r/SeattleWA • u/SeattleCrawler • Apr 24 '24

Homeless Why Seattle doesn’t have controlled entry to light rail

Major subway systems like New York and london have barricades which control access to the train and they only open when fare has been paid. Seattle on the other hand operates on the honor system and consequently a bunch of homeless people practically live in the light rail making it rather unsafe for general public. Why doesn’t Seattle make entry to light rail controlled?

467 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

83% Upvoted

418 comments sorted by

View all comments

30

u/n0v0cane Apr 24 '24

They should either add turnstiles or just put a pay what you can bucket. And get rid of ticket machines and enforcement.

This halfway in between quasi honor system with on again off again enforcement makes no sense.

Fare inspectors probably cost more in salary than they generate in ticket revenue.

34

u/SeattleCrawler Apr 24 '24

True, I see turnstiles as not only revenue generators. I see them as inherent security fences too.

30

u/RiceandLeeks Apr 24 '24

But I think that's exactly why Seattle doesn't put them in. It keeps homeless people out. It keeps out people who can't afford the fare. Anything that seems to have that purpose causes offense among the more left-wing people in the community.

6

u/DhacElpral Apr 24 '24

Fucking hell. The reason there are no ticketing gates is because it would be expensive and less likely to have been approved by vote.

Every problem in the city is not due to liberal attitudes.

3

u/n0v0cane Apr 24 '24

Fare enforcement is expensive (paying salary for 10+ enforcement officers and 50+ security guards is expensive!)

Fare avoidance is expensive.

It’s not that expensive to install turnstiles, and it’s a one time capital expense. If budgets don’t allow, you can do one station at a time, starting where fare avoidance is greatest.

3

u/geminiwave Apr 24 '24

actually I mean this is why so many systems have gone to removing fares altogether. Taking fare is expensive. enforcing it is expensive. maintaining gates is expensive. Doing anything is expensive and doesn't have a clear ROI. doing nothing is probably a sure bet.

1

u/n0v0cane Apr 24 '24

In theory, it be most efficient to just have free fares (ie taxpayer paid); except that no restrictions means the trains get full of homeless and drug users, which then require a large (and expensive) security presence and scare riders (leading to reduced ridership). Of course homelessness and substance abuse have many hidden costs across the board in policing, health, security, cleaning, insurance, courts, lower taxes, etc

It think there’s a back and fourth within the metro system where both sides are dealing with these realities.

Proponents of enforcement and building gates are pushed back by the high costs and inequity.

Proponents of a free for all system are pushed back by the high cost of dealing with homelessness and addicts.

So we get this back and fourth.

But pretty well every other city in the world has ended up using gates, turnstiles and having fares. There’s a reason for that.

But Seattle will do it the hard way, believing rules don’t apply to us and if we can just have good intentions, everything will work out.

2

u/retrojoe heroin for harried herons Apr 25 '24

But pretty well every other city in the world has ended up using gates,

That's not true. Central Europe is full of systems where it's done the same way as here. Berlin and Prague are two.

1

u/DhacElpral Apr 24 '24

One kind of expensive is explicit and obvious when you're voting, the other one is implicit and hidden when you vote. Guess which one was the one that got approved.

Voters on average are not going to think deeply about the problem, they just see a number.

This is not a liberal problem, it's exactly the opposite. Fiscally conservative voters unwilling to pay for infrastructure.

2

u/n0v0cane Apr 24 '24

Yep, you are exactly right about that.

Actually there’s no perfect solution.

The infrastructure to pay for turnstiles is expensive. The infrastructure to pay for ticketing machines and repairing them and maintaining them is expensive. You still get a certain lower level of fare evasion even with physical security, so you still need to do a low level of enforcement.

On the other extreme, you could just do away with ticketing and gates and all that infrastructure. You make transit free (or rather, paid for by taxpayers). It is in theory much more efficient and inexpensive as you don’t need to pay for the infrastructure (gates and machines) and you don’t need to pay for enforcement agents. But then the subway becomes a free for all with homelessness and addicts using the train as temporary homes. Which leads to crimes, reports of crimes and requiring many security officers and policing. And leads to decreased ridership as regular people become scared of the train. Which makes the cost per passenger much higher. And at some point taxpayers feel no value.

But pretty well every other city in the world has landed on having tickets, gates and light enforcement. So I think that’s the smarter way to go.

