare goes, the less of it gets put back into paying for service.
Count me as a supporter of the regular fare being at least $3, including for Community, Everett, and Pierce Transit. They are leaving money on the table, and two of them desperately need more money.
@JonC, Most of the agencies in the PugetPass family honor the Subsidized Annual Pass, which is good for free fare for a year for eligible recipients. If someone is homeless, they almost certainly qualify.
The remaining holdout agencies are Pierce and Kitsap Transit. Ironically, it was KT that first offered a low-income fare card back in 1985.
KT’s board has pondered going fare-free, so I don’t get their hesitation with joining the Subsidized Annual Pass program.
tacomee, the people who get Orca cards through their employers are being subsidized by the employers not the taxpayers. Jesus, man, your complaint is thick-headed. Usually you make sense, but this is just crazy. If employers want to offer the perk for people, it’s their business, and they’re paying for it.
Yes, like all Orca’s, employer Orca’s offer a reduction in monthly cost for regular riders. But the poor dude making pizzas can buy a monthly pass for his Orca for close to the same price as the employer, if not exactly the same. I admit to not knowing if there are “bulk discounts”.
https://www.myorca.com/business/
There are some hoops to jump through, but businesses with 5 or more employees can get some great prices on ORCA cards for their employees. A business in Bellevue CBD can get an annual pass for a worker for less than $175. Businesses in downtown Seattle pay about twice that amount.
So what routes would you cancel so that bus rides are free? What buses would you run less often? If you think this is a class issue go ask someone who is poor whether they want to walk a mile to an infrequent (but free) bus or take a frequent one nearby (that has a fare).
Before you say “Oh, I would get the money elsewhere” then why the hell aren’t you getting that money now?!! The argument for free buses really only makes sense in two situations:
1) You raise very little money with the fares. This is the case in smaller cities which is why smaller cities (in both the U. S. and Europe) are the ones that commonly adopt the program.
2) Your system is so well funded that it really doesn’t need additional money. You probably have a combination of progressive income taxes and/or a high VAT tax. This is the case in places like Belgrade and Luxembourg (only a handful of large cities have adopted this).
Clearly we aren’t in that second group. We need to raise way more money for the buses. It can be argued that King County doesn’t raise enough money to be worth it. The goal is to raise about 25% of the money from fares — it is now down to around 10%. But that is still after paying for everyone to process all the money. A 10% drop in service would be brutal.
The video ignored another alternative which is a proof-of-payment system. This leads to dwell times that are just as good as no-fair systems. You also have fewer very-short trips. This means that overall dwell times would be better. You also end up with fewer people cheating. The only drawback is the additional cost of enforcement. Then again, if people want more officials on the bus, this is one way of achieving that (even if they are “ambassadors” not security).
In an ideal world we would have free fares *and* excellent transit. But in the real world the county has few options other than doing what it is doing now (while the city uses its money to add more service).
Well, let’s make the “corporate pass sales” just a straight “employer transit tax” so the whole system is revue neutral? Except Metro could reduce the number of workers in the office. And a straight out-of-pocket $1 per ride or $40 monthly pass puts the system over the top on funding.
The biggest problem with making changes in Greater Seattle is the massive government. Cities like Salt Lake and Houston have governments with zoning and transit that are simpler, cheaper to administer. Greater Salt Lake City has the Utah Transit Authority while Great Seattle has 4 transit outfits.
Well, let’s make the “corporate pass sales” just a straight “employer transit tax” so the whole system is revenue neutral?
If it is that easy to pass a tax like that, why not pass it now? Why not run the buses a lot more often. Are you suggesting that King County Buses are being run as often as they should be? Seriously? Have you not heard the complaints from people in various parts of the county, especially to the east and south? Even Seattle riders complain about infrequent buses and this is despite the fact that Seattle pays extra on top of what the county provides.
King County Metro is woefully underfunded. Let’s fund it to a good level, then we can talk about different taxes so that riders don’t have to pay to board.
Since you asked, I would eliminate ST Express 515 and truncate ST Express 510 at Lynnwood as soon as the cross-lake connection opens, for starters.
But I would not put the savings toward fare reduction. I would want the ST Board to remove the worst value-engineering proposals from the list of potential savings in building future stations.
