During a typical week, how often do you ride the following types of transit?
King County Metro Transit buses - five or more days a week
Sound Transit Link light rail service - three or four days a week
Sound Transit Sounder service - never
Sound Transit Regional Express bus service - never
Bus service provided in a county that borders King County (e.g. Community Transit, Pierce Transit, or Kitsap Transit) - never
King County Water Taxi - never
Washington State Ferries - never
Seattle Streetcar - less than once a week
Metro Access paratransit - never
Metro Vanpool or Vanshare - never
Private employer-provided shuttle (example: Microsoft Connector) - never
If you use transit, for what purpose(s) do you ride public transportation? (Check all that apply)
To/from work
To/from volunteering
To/from shopping or errands
To/from appointments
To/from special events
When you use public transportation how do you pay your fare:
ORCA card
What type of ORCA product do you have?
ORCA Monthly Pass that I pay for
How do you usually purchase your pass or put money in your e-purse?
Ticket vending machine
How easy to understand are Metro’s fares?
Difficult
How easy is it to pay your fare?
Very easy
How satisfied are you with your ability to pay your fare when transferring between different agency’s services?
Satisfied
How confident are you that you are paying your fare in a way that is most affordable to you?
Very confident
Is the cost to ride affordable for you?
Yes
Why?
I have an RRFP.
How aware are you of the following Metro reduced fare options and programs?
Regional Reduced Fare Permit for people 65 and older or people with disabilities - very aware
Youth fare for children ages 6-18 (children age 5 and under ride for free) - very aware
ORCA LIFT reduced fare for income-qualified adults - very aware
Metro’s Human Service Ticket Program, which sells discounted bus tickets to participating human and social service agencies to provide to their clients - very aware
What one thing would you suggest to improve Metro’s fare payment system?
integration between agencies
Which of these policies do you think are most important? You've got 10 dots to 'spend' on the options below.
Make Metro’s fares easier to understand and pay. (1)
Make Metro’s fares more consistent with those for Sound Transit buses, Link light rail, and Seattle Streetcar. (3)
Make boarding faster. (1)
Increase ridership. (1)
Improve affordability for low-income customers. (4)
How did you hear about this survey? (check all that apply)
Facebook
An organization I'm involved with
The notice to learn more and participate was clear and welcoming:
Somewhat agree
Do you feel you were notified in time to provide meaningful feedback?
Yes
Please share any additional feedback you have about our outreach.
The premises on which current fares are based are either outdated or have become less important than other priorities over the years. For a long time I was a strong supporter of distance-based fares like Sounder and Link have. But our demographics have shifted. In the US today, suburbs are now poorer than cities. What's happening in the Seattle area is that, since people can't buy their way out of long, unreliable trips directly (except for the few roadways with tolls like 520); they are doing it through housing choices. Those with money are buying expensive homes in places with good transit and walkability--and which give them better commutes to work in particular. The suburbs are comprised largely of lower income people forced there by skyrocketing rents and home prices in the urban core. The premise of distance-based fares is that you charge more for those using more service, and incentivize people to choose shorter trips. From a transportation perspective, that makes sense. But the people taking longer trips mostly don't have much alternative anymore. So the effect of distance-based fares today is not to rationalize transportation behavior, but to impose greater costs on poorer people. The same is true of peak surcharges. It's wealthier, professional workers who have options like alternative locations, schedules (shifted hours or days), and telecommuting; lower paid workers have less choice over when and where they work. Peak surcharges don't affect their choices; they just impose more costs on people less able to afford them. At the same time, it's those white collar workers who are most likely to have their fares partly or totally subsidized by their employers, so they don't pay attention to fares or feel their effects. That also undermines the premise of using incentives and disincentives in the fare structure to influence behavior.
