‘Only suckers pay:' Seattle's heated transit fares debate
Last week in this space I wrote more than 1,000 words about the enormous hopes and multibillion-dollar holes in the biggest megaproject we've ever seen, the expansion of light rail.
Way down near the end I mentioned something small.
Side note," it said, pointing out how little light rail collects in fares. "Sound Transit, you've got to start enforcing fare payment more vigorously, if for no other reason than you're in a money crisis."
Hoo boy, it turned out the little thing was the big thing. I got deluged with comments about that buried item. I didn't know you people even read to the end.
"It enrages me beyond measure that Sound Transit doesn't collect fares from everyone," read a typical screed. "I love the rail, but it's insulting to see how riders freeload, and the transit tolerates it."
"Whoever is running this thing needs to wake up – no wonder they are losing money," said another.
Added another: "It's like we live in a Barney the dinosaur, I love you, you love me, world. Won't pay? We will just have the taxpayers pay."
This went on, hundreds deep. Seattle's fares affair has become a third rail. It could be a bigger deal to the future of transit than I had imagined.
The thing is, Seattle used to pay, and not that long ago.
In 2019, the light rail system's operations was funded 32% by riders paying fares. Last fall it was down to 14%.
On our Metro bus system 10 years ago, 30% of operations came from fares. That's plummeted to just 8%.
Both systems estimated recently that at least a third of all riders now simply board without paying.
The free-riding champion is the Seattle streetcar. On the First Hill route, an astounding 71% of riders boarded without paying in 2024.
Fare inspectors are back on all the systems, after being discontinued during the pandemic. But that's been hit or miss.
In a story that's likely to rile up the commenters all over again, Sound Transit revealed in a presentation last month that its inspectors stopped 77,000 light rail riders who hadn't paid. But they let nearly 50,000 of them go without even a warning after the riders wouldn't show ID.
"It's worth noting that quite a number of IDs are considered valid in this program, but when a rider doesn't disclose an ID, we are unable to track or pursue further enforcement actions under the current program structure," reported Brian de Place, of Sound Transit.
So if you don't pay and you get caught, just say you don't have your ID. It seems like if 50,000 riders knew to use this trick, the system's got some holes?
Stuff like this is starting to strain the ol' Seattle do-gooder spirit.
One of my favorite local sites, Seattle Transit Blog, recently hosted a discussion on fare evasion that was every bit as lively as the one in my email inbox. A commenter announced that after Metro revealed it had stopped about 2,200 riders who hadn't paid, yet only cited eight of them, he was so peeved that he went rogue.
"I made a conscious decision to stop paying my fare," he said. "I was paying $108 per month, out of pocket for a pass only to see that Metro clearly does not care. I gave up on being a responsible player."
He got castigated for his lack of esprit de corps. But some said he was justified.
"I don't have any issue with someone choosing not to pay at this point, because the system just makes you a sucker for doing so," one wrote. "The widespread culture is 'only suckers pay for their ride.' "
This isn't entirely true (a majority still pay). But there is some peril for the public project that this sentiment is out there.
What happened is a bunch of systems in Seattle got permissive during the pandemic, for good reason, but then went into drift mode for years. A loosey-goosey culture set in.
In housing, for example, some tenants got used to no consequences for not paying rent. It eroded to the point that some nonprofit housing providers still have big holes in their budgets and need to be bailed out by the city.
Same with transit. These systems have always been heavily subsidized. But the difference between Metro bus collecting 30% of its operations from fares versus 8% is on the order of $200 million. That's real money taxpayers must cover.
It's what ethicists call a "collective action problem." A group decides to take an action for the good of the group. But refusing to go along can be a rational, if selfish, choice for each individual. If enough become free riders, it can collapse the collective action.
"I'm done," one reader summed up. "I'm a transit lover but I will vote no to any more money, not a dime, until everyone riding pays a fair share.
Sound Transit is now considering reimposing some discipline by installing fare turnstiles at some light rail stations, as many rail systems have around the world.
The buses are trickier. The only thing standing (sitting) between you and a free ride is the poor driver. Metro would have to get far tougher with roving enforcement teams if it hopes to turn this around.
Or, it could veer the other way and go fare-free. The buses have practically fallen there on their own, as 8% is not far off from zero. Going free would require more and higher taxes, though, to keep the same levels of service.
Seattle's got to figure out what kind of city it wants to be. One with rules? As it is, the rule-followers may get increasingly bitter as the free riders split the communal coalition.
I never thought of transit fares as this complicated. They're paid and enforced all over the world, with low-cost passes for the low-income. Leave it to Seattle to turn it into angst and even civil disobedience.
Maybe the humble fare was always the biggest thing, a sort of secret glue that was holding the whole civic shebang together.
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.