Fare savings are temporary. The negative impacts of value engineering are often irreparable, like ever getting redundant elevators at Mt Baker or TIBS. I’d rather reduce ST bus service temporarily than have stations permanently ruined or delayed (which raises the financing costs).
But I digress.
Ross Bleakney,
Metro is underfunded? And how much was that West Seattle light rail? Fallowed up with by that Ballard light rail?
Complications and redundancy cost money. Doesn’t matter who is elected Seattle Mayor this November, the struggle is going to be against the huge, bloated bureaucracies that control homeless services, zoning and building permitting, and public transit.
Why not come up with a fare reduction and streamlined funding system for Metro that’s cheaper for riders? The fare heavy funding that Metro uses now is highly suspect to revenue shortfalls in recession. We’re headed towards a recession.
“let’s make the “corporate pass sales” just a straight “employer transit tax” so the whole system is revue neutral? Except Metro could reduce the number of workers in the office”
You really think Metro has a whole floor full of admin staff just to administer the employer-pass program?
“Metro is underfunded? And how much was that West Seattle light rail? Fallowed up with by that Ballard light rail? ”
None, and none. Metro’s underfunding started before Sound Transit existed.
The best hedge against the defunding impacts of a recession is multiple funding sources. A recession most certainly contraindicates reducing fare income.
Brent White,
By rolling the corporate sales into a small employer tax, (that every employer needs to pay into) Metro would be in much better shape in an economic downturn. Buses need to run without a “fare recovery” percentage to uphold.
The low “one size fits all” fare of $1 per ride ($60 for a monthly pass) should be kept in reserve for capital improvements.
The big winners here would be anybody making the minimum wage without an employer purchased bus pass. These folks save around 50-80 bucks a month. If $50 doesn’t seem like that much to you… you’re not working for minimum wage. At least Metro got rid of those goofy zones. Used to be that low wage workers couldn’t afford an apartment in the City and had to live out in ‘burbs somewhere and pay more for worse bus service.
Metro is underfunded? And how much was that West Seattle light rail? Fallowed up with by that Ballard light rail?
Holy cow, you’ve been commenting on this blog how long? And you don’t understand the difference between King County Metro and Sound Transit? Seriously?
Metro is spending zero dollars on West Seattle light rail. They are spending zero dollars on Ballard light rail. If you want to understand West Seattle transit, look at this map: https://seattletransitmap.com/app/. You have only three routes that could be called “frequent” and none of them run every 7.5 minutes in the middle of the day. To get to the only college in the area (my alma mater, South Seattle Community College) you have to take a bus that runs every half hour. From everywhere! If you want to get to Alki — arguably the most urban, attractive part of West Seattle — you have to take a similar bus (the 50) that doesn’t even go downtown! Remember, this is *after* Seattle has paid extra for bus service. West Seattle transit sucks and it sucks because there simply isn’t enough money being spent on the buses in King County. There are other areas — to the south and east especially — that would loveworse, not better.
You remind me of the “progressives” who clutch their pearls when talking about raising the sales tax. Yes, it is a regressive tax. It sucks that we don’t have a more progressive tax system in the state. But countries like Sweden, Norway and Finland have very high Value Added Taxes. The VAT is basically a sales tax and in those countries it routinely gets as high as 25%! That is more than double our rate! It is way better to tax things that high than spend less money on public service. It is not that complicated. Tax and spend. After we do that and create a really good transit system we can talk about lowering the tax rate for those who ride the bus.
“Metro is underfunded? And how much was that West Seattle light rail? Fallowed up with by that Ballard light rail?”
“Metro is spending zero dollars on West Seattle light rail.”
I assumed tacomee meant taxpayers weren’t willing to fund more Metro service because ST3 costs so much and its costs have increased so much.
But that’s apples and oranges. Any Metro increase would be a tiny fraction of ST’s, so people could do Metro regardless of ST.
a small employer tax, (that every employer needs to pay into)
Again, if that was possible — and I’m not saying it is — why the hell would Metro put that money into lowering fares when they could put that money into improving the transit system?
Also, Trimet, which has a payroll tax as one of the primary sources of operational funding, still has a program similar to ORCA Passport for employers who want to take advantage of transit passes as an employee benefit.
Are you asking me those questions?
I was just pointing out they missed arguably the most important “pros” from a fiscal standpoint.
