There's an interesting discussion underway at Seattle Transit Blog about Sound Transit's proposed fare structure for Link Light Rail, which would require people who take longer trips to pay more. The proposal is aimed at getting 52 percent "farebox recovery"— the amount of operating costs that are paid for by fares alone.
Fifty-two percent is an ambitious goal; current farebox recovery for Metro hovers around 21 percent, which is pretty typical. The base fare would be either $2.00 or $1.75, depending on whether Sound Transit participated in the downtown ride-free zone, plus five cents a mile (rounded to the nearest quarter, for fares of $2.00, $2.25, etc.) The most expensive fares would be $2.75 under the higher fare schedule, or $2.50 for the lower base rate. The only way to transfer from Metro to Sound Transit or vice versa will be to use the ORCA smart card, a long-delayed regionwide payment system that has been plagued by technological and implementation kinks. Everyone else will have to pay twice.
The comments at STB are mostly along four lines: 1) The ORCA system is incredibly confusing, and forcing people to use it seems unfair; 2) Requiring to pay more for longer trips is fair because they chose to live far from where they work; 3) Forcing people to pay more for longer trips is unfair because if they weren't riding light rail they'd be driving on roads that cost more to maintain, and light rail is supposed to serve the working class; 4) Park-and-ride drivers should pay more; and 5) The proposed fares are too high and should be cheaper or free.
A few additional thoughts:
1) Penalizing riders for not using ORCA seems a bit premature. Drivers seem unclear on how to use the system, and initial rollout isn't expected until later this year. In the meantime, it's completely unfamiliar to all but a handful of riders who participated in a test run two years ago (and nearly impossible to find anything out about online).
2) Making longer trips more expensive is fair, up to a point. Transit systems do this already, through zone-based pricing. But broad-brush, by-the-mile fare increases do disproportionately impact people who live in places like Rainier Beach, Othello and Columbia City—all of which are, or are becoming, fairly dense, urban areas despite their distance from downtown.
For example, folks who live in Rainier Beach can access only one stop—the Othello station, one stop away—for the lowest fare. All other trips cost a quarter to fifty cents more. Similarly, people who live at the Othello stop can go to Columbia City or Rainier Beach for the lowest fare, but must pay more to go any further away. Those who live closer to downtown can go several more stops before their fares go up. Given that most people aren't commuting from Rainier Beach to Othello, the vast majority of South Enders will probably end up paying more than those closer in. Is that fair? Maybe; but I would hardly call Columbia City the suburbs, and development around the Othello Station will eventually be as dense as anywhere in the city.
3) Sound Transit's downtown conundrum could be solved once and for all if Metro would simply eliminate the Ride Free Zone. Currently, the city subsidizes Ride Free for Metro only; if Sound Transit decides to participate, it will have to increase fares elsewhere to pay for it. Getting rid of Ride Free across the board would solve that problem; and it would improve trip reliability by making fare payment consistent across the city (no more confusion, fumbling for transfers after you've already paid once, or waiting for passengers to fight their way to the front of the bus in "pay as you leave" zones.)
