Thoughts on Metro’s Fare Restructuring

(I want to be explicit this is solely my own opinion, and in no way endorsed by either Streetsblog or Southern California Transit Advocates – DG
But I can’t help notice that So.CA.TA. has a special meeting just to discuss the changes this Saturday. – DN)

300px-TAP_CARD_001Metro staff recently released two options for fare restructuring that as Steve Hymon notes “would raise fares in three phases over the next eight years while also making Metro more customer-friendly by allowing riders to board an unlimited number of buses and trains for 90 minutes in any direction for a single fare.”

This has garnered coverage in the media and the blogsphere. I agree with the comment DTLA Star made on LA Curbed “Metro has proposed this plan knowing full well that much of the less popular items will be stripped out after public comment”.

In 2007, Metro had an all day hearing on restructuring fares. I actually took a day off from work to attend, along with my fellow transit advocate the late Woody Rosner. When it was over we took the Red Line and Hollywood DASH to have dinner at the since shuttered Old Spaghetti Factory on Sunset. Woody’s quip was the dinner was the only useful thing we did that day.

Electeds and stakeholders made presentations. Then the many transit users that signed up to speak were given 60 seconds in which to make comments. Like many activists I had worked up my own proposal. Plus I had agreed to present a consensus position that the membership of Southern California Transit Advocates had agreed to after a lengthy study session.

You can imagine how well I did trying to convey two separate proposals in 1 minute.

I had neglected to ask for a block of time for the group. But given how things played out it was no great loss. I discerned as I watched the Metro Board have a discussion after the hearing closed that the main dynamic was opposition to L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s proposal, driven basically by a desire to deny him a political prize. It was clear his admittedly often showboating style had irritated the rest of the Metro Board and there was a desire to take him down a peg or two.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina produced an alternative to Villaraigosa’s proposal based on keeping the fare at $1.25 for the time being. It easily was adopted despite the opposition of the Mayor and his three appointees on the Metro Board. Yes, indeed, I had a front row seat (actually one in the far back of the Metro Board meeting room) to history in the making — politics of the classic sausage making variety which isn’t pretty to watch.

So you may wonder where I stand on the current “options” offered up by Metro staff and the upcoming hearing scheduled for March 29th.


Some people are so excited by Metro's fare system they take to creating art to share with the world. Image: ## Nelson/Twitter##
Some people are so excited by Metro’s fare system they take to creating art to share with the world. Image: ## Nelson/Twitter##

I can’t work up the agitprop (in the best tradition of Howard Beale) of such statements as “I WILL not stand by idly to watch these price increases hurt the people” and “You can be remembered as the mayor who raised the fares, or you can be remembered as the mayor who stands for the people”, both posted to L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s website. I imagine we’ll have a lot of this sort of overheated rhetoric at the March 29th hearing.

Jarrett Walker has correctly pointed out “for many riders — those whose trips require a connection — the proposal is a fare reduction, because the transfer penalty to be eliminated ($1.50) is far bigger than the hike in the base fare ($0.25)”.

calwatch (a frequent commentor on this blog) in commenting on the Walker piece notes regarding distance based fares which have been touted by some, including at least one Metro Board member, that “distance based fare would dramatically increase complexity, encourage gamification, and provide unknown impacts to Title VI protected populations – none of which can be solved in the span of when Metro wants to do fare increases, which is September”. I

have confirmed with Metro staff it would also entail additional TAP Vending Machines within the paid areas, additional validators at stations and recalculation of exit capacity. One wonders at fairness given that distance based could not be implemented on the buses which seems a disparate impact on using bus versus rail. Maybe someday distance based fares will happen but not any time soon.

Walker’s commentary also provoked some of the most extreme comments I have come across on the net about the fare proposal posted by persons calling themselves Nexus I and Millennial Power. I especially enjoyed being called old and out of touch. Talk about the callowness of youth.