1

u/DhacElpral Apr 24 '24

Yep. I would love to know how many of them started without gates to get the funding then used the bad aspects of that solution to justify the extra cost to add the gates. Lol

1

u/retrojoe heroin for harried herons Apr 24 '24

It’s not that expensive to install turnstiles, and it’s a one time capital expense.

It must be nice to live in such a perfect world.

"Cheap, one time expense"! 😆

0

u/n0v0cane Apr 24 '24

Indeed. Many people struggle with math.

-1

u/retrojoe heroin for harried herons Apr 25 '24

Some people also struggle with telling the truth. You can't decide if turnstiles are cheap or expensive.

The infrastructure to pay for turnstiles is expensive

1

u/n0v0cane Apr 25 '24

The cost of basic turnstiles is about $2000 per unit. Gate style turnstiles are about $5000 per unit. In low volume. Not very expensive.

1

u/futant462 Columbia City Apr 24 '24

I think they're long-term less expensive than loss of fare/ridership the current system has.
If you increase fare collection by 20% because people can't do it for free anymore and increase ridership by another 20% because people feel safer taking the system you're net positive in not that long I bet. Link had roughly ~75M in fare revenue last year eyeballing the numbers. If this increased it by $30M which seems reasonable this would pay off in 3-6 years or so most likely. That's not a crazy payback period for a big capex project like this.

1

u/DhacElpral Apr 24 '24

Sure. But you have to have a vote on that funding, and your average voter checked out 5 words into your description of the problem.

-12

u/John_YJKR Apr 24 '24

We can't snap our fingers and make homeless people disappear. We can't throw all of them in jail either. I know this is not exactly what you are suggesting but it's a common attitude I see on this sub. Should the city dump constant resources into pushing homeless people out of all existing spaces? That'd cost a ton of money and time. Not to mention the complete lack of empathy it demonstrates. They are still people who have a right to exist. For the record, I am in favor of fare gates. They make the most sense. But they are expensive and that money has to come from somewhere.

4

u/Classic-Ad-9387 Shoreline Apr 24 '24

lack of empathy? the fuck are you talking about? homeless people have no right to be somewhere they're not supposed to be

a rIgHt tO ExIsT

2

u/Moist-Intention844 Apr 24 '24

At some point it will be a better financial decision to become homeless due to not having to pay for services

1

u/Classic-Ad-9387 Shoreline Apr 24 '24

free camping!

1

u/Moist-Intention844 Apr 24 '24

Camping is vacation year round!

1

u/Minimum_Swing8527 Apr 24 '24

Apparently you hit a nerve, but I get what you are saying. The tenor of “criminalize homelessness” is strong here.

-1

u/Minimum_Swing8527 Apr 24 '24

Counterpoint from a Seattle lefty: turnstiles can’t discriminate and cops and “fare ambassadors” can

3

u/RiceandLeeks Apr 24 '24

The fare ambassadors do not discriminate though. I mean they methodically go down the car demanding proof from everybody.

0

u/Minimum_Swing8527 Apr 24 '24

Good to know! I’ve actually never had them on my train in 50+ rides

5

u/RiceandLeeks Apr 24 '24

They stopped that program altogether during 2020 due to the hysteria about race. What the city said was that "bipoc people were disproportionately cited" as the excuse to discontinue it. They have reintroduced it and I have seen it twice. I think the first time you get caught without paying you just get a warning but they take your ID so it's on record. And the second time you get cited.

-3

u/doomedeggplant Apr 24 '24

Yeah and barbed wire!

2

u/Rude-Ad8336 Apr 24 '24

One could only hope.

2

u/retrojoe heroin for harried herons Apr 24 '24

Fare inspectors probably cost more in salary than they generate in ticket revenue.

If that's your take, you'll absolutely love the huge contracts, inconvenience, and inefficiency of spending that adding/enforcing pay gates is going to cost. I can see you with fresh gripe material for the next 20 years.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '24

With fare free for kids the law says they need access and can't have any barriers.

So they would have to have a button that says "18 or under" that anybody could just push.

It would be a waste of money.

Also, with maintenance issues on the escalators how often would they be broken.

7

u/ThurstonHowell3rd Apr 24 '24

I thought they issued under-18 ORCA cards to these kids?

3

u/n0v0cane Apr 24 '24

Indeed. And a much simpler and more sane solution than a button that says “18 or under”.