Metropolitan King County Council
Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item:

6

Name:

Leah Krekel-Zoppi

Proposed No.:

2017-0350.2

Date:

October 31, 2017

SUBJECT
An ordinance that would eliminate zone and peak fare differentials in Metro Transit
fares.
SUMMARY
The King County Executive has transmitted a package of fare-related ordinances and
motions that would make the following changes to Metro Transit fares:




Eliminate zone and peak price differentials to create a flat adult fare of $2.75;
Increase the cap on the Human Services Ticket Program;
Allow for elimination of the $3 fee for Regional Reduced Fare Permits and for
reduction of the ORCA card fee from $5 to $3.

Proposed Ordinance 2017-0350 would establish a $2.75 flat adult fare that would take
effect on July 1, 2018, raising fares by $0.25 for off-peak trips and reducing fares by
$0.50 for two-zone peak trips. Fares for youth, seniors, people with disabilities, and
those making less than 200 percent of the poverty limit would not change.
The proposal is projected to produce a net revenue increase of $3.5 million in 2020.
Subtracting the costs associated with the other components in the fare package would
yield a projected net revenue increase of $2.3 million in 2020.
Metro staff state that the proposed fare change would make adult fares easier to
understand and more affordable for non-discounted adults traveling across current zone
boundaries during the peak, but acknowledge that the new fare would be less affordable
for non-discounted adults traveling during the off-peak.
On September 27, 2017, the Regional Transit Committee passed this proposed
ordinance out of committee with a “Do Pass” recommendation. The ordinance was
amended in committee with Amendment 1 to replace the transmitted Title VI Analysis
with a corrected Title VI Analysis.

 The Transportation, Economy, and Environment Committee discussed the proposed
ordinance at the October 3, 2017 meeting.

 BACKGROUND
King County Metro Fare Structure and Policies
King County Metro’s fares are adopted by the King County Council and established in King
County Code section 4A.700.010. The current fare categories include regular off-peak,
regular one-zone peak, regular two-zone peak, child, youth, senior and persons with
disabilities, and low-income. Regional and institutional passes are also available.
The policy framework for these fare structures and rules is established by the Strategic Plan
for Public Transportation 2011-2021, which was adopted by the Regional Transit Committee
and King County Council in 2011 1 and updated in 20162. Strategy 6.3.2 is to: “Establish fare
structures and fare levels that are simple to understand, aligned with other service providers,
and meet revenue targets established by Metro’s fund management policies.” Metro’s Fund
Management Policies call for a farebox recovery ratio of at least 25 percent, with a target of
30 percent. The Fund Management Policies also call for achieving fare parity, defined as a
one to one ratio, between the Access fare and adult off-peak fare over time.
History of Metro’s Fares3
Metro service began in 1973 and fares were charged based on the number of zones crossed
in a system of 38 fare zones. In 1977, the zones were simplified to from 38 to 2, with the
Seattle city limits as the zone boundary. These same two zones continue to be used today. In
1999, the two-zone surcharge was eliminated in the off-peak to simplify fares.
In 1982, a peak surcharge was added in order to shift demand towards off-peak hours. It was
later eliminated for youth passengers in 1993. It was added to the senior and persons with
disabilities fare in 2001 and eliminated again in 2008.
Since 2000, adult fares have been increased by $0.25 in 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and
2015.4 In 2017, the adult fare is $2.50 off-peak, $2.75 one-zone peak, and $3.25 two-zone
peak.
Fare Change Outreach and Proposals
A series of Regional Fare Forums5 were convened in 2016 to discuss regional fare
coordination and simplification in advance of designing the Next Generation ORCA system.
The premise of these conversations was that current agency fare structures increase the
complexities and costs of designing Next Generation ORCA. Concepts for simplifying and
innovating fares were discussed, including:
• Eliminating zones
1 Ordinance 17143
2 Ordinance 18301
3 Summarized from Metro handout “Metro bus fares over time”
4 Fares increased frequently between 2008 and 2011 during the Great Recession at a time
when Metro experienced significant revenue shortfalls necessitating service cuts.
5 The forums took place in September, October, and December 2016. King County’s representatives atthese
forums were Councilmembers Rod Dembowski and Claudia Balducci.