I don’t live in King and can’t help you with your funding conundrums. Pierce has much larger ones, and perhaps ripping out the fare boxes would help, but I am not advocating for that.
I will point out King has one of the most progressive voter bases in the US, who are incredibly pro-transit, yet have an incredibly regressive way of paying for transit, at least on the fare side (your typo calling it no-fair was unintentionally appropriate, gave me a giggle).
Tacomee has a point that the white collar workers are subsidized by the Commute Trip Reduction program. Though that program, and the transit converts it creates are a terrific way to popularize transit, it does give millions of state dollars to large, mostly white-collar, employers to subsidize the program (the employers themselves spend more, though it’s tax deductible).
In an ideal world we would be fully funding transit and making sure those dollars not coming on the backs of the poor on lower-middle class. But even in the real world, we can do much better. Especially in a County like King, which is both progressive and pro-transit.
Especially in a County like King, which is both progressive and pro-transit.
And yet the last proposal to increase funding for King Count Metro Transit failed. The council hasn’t put another proposal on the ballot for fear it will fail again. Even now, facing a “fiscal cliff” they are hesitant to fully fund existing service (let alone increase service to a level where transit riders would consider it “fully funded”).
So again, I ask anyone who supports free transit in King County, where are you going to get the money? And if you think that is easy, why don’t you get that money now when it would do a lot of riders a lot of good.
Look, we have a lot of problems when it comes to transit in King County. The fact that some middle class (and upper class) riders have to pay $3 to ride the bus is way, way down the list.
“it does give millions of state dollars to large, mostly white-collar, employers to subsidize the program”
What state money? The state doesn’t spend money on transit except for its annual grants, and rural subsidies that don’t apply to Metro.
The rate an employer pays depends on how much its employees use transit. So it’s the same as if they all bought individual passes but averaged across the company. So the company goes from 20% pass buyers to 100% pass buyers. Isn’t that a good thing?
The state runs the Commute Trip Reduction program, that spends millions incentivizing employer paid Orca cards, among other things.
https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/commute-trip-reduction-program
I fully support the program, I just wish it was better targeted.
Folks understand “commute trip reduction program” isn’t just an incentive program, right? It’s a state law (with reinforcing law within Seattle) requiring large offices whose employees live within 150 miles of Seattle to monitor their workers’ commute mode share and encourage non-SOV commutes.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-options-program/commute-trip-reduction-program/ctr-requirements#basicrequirementsforemployers
As part of this, Seattle requires large employers to either offer pre-tax contributions to transit costs, or to provide a full ORCA pass. There are serious discounts for the ORCA Business Passport program, presumably to incentivize its use. Anyone can use the calculator to see how much it would cost an employer to offer passes to its whole office: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/employer-programs/orca-business/passport/zone-cost-estimator
It doesn’t apply to just Seattle.
If I lived in NYC, I would be voting for Mamdani, and certainly over Cuomo. But agree with his plan for free buses, I do not.
(Side note: NYC has a similar variant to ranked choice voting, sabotaged by the ruling two-party Sithdom, to only have it in the primary election. The difference between here and there is that they have party primaries in their city elections.)
When Austin did its free transit experiment, it failed to first kiss the rings of the State Legislature, the County Council, and the City Council. Politicians grand-standed against the experiment, and the Legislature took away some of its funding authority. I would discourage NYC from re-inventing that flat tire.
We have had at least one semi-serious mayoral candidate call for free buses. But it was a demand-side plan that did not come with new funding sources, much less a plan to pay for more buses, drivers, maintenance, etc that would be necessitated by the increased ridership. It also did not help his “plan”s credibility that he had antagonized Sound Transit and the transit advocacy community for years.
I don’t know if former Governor Jay Inslee’s subsidies for local transit agencies actually covered the lost revenue from youth fares (now free), the much higher cost of providing those rides, or enough to do more than that for local agencies.
I don’t know if there is good data on what portion of the population eligible for the ORCA LIFT and Subsidized Annual Pass cards that is partaking of them.
If the state is willing to pay for free transit, including the costs of building up service, then, sure, take the offer. If it isn’t, then don’t jettison a funding source of which about half comes from employers through the ORCA Business Passport Program.
