Fare enforcement policies administered by Sound Transit have only been slightly altered, albeit temporarily, despite serious concern by some Sound Transit boardmembers. A briefing the other week revealed that fare enforcement is very disproportionately hitting African American riders, adding even more concern about the process. Despite only representing 9% of system ridership, African Americans made up 21% of all riders being warned or cited for fare violations, the transit agency reported.

Sound Transit also recently came under fire when it unwittingly stuck to standard policy and administered fare enforcement on Seattle public school students during their first day of the school year. This was despite the fact that many students had not yet received their pre-paid ORCA cards and education on fare protocol. The transit agency’s insensitive social media game in response to the situation, when it was pointed out that students were being targeted by officers, only further intensified the outrage by an obviously tone-deaf decision.

Sound Transit currently operates fare enforcement on all Sounder commuter rail and Link Red Line light rail services. This is because in 2009 the Sound Transit board decided that the system should run on a proof-of-payment system. Technically, being on station platforms past certain points are fare-paid areas, meaning that riders have to tap their ORCA cards or purchase tickets before entering the fare-paid area.

The proof-of-payment system was chosen because it is comparably cheap and simple to operate rather than implementing entry and exit gates at stations. Those alternative systems (e.g., Los Angeles Metro Rail and New York City Subway) mean that the platform area has to be formally cordoned off from other portions of a station and requires ongoing monitoring to ensure riders do not hop fencing or cheat the system to enter. This is particularly difficult to administer at Sound Transit’s at-grade stations where creating barriers could be difficult without also adding barriers between the platform and tracks.

Staff from Sound Transit told boardmembers that fare enforcement is an important strategy to attain financial goals for operations. The farebox recovery targets for Sounder and Link are 23% and 40%, respectively. Sounder met the goal last year, but Link fell slightly short. Without fare enforcement, staff suggested that farebox recovery could fall as fare evasion–the practice of non-payment–would rise, putting more strain on taxpayer subsidy. While seemingly intuitive, the idea that enforcement decreases evasion enough to cover its costs hasn’t been proven in empirical studies.

Farebox recovery targets and results by year. (Sound Transit)
Farebox recovery targets and results by year. (Sound Transit)

Fare evasion currently remains at 2.5% of inspected riders, which is below target and something that staff indicated as a positive. The goal for Sound Transit is to keep fare evasion at or below 3%. Only a small fraction of riders caught for fare evasion end up with a citation at some point.

Fare inspection and enforcement by the numbers. (Sound Transit)
Fare inspection and enforcement by the numbers. (Sound Transit)

The procedures for fare enforcement are fairly straightforward. In order to avoid the perception of profiling, fare enforcement officers are trained to board trains from the platform toward the center doors and work their way from the platform-side to the rear and then side opposite platform-side back to the center. Generally, fare enforcement officers are supposed to inspect riders sequentially for valid fare media.

How fare enforcement officers carryout inspection of fare payment on trains. (Sound Transit)
How fare enforcement officers carryout inspection of fare payment on trains. (Sound Transit)

The fare enforcement process escalates by the number of violations committed within a rolling 12-month period. The first violation involves only a warning. A second violation will result in civil citation, which carries a $124 penalty (the penalty only covers the court costs). However, Sound Transit has temporarily suspended the practice of referring subsequent violations for criminal charges. Instead, additional $124 citations are issued for subsequent violations. The criminal charges practice is currently under review by the transit agency.

King County Metro recently updated–and is still working on forthcoming changes–to its fare enforcement process that is less harmful to riders with low-income or no income. The transit agency’s policy is far less punitive to second-time violations by allowing fines to be substantially reduced to $50 and even further reduced by half if they are paid with 30 days of citation. Alternatively, fines can be avoided if the cited rider agrees to do community service for a local nonprofit organization or enrolls in the ORCA LIFT program, if eligible. However, if a rider does not fully resolve a second offense within 90 and is then ticketed again, Metro is then authorized to suspend the rider for a full 30 days.

Demographics of fare enforcement warnings and citations. (Sound Transit)
Demographics of fare enforcement warnings and citations. (Sound Transit)

Fare enforcement by Sound Transit is occurring disproportionately on riders of color. Notable in the data is that African Americans are issued warnings and citations at more than twice the rate of their share in the racial ridership makeup. The transit agency reported to the board that they are pursuing more information about why this is happening. They plan to collect and evaluate data on:

  • “Causes and extent of disparate outcomes.”
  • “Housing instability of those who receive warnings or citations.”
  • “Rate of citations paid/resolved.”
  • “Reasons for non-payment.”
  • “Region-wide and community perspective of the program.”