 • Eliminating trip-based peak
• Fare capping6
The Regional Fare Forum Summary Report was issued on March 9, 2017. The report
included recommendations to eliminate zone-based fares, eliminate trip-based peak fares,
and not to pursue fare capping in the initial design phase.
Building on the recommendations of the Regional Fare Forum, Metro conducted public
outreach on fares between March and June 2017, with the premise that “Metro’s fares are
complex” and “Metro is exploring ways to simplify our fare structure.” 7 Metro’s outreach efforts
included convening a stakeholder advisory group 8; conducting two online public surveys;
gathering customer input through street teams and two public meetings; and targeting
outreach to business account customers, difficult to reach populations such as English
language learners, and other interested groups. Metro received more than 12,000 comments
from these outreach efforts. The Public Engagement Report is Attachment C to the proposed
ordinance.
The initial fare change options offered for consideration to the stakeholder advisory group
were:






$2.50 flat fare
$2.75 flat fare
Local and express fares
Off-peak/peak fare of $2.50/$2.75
Off-peak/peak fare of $2.50/$3.00

The stakeholder advisory group helped narrow the options to those that they determined
preserved Metro’s fare revenues and were simpler to understand. The committee also
discussed ways to mitigate the impacts of these potential changes and address overall
affordability and access barriers.
The two options that emerged from the stakeholder advisory committee and were taken to the
public were:
 $2.75 flat fare
 Off-peak/peak fare of $2.50/$3.00
According to Metro staff, the majority of the public input favored the $2.75 flat fare.
6 Fare capping would allow customers to be charged per trip up to defined daily or monthly
maximum value, and after the maximum value is reached, no longer be charged for
subsequent trips during the defined time period.
7 Quotations from the introductory text of public surveys.
8 The Fare Review Advisory Group was made up of representatives from the King County
Transit Advisory Commission, University of Washington, Urban League of Metropolitan
Seattle, Bellevue Downtown Association, Sound Generations, Public Health – Seattle King
County, Transportation Choices Coalition, Alliance of People with disAbilities, Catholic
Community Services of King County, Transit Riders Union, International Community Health
Services, Rainier Beach Action Coalition, Microsoft, Seattle Central College, and Commute
Seattle.

 Proposed Ordinance 2017-0350 would implement a $2.75 flat fare and eliminate the adult
peak and zone fare categories. The new fare would take effect July 1, 2018.
Other Components of the Fare Change Package
This proposed ordinance is part of a package of transit fare-related legislation proposed by
the Executive. The other components of the fare change package include:







Proposed Motion 2017-0351 would accept a report on very-low-income fare options,
recommending an increase in the cap on the Human Services Ticket Program, a pilot
of using ORCA products in the Human Services Ticket Program, and further research
on the needs of very-low-income residents;
Proposed Ordinance 2017-0352 would increase the annual cap on the subsidy for the
Human Services Ticket Program by $400,000 to $4 million;
Proposed Motion 2017-0353 would accept a report on options to eliminate the ORCA
card fee, recommending elimination of the $3 fee for Regional Reduced Fare Permits
(available to seniors over age 65 and people with disabilities) and working with regional
partners to reduce the ORCA card fee from $5 to $3;
Proposed Ordinance 2017-0354 would allow for elimination of the $3 fee for Regional
Reduced Fare Permits.