Another dimension of all this is some tout transit as a tool for equity and low fares as furthering that policy goal. As Walker notes the pursuit of fairness in fares can become quite complicated a la this comment to Mayor Garcetti stating a study of income to commuting distance is needed to guide fare changes. That is rather myopic and I can’t see it having much political traction. And as I have stated previously, transit’s main purpose is to move people, not solve pollution, social equity, congestion, etc.

At the January 28th quarterly Metro Service Council Meet & Confer a presentation on the fare restructuring was made which included a bit of information that is a true game changer for the process. Heretofore the only mandate impacting the level of fares I was aware of is from the state to qualify for Transportation Development Act funds:

a transit claimant must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating cost at least equal to the ratio it had during 1978/79, or 20 percent if the claimant is in an urbanized area

But the presentation on the 28th revealed two salient facts:

  • The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) adopted in 2009 by the Metro Board assumes a 33% farebox recovery (i.e. how much of the cost of operating a transit service is derived from fare revenues)
  • The federal Full Funding Grant Agreements being sought for funding the Purple Line extension and Regional Connector are based on the LRTP.

I imagine some folks will use this as the latest “evidence” to revive the tired bus vs. rail debate. The rest of us will shrug and say “It is sort of technical but it is a reason to change the fares”. The current farebox recovery for Metro is 26% and falling. The aforementioned presentation provides further reasons for raising fares, but I think it is clear the handwriting is on the wall and some sort of increase will occur.

What the increase will actually be is totally up in the air. EVERYONE (including Metro staff and management) are spectators of this process. The Metro Board are in the driver’s seat and their opinions alone count. But they will be well aware of the structural imperatives that I have outlined and however unenthused at having to do something as politically distasteful as raise fares recognize a hike is necessary.

A fare change will require 9 votes to pass. May is when the Board is slated to hear final staff recommendations and summary of the public comments made at the March 29th hearing. The folks who want to block a fare hike have 3 months to lobby and enlist the support of at least 5 Board members to stop it from happening. My gut tells me the chances of that happening are near zero. Ditto recent demands by the folks occupying the upper floor of the Pellissier Building for eliminating cars in Los Angeles, no fare public transit, etc. etc.

Let us be clear, this process is about increased revenue to pay for transit operations. But as a public service I want to offer two long-term actions (neither of which will obviate the need for a fare hike in the near term) to give Metro’s budget some relief that isn’t based on cutting the wages of the folks who make transit service possible (operators, mechanics, service attendants, schedule planners, etc.). They at least deserve some consideration.

The first would be to re-establish the Metro Police Dept. The politics are tricky (especially with all five L.A. County Supervisors on the Metro Board) but as this staff report from 2004 notes:

MTA studies and assessments suggest that operating an internal transit police department would allow the MTA to reduce current security operating costs by 20% to 40%. Lower costs result when the MTA directly controls the transit policing function and can design a program with an optimum mix of sworn versus non-sworn personnel classifications and determine staffing levels for each labor group. An internal unit would also have lower costs because the MTA would only pay for the marginal cost of providing service, as opposed to the fully allocated cost model of an outside agency.

Staff estimates that developing a new MTA Transit Police Department would take approximately five years to recruit and train sworn officers and civilian staff before the new unit could take over the entire regional transit policing program. During that five-year period, the new MTA Transit Police Department could ramp up by approximately 70 officers per year while the LASD demobilized by about the same number.

The full cost advantage of an internal MTA Transit Police Department over contracting with a local law enforcement agency would not be realized until the end of year five. Approximately 20% of the full cost savings would be accrued each year during the five-year program, not counting mobilization costs.

These cost savings and other benefits must be carefully weighed against the start-up costs and operational challenges of reestablishing a major modern law enforcement agency. A key challenge would be staffing the Transit Police Department. In order for the MTA to develop a sound, capable and professional Transit Police Department, the unit must be able to attract and retain high quality personnel. To be competitive in the labor market the new MTA Transit Police Department would have to offer favorable working conditions and benefits

A ten year old report isn’t exactly the most persuasive basis for pushing an idea that will ruffle a lot of feathers. Did I mention the 5 Supervisors on the Metro Board? We should at least have an audit of how well the Transit Services Bureau (TSB) is doing in terms of cost for performance, etc, compared to units of peer agencies (New York, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.).

