70% of Seattle Light-Rail Riders Don’t Pay

Sound Transit, Seattle’s light-rail agency, has a goal of collecting enough fares to cover 40 percent of operating costs, yet it is collecting just 5 percent. That’s partly because of COVID-depressed ridership, but mainly because the agency makes almost no effort to collect fares. As a result, the agency estimates that 70 percent of its passengers are riding without paying.

Not getting much use: a Sound Transit ticket machine. Photo by Evan Didier.

Like other light-rail systems, Seattle’s operates on an “honor system,” meaning people are expected to pay before they board, but there are no turnstiles to keep them from boarding if they don’t pay. Like other light-rail systems, Seattle’s used to have “fare inspectors” who would hand out tickets to people who didn’t have proof of payment. But then someone pointed out that minorities were getting most of the tickets (maybe because they were most likely to not pay?), so this was deemed inequitable.

Now Sound Transit has what it calls “fare ambassadors,” and not very many of them. Only 2 percent of riders meet them. When they do, the ambassadors ask for proof of payment. If they don’t have proof, the ambassadors ask for idenfication. If they provide ID, the ambassadors give up.

That means Sound Transit doesn’t receive the fare revenues it expected to use to help run the system. But it also means that potential criminals learn they can run rampant on light rail with impunity. On March 2, a woman was brutally attacked at a light-rail station. Someone else was shot dead near a light-rail station on March 24. Two people have been murdered at just one light-rail station since last June.

Sound Transit is in denial about the problem, saying that “data shows an overall safe environment” on its light-rail lines. In fact, as I recently showed here, light-rail riders are more likely to be victims of crimes than any other transit riders, probably because light rail has the least fare enforcement. It’s time for Sound Transit to install turnstiles around every light-rail stop.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

6 Responses to 70% of Seattle Light-Rail Riders Don’t Pay

  1. Paul says:

    The San Francisco BART system has a similar problem with unpaid fares. Depending on the reference, 5-15% of riders don’t pay,
    https://abc7news.com/public-transportation-bart-commute-bay-area-commuters/5363888/

    and those that are caught don’t pay the fine. https://www.kron4.com/news/thousands-cited-for-evading-bart-fares-but-majority-dont-pay-fine/

    new fare gates but expensive. $90 million for 600 gates is $150,000 each!! https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/fare-gate

    I seem to recall that crime decreased on the New York subway system when they installed gates that could not be jumped over.

  2. rovingbroker says:

    The system assumes most riders are honest.

    Most people are honest; buy (and keep loaded) the necessary fare cards; and the cost of enforcement is greater than the cost of free riders. This attitude is further supported by the fact that the variable cost of one-more-rider is zero … up until the number of non-payers grows big. Or until a non-payer shoots someone.

  3. kx1781 says:

    rovingbroker, most people are honest most all of the time.

    The trick is that we rationalize doing things.

    There’s likely a large cohort of those not paying who see themselves as being honest. The rationalization is that they pay a lot of taxes. So they’ve essentially already paid for the trip. Beside, what difference does a couple bucks make, eh?

  4. kx1781 says:

    Paul, IMHO the issue isn’t so much that gates and turnstiles have a cost so much as the agencies don’t have the money for this stuff. A lot of capital is needed to configure stations + install gates to ensure nearly everyone has a ticket + has paid.

    But when the project is coming in 50% – 100% over cost those would be the sort of things to cut. You can still get things built, you’re just rolling the dice on how much of a problem it will be.

    I think in most cases, the cost pressures are such they never make it into the plans.

    IIRC Denver is installing turnstiles at Union Station to try to cut down on crime. That’ll be interesting to see if that does anything for long. At best is seems like the problem will just move a stop up or down a line from there. Maybe that’ll help as long as most people only see the crap from the train, rather than have to dodge it while walking.

  5. PlinySnodgrass says:

    Riders should pay the full cost of their ride. But they don’t, even when they pay a fare. However, people are taxed good and hard for these boondoggles, and if I were going to ride transit ever again, I’d make my best effort to avoid giving the government any more money. Because eff them.

  6. LazyReader says:

    What fares do is rationalize incentive and incentivize rationality. It establishes that people want free S*** without having to pay.

    They want transit, Why not ride a bus
    “I’m not gonna ride a bus”
    Well I’m sorry you think you’re entitled to a specific standard just because you don’t wanna drive.

    When people suggest “Rail transit” they forget just how many daily riders it needs in order to make it viable but economically sufficient.

    Light rails problems are it had no confirmed identity. It was conceived in the 70s and 80s as an economical alternative to heavy rail like metro and subways. Because they were at street level, no tunnels or elevated sections were needed to be built.. As the decades progressed…..they became as expensive as the original trains they were supposed to be superior to.

    Light rail is billed as excellent for commuting. But compared to commuter trains in Europe are pathetic. Real commuter trains can go 70-100 mph. Light rail seldom goes 40.

    Light rail goes to tourist attractions and glitzy neighborhoods…hence why it attracts few daily riders.
    As a residential mover system its equally useless. Many light rails often link to neighborhoods and tourist attractions and a few population mass centers like sports stadiums and civic centers. Because train lengths are determined by city block size it can only move 20,000 people an hour. Also it doesn’t connect to but a few daily usage centers like grocery or shopping.

    So light rail is largely paradoxical…. it’s not effective urban rail because it’s not a heavy job connector. Its not a good daily rider because it carries too few and seldom connects to daily locations. And it’s a terrible commuter train because it’s slower than watching paint dry.

Leave a Reply