The proposed ordinances were referred to both the Regional Transit Committee and the
Transportation, Economy, and Environment Committee. The proposed motions are in
response to Council provisos in the 2017-2018 budget and were referred to the
Transportation, Economy, and Environment Committee as directed by the proviso language.
The proposals rely on revenues generated by Proposed Ordinance 2017-0350 to offset the
costs associated with them.
On September 27, 2017, Proposed Substitute Ordinance 2017-0350.2 passed out of the
Regional Transit Committee with a “Do Pass” recommendation. The ordinance was amended
in committee with Amendment 1 to replace the transmitted Title VI Analysis with a corrected
Title VI Analysis. Proposed Ordinances 2017-0352 and 2017-0354 also passed out of the
Regional Transit Committee with “Do Pass” recommendation.
Next Generation ORCA
The timing for assessing potential fare changes is, in part, driven by the Next Generation
ORCA project. King County is one of seven regional transit agencies 9 that partnered on a
smart card technology that established a common, noncash fare system throughout the
regional participants’ service areas, called One Regional Card for All (ORCA).
An ORCA card allows users to purchase electronic daily or monthly passes for unlimited
rides, or load value on an E-purse that works like a debit card to deduct the cost of individual
9 The ORCA system includes King County Metro, Community Transit (Snohomish County),
Everett Transit, Kitsap Transit, Washington State Ferry System, Sound Transit, and Pierce
Transit.

 trips. The card is valid on transit services within all the ORCA partner agencies 10 and allows
for free transfers between services (except Washington State Ferries) within a two-hour
window. Qualified ORCA users can obtain reduced fares through the Regional Reduced Fare
Permit for seniors and disabled riders, youth fare, and ORCA LIFT for low income riders.
The ORCA system was deployed in 2009. Currently, the technology and hardware behind the
ORCA system is becoming outdated, and the contract with the vendor that operates and
maintains the ORCA system software and hardware ends in 2022. Planning for a replacement
system, called Next Generation ORCA, began in 2015. Currently, preliminary design and
contract procurement is underway for the various aspects of the next generation system.
System design is scheduled to begin in 2018. To inform design of the ORCA replacement
project, the regional project team has indicated that it would be desirable to receive agency
direction on fare structure changes by December 2017.
Non-mandatory Referral
This proposed ordinance was given a dual referral first to the Regional Transit Committee and
then to the Transportation, Economy, and Environment Committee. This is a non-mandatory
referral to the Regional Transit Committee under KCC 1.24.065.I as an issue that is not a
countywide policy or plan but would benefit from interjurisdictional discussion.
This type of regional committee analysis and comment is not subject to the mandatory
procedural requirements of Section 270.30 of the King County Charter, and the County
Council may need to act on such issues before comment from the regional committee.
ANALYSIS
Rider Impacts
The proposed changes to Metro’s fare structure would primarily affect full-fare paying adults
who do not have a transit pass subsidized by their employer, college or university, or housing
manager. These full-fare paying adults would see different impacts depending on the time of
day they are traveling and where they are traveling. Riders eligible for discounts, including
children and youth through age 18, seniors and persons with disabilities who have a regional
reduced fare permit (RRFP), and adults with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level 11,
would not see any change to their fares under the proposal. Table 1 below shows the various
impacts to riders.

10 Some ORCA cards provided by institutions are limited to use on certain agencies or
services.
11 Maximum monthly income to qualify by household size: 1-$2,010, 2-$2,707, 3-$3,403, 4$4,100, 5-$4,797, 6-$5,493, 7-$6,190, 8-$6,887

 Table 1. Rider Impacts of Proposed Fare Change
Current
Fare
13
Adult riding off-peak
$2.50
Adult riding one zone14 peak
$2.75
Adult riding two zone peak
$3.25
Child age 5 and under
$0
Youth age 6-18
$1.50
Senior and person with disability
$1.00
with a RRFP
Adult earning less than 200% of
$1.50
poverty level