The recent revelations about fare evasion on the Orange Line is really as much about the Sheriff doing a poor job of enforcement (which is tacitly admitted in the staff report with its reference to “more aggressive roving fare enforcement” by the TSB near the end). Instead this is being spun as being all about gating especially by Supervisor Yaroslavsky. One wishes he would show similar zeal for an audit of the performance of the TSB. But I won’t hold my breath on that one.

The second budget improvement measure that deserves consideration is having a competitive procurement for the provision of Metro’s general counsel plus study the advisability of establishing Metro’s own stand-alone legal department. Public Utilities Code section 130051.9(d) states Metro “shall appoint a general counsel”. Since Metro was formed in 1993 this function has been performed by the Office of County Counsel. I think a review of their performance (much like of the TSB) is long overdue along with exploring options. Of course this also means taking on those 5 Supervisors on the Board. Gets tiresome contemplating the conflicts having elected officials drawn from various entities to make up the bulk of the Metro Board creates. UGH!

Besides posting comments if any of you want to chat further on these issues drop by the special meeting Southern California Transit Advocates is holding Saturday in downtown Los Angeles. We’ll be discussing the Metro fare restructuring concepts and any possible comments on them for us to present at the March 29th public hearing. A member requested we consider taking a position. I’ll assist the effort but obviously am unenthused.


  • taipan85


    A TSB audit is currently under progress. I believe it was from a Mel Wilson motion at the June 2013 meeting.

  • L.A. has one of the cheapest transit fares in America, and will remain that way even after the fare increase. New York and Chicago have paid much more for a long time. L..A. is also the only major city in America that refuses to offer transfers within its own bus system, something that will not remain the same after the fare increase. No major transit system in America is sustainable via the farebox anymore, nor will one ever be sustainable by the farebox again in our lifetimes.

  • DMalcolmCarson

    Where does ridership data play into this analysis? Wouldn’t a primary consideration be the relationship between fare increases and ridership?

  • davistrain

    One wonders about the “Fight for the Soul” group–eliminate all cars from Southern California? What have they been smoking? We have a lot of people in our area who would give up their cars “When they pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel”. As far as fare-free transit is concerned, there’s a website devoted to that very concept; they claim that by eliminating the fare box and the ticket machine, use of public transit would increase, lowering fossil fuel consumption and reducing street traffic. On several occasions, I have posted the fact that there is one group that already HAS free transit–employees of Metro and other transit operators. Yet a survey a few years ago determined that only about 5% of Metro employees use “the sponsor’s product” and would rather spend money to drive their own cars than take advantage of this “fringe benefit”. So far the Free Public Transit group has not commented on this unpleasant truth.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    There have been various scandals involving the sheriffs abusing power, both in the jails and on Metro. Would switching to an in-house security department help moderate those problems, or would it put Metro on the hook if/when something like that comes up?

  • P.

    Think about who a majority of the employees at metro are. They are drivers and operators who need to be in places before and after the system is running, it is hard to take a bus when your the driver.

  • davistrain

    I’m aware of that, and also aware that, if given a choice, people would rather not live next to a bus division (many of which aren’t near residential areas anyway). It would be interesting to see how many Metro employees have “normal working hours” and could use transit if they so chose. I suspect that many of them are paid well enough so that they can live in nice suburbs with poor transit service. (reminds me of a story about the Santa Fe Railway)

  • rdm24

    Whoever came up with the idea that you should pay three times to go from the Staples Center to Chinatown should be thrown in front of the blue line, red line, and gold line in three separate incidents, then given three separate funerals.

  • The IG is to to have an outside firm do an audit of the contract and report back in 90 days to 6 months. Does anyone know what the status of this is? (item #21)

  • That is known as fare elasticity. One rule of thumb cited by Christopher MacKechnie is every 3% increase in fares results in a 1% reduction in ridership for an elasticity of -.33.