Coupled with this effort is a “regional engagement strategy” that is underway. This month and the next Sound Transit will hold listening sessions with people of color and people experiencing homelessness to better understand equity issues surrounding fare enforcement. In tandem with this, the transit agency will also solicit general rider feedback online and onboard trains. In the winter, the process will move toward information evaluation, development of new fare enforcement policy options, and report with recommendations. The Sound Transit board will have an opportunity to finalize and approve procedural changes, perhaps in February.

The timeline, groups, and actions that Sound Transit plans for its Regional Engagement Strategy. (Sound Transit)

Staff did highlight several strategies that could be used to expand access to fare media, which is a preference of the transit agency to avoid fare evasion from the start. Options that they pitched, included: new outreach to communities that often are challenging to reach, instituting a new policy to inform riders identified without fare payment about ORCA LIFT and other programs, and increasing overall participation in low-income fare programs.

Related to this were identified options to resolve fare evasion cases. Similar to Metro, Sound Transit staff outlined ways to reduce the length of time where citations accumulate (i.e., trim the look-back period down from 12 rolling months where a second and subsequent violation creates a fine penalty), reduce the cost of fines, increase the number of warnings given before issuing citations, allow violations to be resolved through community service, avoid actual fines by applying the citation cost to the rider’s ORCA card, and avoid actual fines if the rider enrolls in ORCA LIFT, if eligible.

For the part of fare enforcement officers, Sound Transit is evaluating options rethinking things like role responsibilities and priorities, inspections on certain days (e.g., the first day of the school year, severe weather conditions, and other warranted circumstances), and training. A particular emphasis for revised training could include better customer service approaches and enhanced anti-bias information.

Later this winter, it should be clearer where Sound Transit is headed with reform of its fare enforcement practices.

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a non-profit that depends on donations from readers like you.

12 COMMENTS

  1. The writer errs when he says Sound Transit’s proof-of-payment system was created in 2009. That decision was actually made at the beginning of system design, since it was the only way to accommodate mixed use (buses and trains) in the downtown transit tunnel.

    Thanks to the commenters for clarifying that Sound Transit is not targeting non-white riders in its enforcement of fares. The agency checks all riders equally. The disproportionality comes from the fact that non-payment rates tend to vary among different ethnic groups.

  2. The only bias is against people who don’t pay their fare. I’ve been on a checked train many times, and the process is very objective and consistent. I bet if you controlled for income, the race disparity would disappear.

  3. Imagine that, according to FBI statistics blacks make up the majority of violent crime in the US as well. Lools like statistics are racist! Shut it down!

  4. I’m black and ride the Sounder every day. When the fare enforcement officers come through, they ask everyone and don’t target anyone. Blacks aren’t being disproportionately targeted, they are disproportionately not paying the fare! The solution is simple, in order to ride transit, you must pay the fare.

    • Ideally, yes, nobody would commit any infractions ever. But since we don’t live in that perfect world, the question of fare enforcement reform is how to make fines and penalties less onerous on low income folks so as to further the cycle of poverty. That’s why Metro lowered fines and offered a community service option. Sound Transit has a model before them. And it’d be easy enough to follow suit.

    • That is absolutely true but I’d you had even a 3rd of a brain you would have understood what was being said here.
      They said they were being targeted! Now with that being said that would mean that they are being singled out unlike whites, or others.
      Not that whites and others are paying any better but they’re not being checked and since I work for the transit system I find the biggest thieves and fare avoiders are usually the ones that feel as though they’re so privileged that they don’t have to pay at all and the so called fare enforcers out of either dumb, ignorant, stupid or otherwise are smart enough to enforce equality.
      Kind of like you.

      • Wow dude, your reading comprehension is a bit skewed. People claiming they are being targeted is one thing – proving it is another. This article shows that no one is being targeted – it’s just that some folks of a particular persuasion seem to get caught red-handed not paying far more often than other demographic groups. If that one group was to pay their proper fares instead of trying to get something for nothing, we wouldn’t have this problem. And Sound Transit’s farebox recovery rate would improve, costing you and me both fewer tax payer dollars to subsidize the scofflaws.

        Pretty simple isn’t it?

      • Again, I’m lost. The fare enforcers check everyone. I’ve seen it happen maybe ten times this past year. How do you single out a group if literally everyone is checked?

        And I’m not sure where you were going with the privileged comment. Am I not interpreting sarcasm correctly?

  5. Really? If fare enforcement checks everyone on the train or bus, and are treating everyone the same, then the reason more people of color are getting warnings and tickets is that there are more people of color on the train or bus.

    This statistic is simply another symptom of racial and class inequity in our society, and I highly doubt any ‘study’ by sound transit is going end up fixing or changing much.

    The only thing to do is to stop doinng fare enforcement, and I think the article makes the case that would leave a hole in the budget so…

    • Not exactly. The article made the case that transit agencies haven’t been able to show they make more money fining fare evaders than they pay to run a fare enforcement program: “While seemingly intuitive, the idea that enforcement decreases evasion enough to cover its costs hasn’t been proven in empirical studies.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.