Proposed
Change
+ .25
No change
- .50

% of
Boardings12
35%
28%
6%

No change

31%

As the table shows, the largest percentage of riders, totaling 59 percent of boardings, would
experience no change as a result of the proposal. Adults traveling off-peak, who make up 35
percent of Metro’s boardings, would experience an increase in fares. Adults traveling two
zones during the peak, who make up six percent of Metro’s boardings, would experience a
decrease in fares as a result of the proposal.
The proposal would not change fares on Access, Metro’s ADA 15 paratransit service for people
with disabilities who are unable to use fixed route transit services. However, Metro’s fund
management policies call for achieving parity between Access fares and adult off-peak fares
over time, so the proposed increase in adult off-peak fares would raise the parity target for
Access fares. Historically, however, policymakers have chosen to increase Access fares in a
similar increment and timeframe as adult fares rather than by the larger or more frequent
increases that would be needed to achieve parity.
Of the 35 percent of Metro boardings that would experience a fare increase under the
proposal, 60 percent of those boardings are paid for directly by the customer, which
represents 21 percent of Metro’s total boardings. The other 40 percent of off-peak full-fare
boardings are paid for by business accounts.
To understand the demographics of riders who would be most negatively affected by the
proposed change, Metro analyzed the sub-category of riders who identified themselves in
Metro’s 2015 Rider/Non-rider survey16 as adults riding only during the off-peak and paying
12 Based on estimates of Metro’s 2016 ORCA and cash ridership data.
13 Off-peak is defined by Metro as 9 a.m.-3 p.m. and 6 p.m. – 6 a.m.
14 Metro defines the two zones according to the Seattle city limits. Travel that does not cross
the zone boundary is “one-zone” while travel that crosses the zone boundary is “two-zone”
15 Americans with Disabilities Act
16 This survey is designed to statistically valid and representative of the county population

 their own fares, rather than using a subsidized pass. While the sample size 17 may be too
small to be statistically valid, it provides an idea of the possible demographics of those most
affected by the increase in the off-peak fare. The off-peak only unsubsidized adults surveyed
were generally higher income, younger, and of similar racial mix than all riders surveyed.
Full-fare paying adults who board during both the peak and off-peak would experience higher
fares for some but not all of their boardings. Examining the demographics of those riders
surveyed in Metro’s 2015 Rider/Non-rider survey, again representing a sample size that may
be too small to be statically valid, they were generally of more middle income, younger, and
slightly more racially diverse than all riders surveyed.
Employer impacts
Metro has a number of programs that allow employers, universities and colleges, and
multifamily housing managers to purchase passes for their employers, students, and
residents. According to Metro, these programs, called Passport, U-Pass 18, and Business
Choice, are used to pay for 32 percent of all of Metro’s boardings. Transit passes provided by
these programs can be either fully or partially subsidized by the employer or institution, with
any remaining portion of the cost paid by the pass holder.
Costs through the Business Choice program are the same as those for retail customers, so
the fare change would have the same impact on participating employers as other full-fare
riders. Costs for Passport and U-Pass participants are charged based on a weighted average
fare per trip19. Metro estimates the impact on passport customers from the proposal would be
minimal, an average decrease of approximately 1 percent in the cost per trip. The U-Pass
Program is estimated to experience an increase of approximately 4 percent in the cost per
trip, due to the higher percentage of U-Pass participants who make off-peak transit trips.
Of the Business Choice and Passport employer representatives who responded to Metro’s
survey about the proposed change, 67 percent indicated they thought the proposal would
make it easier to manage their transportation benefit account. Asked by Metro whether the
proposal would increase their participation in providing transportation benefits to employees,
48 percent of respondents were neutral, 35 percent agreed, and 18 percent disagreed.

17 60 people out of 1025 riders surveyed identified themselves as off-peak only full-fare
adults paying their own fare
18 Provided to students and employees of the University of Washington
19 According to Metro, the weighted average fare per trip is determined by the ratio of offpeak, one-zone peak, two-zone peak, water taxi, and Seattle Streetcar trips taken with ORCA
passport cards, multiplied by a weighted transfer rate. The weighted average fare per trip for
the U-Pass and youth school programs also considers youth fares.