One big problem with free fares is that transit becomes a de facto mobile homeless shelter. Fares are a basic tool in keeping that from happening. It lets security remove homeless — especially those who stink and threaten public health — because they didn’t pay a fare.
There are more cost-effective ways to accommodate the homeless, many of whom are using illegal street drugs. And even the poorest of riders would gladly pay a modest fare to get away from smelly people whacked out on some drug on the seat next to them. (Keep in mind that there are many transit riders who are physically vulnerable and have a heightened need to feel and be safe.)
If free fares are implemented, it will take a significant effort to approach this likely side issue. And ST or Metro should not be on the hook to address it on budgets that would already be majorly hit because of a new lack of fare revenue.
Frankly, the employer pass program is used widely enough that eliminating fares would undermine not only its revenue but also its popularity. Even a short free-fare trial would undermine a long-standing employee benefit that has taken many years to evolve and popularize. That alone probably makes free fares a pipe dream in our region.
Do you have data correlating free buses with homeless non-destinational ridership?
What I observed during the worst of the pandemic was more of an induced demand problem. Empty buses and trains allowed non-destinational ridership and fentanyl users to shoot up. Metro and ST have data from testing their fleets for fentanyl in the air. I still see it happening late at night, but not on crowded vehicles.
The best way to improve safety statistics is to fill up the vehicles. That might not have stopped the mentally-ill man with the hatchet, but it probably would have stopped the kid with a gun who executed a sleeping passenger. If violent offenders on transit are down to various categories of mental illness, that suggests lots of witnesses is an effective deterrent.
Does Intercity Transit have ongoing behavioral problems on its buses, which are free?
I could not find an independent report with recent data discussing the impact of free fares and user experience.
Homelessness, drug use, hygiene and crime may not be directly correlated but they all do affect the rider experience.
I recall riding buses on Third Ave a dozen years ago when Metro had a free fare zone downtown. The buses moved very slowly as people with carts would need the bus to lift the riders and their carts, only to reverse the process several blocks later. Imposing fares made the buses faster!
There is anecdotal evidence of other cities trying it during COVID but reinstating fares later once the health risks subsided. Reasons given often included rider safety. Actually, the unions sometimes expressed misgivings about abolishing fares as bus drivers expressed concern about their own safety and duties. Driving a bus is hard enough, and bus drivers should not also be front-line social workers.
There is another issue of transit vehicle cleanliness. With every suspicious wet puddle or smelly brown smear on a bus or train car comes the need to take that vehicle out of service (and call for a replacement driver and vehicle) and drive it back to the garage for cleaning. Our transit operators don’t talk much about it and it doesn’t make it into the news but it regularly happens.
Ultimately it comes down to money. As I stated, not only would operators lose fare and pass revenue, they also would likely have to be more vigilant about their own safety riding environment — meaning hire and pay for more staff on top of regularly scheduled bus drivers.
I get how the concept is attractive in theory. It sounds so ideal! However, in practice it can result in driving away fare-paying passengers and maybe some bus drivers too — and would mandate the transit operators to hire more staff.
Just because Mamdani supports free buses doesn’t automatically mean it will happen if he’s mayor. First he’d have to win over the city council, DOT, and the public, and plenty of people will point out the negative factors. Especially when people realize the buses will be free but the subway won’t. It should be the other way around if anything. The subway is built for high capacity and scalability, so we should incentivize the most people to use it, not put in counter-incentives like free buses.
So true! NYC has a big powerful machine running it that is resistant to change.
But then so does Seattle. Here’s the start of a list of “The Seattle Machine”
King County Metro
Sound Transit
King County Regional Homeless Authority
85 nonprofits funded by the City working on homeless issues (maybe more now?)
King County Housing Authority
Urban Forestry Commission
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspectors
Seattle Police Union
Other powerful Public Employee Unions.
Here’s a great little gem about City Light guys who can’t be fired for drinking on the job or sexual harassment. Or even rape. https://www.cascadepbs.org/investigations/2025/09/whistleblower-alleges-abuse-and-retaliation-at-seattle-city-light/
Let’s just say the deck is stacked against the next mayor making big changes in Seattle.
I talk about how the rest of New York might not join Mamdani’s free-bus vision for transit reasons, and you go on about New York’s “machine” and Seattle’s political/nonprofit entities. They wouldn’t all necessarily be against it.