I have both an ORCA Lift card and an RRFP. It seems clear to me that the real purposes of senior, youth, and disability fares--like ORCA Lift--are social justice and economic fairness. Age and disability aren't really the issue; they're used as proxies for poverty or other disadvantages. So in the interests of simplification, I suggest eliminating the peak and zone surcharges along with senior, disabled, and youth fares. We can and should switch entirely to a fare structure based on income. Income and wealth inequality and stratification have exploded in the US over the last 45 years, and that is the big, important difference between riders. ORCA Lift already has a good infrastructure in place for verifying incomes with the upper limit of 200% of the federal poverty line. With the Affordable Care Act, we also have the data on people with incomes up to 400% of the poverty line, because that is the upper limit for receiving subsidies to buy health insurance on the exchanges. Furthermore, it is already King County running both transit service and the health department. Let's build on what we already have. We can establish a few simple income bands and apply fares progressively to each. Everyone has to tap their ORCA card (which need to be free or at least use a fully refundable fee), but they're charged different amounts based on their income category. Let people below the poverty line ride free. People 100-200% of FPL pay $1. People 200-300% of FPL pay $2. People 300-400% FPL pay $3. People above 400% FPL, or who haven't verified their incomes, pay $4. Transfers remain free and good for 2 hours (payment method shouldn't matter). This would be much simpler AND much fairer than the current fare structure.
We also need a day pass with a far more realistic price and terms, and we need some combination of 3, 7, and 10-day unlimited passes for tourists and others. Simplifying the underlying fare structure should also result in simpler fares for monthly passes, which are way too confusing for tourists now (one asked me recently at Westlake and couldn't figure out what to buy, nor could I adequately help her).
The existing balkanization between agencies, services/modes, and geographies is confusing, inconsistent, and unnecessary. As a transit junkie, it has been a real obstacle to getting people to try transit in the region. I know Metro, PT, CT, ET, and ST are different agencies with different service areas, political constituencies, histories, priorities, and governments. But the rider experience must be as seamless as possible, and we should be able to have a single unified fare structure across 3-4 counties. Paris manages to do it even though the RATP and SNCF run different services. That division is transparent to riders; they are the model to emulate.
I understand and support the shifts from cash/paper to smart cards, and to off-board payment or proof of payment. We should continue that. But the various surcharges and fare categories just don't make sense anymore, and we can finally simplify transit fares while making them fairer at the same time.
“Distance-based fares make sense from a commuter rail point of view where you are thinking about length of service and paying more for traveling further,” Orcutt said. “But if you’re really trying to get everybody to use transit, and you also are facing a dynamic where cities are becoming more European-like, where the richer people are living closer to the center, [a flat fare] is really something to think about in any city.” http://wamu.org/story/17/04/04/can-2-flat-fare-save-metro/#.WOSVy6LYOIU.facebook
King County Connects is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in King County Connects is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Translate
During a typical week, how often do you ride the following types of transit?
If you use transit, for what purpose(s) do you ride public transportation? (Check all that apply)
When you use public transportation how do you pay your fare:
What type of ORCA product do you have?
How do you usually purchase your pass or put money in your e-purse?
How easy to understand are Metro’s fares?
How easy is it to pay your fare?
How satisfied are you with your ability to pay your fare when transferring between different agency’s services?
How confident are you that you are paying your fare in a way that is most affordable to you?
Is the cost to ride affordable for you?
Why?
I have an RRFP.
How aware are you of the following Metro reduced fare options and programs?
What one thing would you suggest to improve Metro’s fare payment system?
integration between agencies
Which of these policies do you think are most important? You've got 10 dots to 'spend' on the options below.
How did you hear about this survey? (check all that apply)
The notice to learn more and participate was clear and welcoming:
Do you feel you were notified in time to provide meaningful feedback?
Please share any additional feedback you have about our outreach.