 Human Services Provider Impacts
Metro’s Human Services Ticket Program allows human services providers to purchase transit
tickets at 10 percent of face value, which agencies can then provide to their clients to use as
transit fare. The program is currently capped at a total annual subsidy of $3.6 million. In 2016,
44 percent of the tickets agencies purchased were $2.50 face value off-peak tickets, while 13
percent were $3.25 face value two-zone peak tickets. If the $2.75 flat fare had been in effect
in 2016, it would have cost human services agencies an additional $7,000 annually 20. The
proposal would, however, simplify agencies’ decisions about which tickets to purchase.
To help mitigate the impact the increased off-peak cost would have on human services
clients, Metro is also proposing to increase the cap on the Human Services Ticket Program by
$400,000 (Proposed Ordinance 2017-0352) so that human services agencies with additional
funds available would be able to provide a greater number of tickets to their clients than under
current conditions. Additionally, effective in 2017, the King County Council reduced the
subsidized price charged to human services agencies from 20 percent of face value to 10
percent of face value, doubling agencies’ buying power 21.
Ridership Impacts
Metro’s fare model projects the proposed fare change would reduce ridership by 400,000
annual boardings, which would represent a negligible change of -0.3 percent in annual
boardings.
Equity and Social Justice Impacts
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires transit agencies to evaluate service and
fare changes for Title VI impacts to determine whether they would result in disparate impacts
on the basis of race, color, or national origin. FTA also requires transit providers to evaluate
the effects of fare changes on low-income populations. The Title VI report is Attachment B to
Proposed Ordinance 2017-0350.
Metro uses census tract demographics and boardings to classify routes as low-income,
minority, or both based on whether they have a higher percentage of boardings from census
tracts with above the county average of low-income, minority, or both populations. Note that

20 This amount has been corrected from the staff report dated October 3, 2017, which stated
costs would have been $14,000 higher. The corrected figure accounts for the reduction of
human services agencies ticket costs from 20 percent to 10 percent of retail value, which
went into effect January 1, 2017.
21 Ordinance 18399

 the Title VI analysis attached to the proposed ordinance contains an error in the map showing
Metro’s low-income and minority routes. Amendment 1 would correct the error.
Metro’s Title VI equity analysis compared impact the fare proposal would have on the average
non-subsidized adult fare that would be paid on low-income and non-low-income, and
minority and non-minority routes. Table 2 shows the results of that analysis.
Table 2. Impact of Fare Proposal on Low-Income and Minority Routes
Average non-subsidized Low-income
Not low-income Minority
adult fare
routes
routes
routes
Current
$2.68
$2.66
$2.70
Proposed
$2.75
$2.75
$2.75

Not minority
routes
$2.65
$2.75

The table shows that because average fares would not increase more on low-income and
minority routes than on Metro’s other routes, Metro’s Title VI analysis determined the fare
proposal would not have a disparate impact on minority or low-income riders. However, it also
shows that under the proposal, average non-subsidized adult fares would increase for lowincome and minority routes, potentially affecting the affordability for the non-subsidized adult
riders who are most price sensitive. Note that low-income adults are eligible for the ORCA
LIFT card with a flat $1.50 fare if their income is 200 percent or less of the federal poverty
level, provided that they complete the application process.
In Metro’s online survey about the fare change proposal, 70 percent of respondents
considered a $2.75 flat fare affordable, while 14 percent of respondents did not. 22
In conducting outreach about the fare proposal, Metro sought feedback from customers and
community representatives about how to address potential barriers for those who may be
adversely impacted by the fare change proposal. Included in the fare change legislation
package are proposals to decrease the ORCA card fee from $5 to $3, eliminate the fee for the
Regional Reduced Fare Permit, and increase the cap on the total annual subsidy for the
Human Services Ticket Program. Reducing ORCA card fees would save customers $2-3 in
costs and reduce a potential barrier to obtaining cost saving benefits from ORCA, such as
free or lower cost transfers between different transit systems and access to senior and
disability discounts. Increasing the cap on the Human Services Ticket Program would
increase the number of discounted tickets available for human services agencies to provide to
clients.

22 A significantly higher number of respondents did not consider a $2.50 off-peak/$3.00 peak
fare affordable. In a previous survey, six percentage of respondents stated they do not
consider current fares affordable.