Mike Orr,
I’m talking about how Blue Cities, like NYC and Seattle, got the way they are and how impossible it is to change them. Free bus fare is a perfect example of this. The first problem with changing anything at Metro is who’s even in charge of it? You and I both know it’s not the mayor of Seattle. So any mayor campaigning on upgrading transit… how much upgrading can the mayor actually do? Then there’s SDOT and Sound Transit.
Welcome to the Machine! Metro is just going to clunk along just like it has for last 50 years because its internal structure is resistant to change.
Seattle and NYC join Chicago in electing younger democratic socialist mayors, but will it even matter? Hasn’t so far.
“I’m talking about how Blue Cities, like NYC and Seattle, got the way they are and how impossible it is to change them.”
That’s a vague argument that has little to do with transit. How much do Seattle and New York City have in common? Is there something wrong with the way Seattle is? What do all those organizations you cite have to do with it? Do all of them really oppose every change?
“Free bus fare is a perfect example of this. The first problem with changing anything at Metro is who’s even in charge of it?”
Neither of Seattle’s mayoral candidates are running on free fares.
I’ve never lived in New York so I don’t know the relationship between the City of New York, the MTA, and the state. Maybe New York’s mayor has more control over fares than Seattle’s mayor does.
“You and I both know it’s not the mayor of Seattle.”
It’s the county council and county executive.
“So any mayor campaigning on upgrading transit… how much upgrading can the mayor actually do? Then there’s SDOT and Sound Transit.”
“Upgrading” is a vague term. The mayor would have to have something specific. Seattle gets additional Metro service through the TBD and at times city council appropriations. SDOT can do a lot of things that can make Metro routes faster and more service-hour efficient, meaning Metro could expand service without increasing costs.
“Welcome to the Machine! Metro is just going to clunk along just like it has for last 50 years because its internal structure is resistant to change.”
Metro has had different attitudes over the years depending on who’s at the top and what the planners are thinking. It was the worst in the 1980s when Metro’s general manager thought buses were obsolete and the future was peak-hour vanpools. That led to half-hourly service in Seattle, hourly in the suburbs, 3/4 of suburban routes being peak expresses to downtown, and many other routes being extremely long milk runs like downtown to North Bend (210) or downtown to Federal Way (174). That improved in the 1990s and 2000s. In 2012 Metro made a significant shift toward consolidating service on frequent grid corridors in the RapidRide C, D, and E restructures, 2014 cuts, and the U-Link restructure. In the 2020s it has backtracked somewhat, with Northgate, Lynnwood, East Link, and G restrucures that weren’t as good as the ones in the mid 2010s (but still better than before 2012).
Expanding service with more hours is out of Metro’s hands. It depends on a booming economy bringing in more sales-tax revenue, a countywide Metro levy which the county council has not seen fit to issue, or a Seattle TBD increase that’s in the city council’s hands.
I don’t want to change Metro, and I don’t have the expertise to evaluate whether Metro’s bureaucracy or structure is good or not. I just want more revenue for more service, and city DOTs converting more lanes to transit-priority to increase buses’ efficiency, with an ultimate goal of comprehensive frequent transit. It’s not clear to me that Metro’s bureaucracy or changing it has much to do with these. The changes I care about happen when politicians prioritize them, vote on them, and make them happen, regardless of Metro’s structure.
Yesterday, I rode the 250 through Kirkland. Nearly everyone who was on the bus before Kirkland TC got off within a couple stops after it, to be replaced by new passengers.
Of course, this was a Saturday, not representative of weekday traffic – but still, I’m wondering. Is the through-route really useful? Or might it be better to reconnect the Bellevue-Kirkland segment with the 230/231 instead, like it was before the last Eastside restructure, which would keep it going north-south?
The 250 was created to prefigure RapidRide K, which was originally a Redmond-Kirkland-Bellevue concept. When the K was rerouted to Totem Lake, the 250 was never looked at again.
I’ve always thought Bellevue-Kirkland and Kirkland-Redmond were different transit markets.
I got on a Link train this morning and there’s a new announcement after every stop: “Please hold on” in the same tone and cadence of voice as “six seven”, I almost started laughing out loud
A detailed look at how much faster New York’s free-fare and/or transit-lane proposals could speed up bus routes. (NYT free gift link)