The premises on which current fares are based are either outdated or have become less important than other priorities over the years. For a long time I was a strong supporter of distance-based fares like Sounder and Link have. But our demographics have shifted. In the US today, suburbs are now poorer than cities. What's happening in the Seattle area is that, since people can't buy their way out of long, unreliable trips directly (except for the few roadways with tolls like 520); they are doing it through housing choices. Those with money are buying expensive homes in places with good transit and walkability--and which give them better commutes to work in particular. The suburbs are comprised largely of lower income people forced there by skyrocketing rents and home prices in the urban core. The premise of distance-based fares is that you charge more for those using more service, and incentivize people to choose shorter trips. From a transportation perspective, that makes sense. But the people taking longer trips mostly don't have much alternative anymore. So the effect of distance-based fares today is not to rationalize transportation behavior, but to impose greater costs on poorer people. The same is true of peak surcharges. It's wealthier, professional workers who have options like alternative locations, schedules (shifted hours or days), and telecommuting; lower paid workers have less choice over when and where they work. Peak surcharges don't affect their choices; they just impose more costs on people less able to afford them. At the same time, it's those white collar workers who are most likely to have their fares partly or totally subsidized by their employers, so they don't pay attention to fares or feel their effects. That also undermines the premise of using incentives and disincentives in the fare structure to influence behavior.
I have both an ORCA Lift card and an RRFP. It seems clear to me that the real purposes of senior, youth, and disability fares--like ORCA Lift--are social justice and economic fairness. Age and disability aren't really the issue; they're used as proxies for poverty or other disadvantages. So in the interests of simplification, I suggest eliminating the peak and zone surcharges along with senior, disabled, and youth fares. We can and should switch entirely to a fare structure based on income. Income and wealth inequality and stratification have exploded in the US over the last 45 years, and that is the big, important difference between riders. ORCA Lift already has a good infrastructure in place for verifying incomes with the upper limit of 200% of the federal poverty line. With the Affordable Care Act, we also have the data on people with incomes up to 400% of the poverty line, because that is the upper limit for receiving subsidies to buy health insurance on the exchanges. Furthermore, it is already King County running both transit service and the health department. Let's build on what we already have. We can establish a few simple income bands and apply fares progressively to each. Everyone has to tap their ORCA card (which need to be free or at least use a fully refundable fee), but they're charged different amounts based on their income category. Let people below the poverty line ride free. People 100-200% of FPL pay $1. People 200-300% of FPL pay $2. People 300-400% FPL pay $3. People above 400% FPL, or who haven't verified their incomes, pay $4. Transfers remain free and good for 2 hours (payment method shouldn't matter). This would be much simpler AND much fairer than the current fare structure.
We also need a day pass with a far more realistic price and terms, and we need some combination of 3, 7, and 10-day unlimited passes for tourists and others. Simplifying the underlying fare structure should also result in simpler fares for monthly passes, which are way too confusing for tourists now (one asked me recently at Westlake and couldn't figure out what to buy, nor could I adequately help her).
The existing balkanization between agencies, services/modes, and geographies is confusing, inconsistent, and unnecessary. As a transit junkie, it has been a real obstacle to getting people to try transit in the region. I know Metro, PT, CT, ET, and ST are different agencies with different service areas, political constituencies, histories, priorities, and governments. But the rider experience must be as seamless as possible, and we should be able to have a single unified fare structure across 3-4 counties. Paris manages to do it even though the RATP and SNCF run different services. That division is transparent to riders; they are the model to emulate.
I understand and support the shifts from cash/paper to smart cards, and to off-board payment or proof of payment. We should continue that. But the various surcharges and fare categories just don't make sense anymore, and we can finally simplify transit fares while making them fairer at the same time.
“Distance-based fares make sense from a commuter rail point of view where you are thinking about length of service and paying more for traveling further,” Orcutt said. “But if you’re really trying to get everybody to use transit, and you also are facing a dynamic where cities are becoming more European-like, where the richer people are living closer to the center, [a flat fare] is really something to think about in any city.” http://wamu.org/story/17/04/04/can-2-flat-fare-save-metro/#.WOSVy6LYOIU.facebook