 Table 3 shows other strategies for addressing affordability that arose during fares outreach
discusses, and Metro’s plans for considering them.
Table 3. Strategies for addressing transit affordability
Strategy
Increasing ORCA LIFT
enrollment
Providing a free youth fare
with each purchase of an
adult fare
Raising the income level to
qualify for ORCA LIFT

Expanding the ORCA
transfer window

Creating a student fare for
college/university enrollees

Status
Metro is working on new partnerships with institutions that provide
services to people with low incomes and on translating ORCA LIFT
materials into more languages. Additional strategies may be
considered as part of Phase 2 of Metro’s fares work program.
Metro will be doing further research about customer needs related
to youth fares as part of Phase 2 of the fares work program.
Metro will be doing further research about customer needs related
to the needs of customers at various income levels as part of Phase
2 of the fares work program. The current income qualification level
helps simplify enrollment because it aligns with other benefit
programs.
Phase 2 of the fares work program will evaluate possible changes
to the transfer policy. The current transfer window aligns with other
ORCA agencies.
Metro has been increasing ORCA LIFT outreach and enrollment
events at colleges and universities and is working with interested
schools on pass programs within the current ORCA fare structure.
Phase 2 of the fares work program will consider options to address
the needs of college students.

Financial Impacts
Revenue
Fares represent Metro’s second largest source of revenue, after sales tax receipts. According
to Metro, Metro collected $162 million in fare revenue in 2016, representing 31 percent of
Metro’s passenger related operating costs.
The fare proposal is estimated by Metro to increase net fare revenue by $3.5 million by 2020,
which represents a 2.2 percent increase. The additional changes proposed in Proposed
Ordinance 2017-0352, Proposed Motion 2017-0353, and Proposed Ordinance 2017-0354,
which would increase the cap for Metro’s Human Services Ticket Program and reduce ORCA
card fees, would decrease revenue for Metro by $1.175 million in 2020. The net revenue
impact of these proposals would be an annual increase of $2.3 million in 2020 compared to
projected revenue under the current fare policies. $2.3 million represents a very minor
increase in Metro’s $800 million annual operating budget.

 Farebox Recovery and Future Fare Increases
Metro’s fund management policies, updated by the King County Council in 2016, require
Metro to maintain a farebox recovery ratio of at least 25 percent, with a target of 30 percent.
In 2016, Metro’s farebox recovery ratio was 31 percent. Because the farebox recovery ratio
was above the target, and because there was interest in examining Metro’s fare structure, the
2017-2018 adopted budget did not include a fare increase. Metro’s financial plan assumes
adult fare increases in 2020 and 2024.
Metro projects that the proposed fare change would increase the farebox recovery ratio in
2020 by 0.5 percent compared to no change in fares. This would bring the projected 2020
farebox recovery from 25.9 percent under current fares to 26.4 percent under the proposal.
The Executive plans to review Metro’s updated revenue and costs projections in 2018 in order
to determine whether to propose a $0.25 fare increase in the 2019-2020 budget. Under
current projections, it appears a fare increase may be needed in the 2020-2021 timeframe
under existing conditions and in the 2021-2022 timeframe under the proposed fare change, in
order to maintain a farebox recovery ratio above 25 percent. In order to maintain a farebox
recovery ratio closer to the target, a fare increase may need to occur in 2020. Fluctuations to
operating costs and revenues, such as larger than expected increases or decreases in fuel
costs or sales tax receipts, could change these projected timelines.
Next Generation ORCA Implications and Impacts
Some of the goals identified by the ORCA agencies for the $94 million Next Generation
ORCA project include making the system easier for customers to access and use, and
reducing operating costs and complexities for ORCA agencies. According to the Next
Generation ORCA project team, less complexity within ORCA agencies’ fare structures would
reduce the risk and complexity in designing and implementing the Next Generation ORCA
system.
In order to keep fare structure options open to ORCA agencies now and in the future, the
request for proposals23 for the contractor to help design Next Generation ORCA calls for the
system to be designed to support time of day-based fares and distance-based fares, to allow
for fare changes without software modifications, and not to preclude future projects such as
fare capping.

23 The Request for Proposals for the System Integrator for Next Generation ORCA was
advertised in August 2017 with vendor responses due on November 1, 2017.

 At the 2016 Regional Fare Forums attended by representatives of ORCA agencies, Metro
presented the following cost and schedule estimates for including zones and time-based peak
fares to the design of the Next Generation ORCA:


Up to $500,000-$700,000 and three to six months for inclusion of zones, and



Up to $1-2 million and six months to one year for inclusion of peak fares.

These estimates are based on the cost of adding these elements to the system design as a
change order. However, these cost ranges should not be viewed as potential savings to the
project if the Council adopts the proposal to simplify fares by the end of 2017. The contract for
Next Generation ORCA system design would be negotiated based on ORCA agencies’ fare
structures at the time of negotiation and would not involve change orders unless the fare
structure changes after the contract is finalized, which is expected to occur in mid-2018.
Evaluation against Metro’s Fare Policies and Objectives
The Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2011-2021 sets Metro’s policy framework for
fares. Strategy 6.3.2. provides this guidance for fares: “Establish fare structures and fare
levels that are simple to understand, aligned with other service providers, and meet revenue
targets established by Metro’s fund management policies.”
Under that guidance, Metro developed the following objectives for evaluating proposed
changes to the fare structure: simplification, regional coordination, speed up boarding,
increase safety, affordability, and reflect cost of service. The subsections below evaluate the
fare proposal against those objectives.
Simplification
Metro states that it seeks to make fares simpler for customers to understand. and found in a
2017 online survey24 that 32 percent of respondents find Metro’s fares difficult to understand.
While the proposed change does not address aspects of the fare structure that outreach
participants have reported confusing, such as pass types, transfers, and eligibility for
discounts, it would make the adult fare and some aspects of purchasing monthly passes
simpler to understand and easier for Metro’s operators and customer service representatives
to explain.
Regional Coordination
24 The survey was answered by self-selected respondents and was set up with parameters
that allowed respondents to complete the survey more than once and therefore does not
statistically represent Metro’s ridership.

 Metro seeks to coordinate fares with other regional transportation providers, both to reduce
the cost and complexity of the Next Generation ORCA project and to make it easier for transit
riders to transfer between service providers. Table 3 shows the current adult fares of the
other ORCA agencies.
Table 3. Current Adult Fares of ORCA Agencies
Agency
Adult Fare
Peak variability
Metro (proposed)
$2.75
No
Sound Transit (bus)
$2.75-$3.75
No
Sound Transit (rail25)
$2.25-$5.75
No
Community Transit
$2.25-$5.50
No
Everett Transit
$1-$2.25
No
Pierce Transit
$2.00
No
Kitsap Transit
$2.00
No
Washington State Ferries
$3.30-$24.05
No
(Passengers)
King County Water Taxis
$4.50-$5.25
No
(ORCA fare)

Distance variability
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Local/commuter pricing
No
No
Varies by distance &
geographic location
Yes

As shown in the table, Metro’s fare proposal would eliminate any time of day variability among
the ORCA agencies, which would simplify one aspect of implementing Next Generation
ORCA and serving customers transferring between systems. However, variability would
continue to exist among ORCA agencies on pricing, discounted fare types and amounts (not
shown in the table), and whether fares vary by route type and distance traveled.
Speed Up Boarding
While unlikely to have a measurable systemwide impact on boarding times, the fare proposal
may reduce some boarding delays associated with questions and disputes about what fare to
pay. A simpler adult fare would also make off-board fare payment, which is currently available
at some RapidRide stops and planned for Third Avenue and additional RapidRide lines,
somewhat easier to implement.
Increase Safety
While simplifying fares would not resolve all of the issues that cause disputes or confusion
about fares, it may reduce some fare-related safety incidents. According to Transit Security
and Emergency Management, hundreds of negative fares-related passenger interactions
occur each month on Metro buses, a fraction of which escalate into safety incidents. Table 4

25 Includes Link light rail and Sounder trains

 shows all fare-related safety incidents documented in 2017, but the data is not broken down
by which incidents, if any, are specifically related to peak or zone fare-related disputes.
Table 4. 2017 Fare-related security incident reports (SIRs) 26
All reported
Operator assaults
Threats
Total SIRs
2,767
83
373
# of fares related
136
11
40
% fares related
5%
13%
11%

Verbal abuse
730
85
12%

Affordability
Metro states that its fare policies seek to balance affordable fares with the need to generate
revenue. Metro provides discounted fares to categories of riders who are most likely to be
affected by affordability issues, and the fare proposal would not affect discounted fares. For
riders paying the adult fare, the proposed change increases the cost by $0.25 for a greater
number of boardings while decreasing the cost by $0.50 for a smaller number of boardings.
More than three-quarters percent of those who responded to Metro’s 2017 fare survey
reported that the current cost to ride Metro is affordable for them. In a second survey asking
about the affordability of the $2.75 fare, 70 percent of respondents considered it affordable 27.
Reflect Cost of Service
Fares that reflect Metro’s cost of service help ensure riders are paying a proportionate cost of
Metro’s operating expenses. Metro’s operating costs are greater during the peak than in the
off-peak, with average operating costs of $212 per hour in the peak, $199 per hour in the offpeak, and $245-$264 per hour for peak-only routes. Therefore, the proposal is less reflective
of the cost of service than the current fare structure that charges more during peak periods.
Additionally, Metro’s operating cost per passenger mile is $11.88, so carrying passengers
greater distances is more costly than carrying passengers shorter distances. While zonebased fares are an imperfect measure of the distance a passenger travels, particularly for
trips originating or terminating near zone boundaries, they generally allow Metro to charge
more for routes that travel greater distances. Therefore, in this respect also, the proposal is
somewhat less reflective of the cost of service than the current fare structure.
Outreach

26 Security incident reports as of August 31, 2017
27 The results of the two surveys should not necessarily be compared to one another as the
question about affordability was phrased differently in each survey, and neither survey is
statistically representative of Metro’s ridership.

 Metro conducted a public engagement effort on the fare proposal that produced more than
12,000 comments and reached a diverse range of customers. Those who participated in
outreach efforts supported the $2.75 flat fare in greater numbers than the other alternative
offered, which did not include the current fare structure. Of the responses to the online survey,
80 percent indicated support for the $2.75 flat fare, while only 28 percent indicated support for
a $2.50 off-peak/$3.00 peak fare.
Looking at the breakdown support among respondents by household income level, support
for the flat fare was fairly uniform across income levels, while opposition to the $2.50/$3.00
fare was greater for lower income respondents, with more mixed support and opposition
among higher income respondents. Survey results received from community-based
organizations conducting outreach to difficult-to-reach populations expressed only a slight
preference for the $2.75 flat fare over the $2.50/$3.00 fare and often identified other barriers
to accessing transit and understanding fares.
Responses from survey and outreach participants indicated their top priorities related to
Metro’s fares are:


Improving affordability for low-income customers,



Making boarding faster, and



Improving safety for bus drivers and customers.

Timing and Next Steps
The Executive is seeking a Council decision on the fare proposal by December 2017 in order
to inform the Next Generation ORCA project design. According to Metro, the fare change is
proposed to take effect on July 1, 2018, in order to simplify fares as soon as possible while
providing time for the technical and administrative work associated with a fare change.
Metro plans to embark on a second phase of fare work, incorporating the feedback they
received in the first phase and the results of several pilot efforts underway to identify
strategies to:


Speed up boarding,



Improve safety, and



Improve access and affordability for those facing barriers.

ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 2017-0350.2 (and its attachments)

 2. Transmittal Letter
3. Fiscal Note
INVITED


Rob Gannon, General Manager, Metro Transit Division