  • It was mostly driven by the introduction of the day pass. Most agencies in the region eliminated transfers when they introduced day passes (RTA, OCTA, Omnitrans) — Sunline in the Coachella valley is one exception I am aware of. But with a multi-modal system having free connecting rides for two hours when one pays with a TAP card seems like a good idea.

  • I guess the point is moot. The staff report notes so many complexities that could easily be cited to kill any impulse to consider the idea. And the politics — YIKES!

  • I know one mechanic at Metro who regularly rides bus and/or rail to commute to work. It does happen.

  • calwatch

    When MTA went to the Day Pass they followed the California practice of eliminating the transfer. But the separate “line” thing is a unique quirk of MTA’s fare system. VTA and San Diego MTS treat the rail system as a single “line” where a separate fare is not required to transfer between lines on the rail system. They charge per boarding otherwise.

  • calwatch

    One of the reasons there is a lot of early morning bus service to Downtown from the San Gabriel Valley is for MTA employees to get to Regional Rebuild Center and the other MTA facilities near Union Station by 5 AM. However, there are quite a few people that drive in. There is no traffic on the roads before 6 AM generally which makes commuting a breeze.

  • calwatch

    You can see this readily in how the fares and pass prices have to be much higher to support an off peak fare of $1.50, in the “Option 2” peak/off peak scenario. But what this assumes is that the same level of peak service will be operated. With a peak fare of $2.25, that would scare off enough people who can travel at other times so some lines like the 66 and 720 which run every 2-3 minutes might run every four minutes. It might also stimulate demand after 7 pm and help support night service, since many bus lines, even those on the 15 minute map, drop off like a rock to hourly service after 7 pm.

    If Metro guaranteed that every line on the 15 minute map would run 15 minutes 6 am-11 pm, seven days a week, that would provide a long term shift towards usage of transit, much more so than 10 minute night service on the subway and Blue Line which doesn’t operate half the time anyway due to maintenance.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    The six different fare increases for both options show a expected drop in boarding’s of 2% to 6% as a result. Metro’s system wide boarding’s increased by about 2.1% from 2012 to 2013. Transit lost modal share to driving in 2012, with system wide transit only having a 1.1% increase from 2011 to 2012 and commuting by driving increasing by about 2.4%. Either option will have a strong negative impact on increasing yearly boarding’s according to those figures.

    This will make it difficult to match the commuting mode share increases that can be expected over the next few years for bicycling in Los Angeles.

    Capital expenditures on new major transit lines are in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the city of Los Angeles and only about $11 million, or so, on bicycling annually.

    There were 12 new miles of transit corridors finished in 2012, with 8 miles on the Expo Line and 4 miles on the Orange Line extension.

    In the last 2 fiscal years there were 157 miles of new bike lanes and mixed use paths created in Los Angeles. The goal is to have a pace of 40 mile of bike lanes, bicycle friendly streets and paths created per year. That would be 120 miles every three years.

    The average increase in commuting modal share of bicycling for the 90 largest cities is about 1% per one mile of bike lane per square mile. Using that average, a tenth of percent increase in bicycling mode share for Los Angeles would require about 47 miles of bike lanes or paths, or slightly less than 15 months worth of new bike lanes and paths installations.

  • Roadblock

    no excuses. they SHOULD be forced to take transit.

  • ROZ m

    those on social security get the most modest of annual increases.
    as an active senior, all but $2 of my this year’s annual social security increase was eaten up by the doubling of my monthly prescription drug coverage premium…which also increased my drug co-pays.

  • Those are very selective statistics and rather myopic pitting modes that both have a viable role in improving mobility. Is this a smart way to advocate for more investment in bike infrastructure?

  • I guess you should be contacting various Board members with this concern.

  • I am told the audit should be ready in a few months.

  • This also pre-supposes funding is the main issue for more bike lanes. The resistence to the Westwood Blvd. lanes show things are not that simple. Modal share doesn’t matter if people believe it is dangerous to bike commute:,0,2654595.story#axzz2teKA4X5C

  • Dennis_Hindman

    The point I was trying to make is the growth potential for two different modes of transportation.

    Bicycling mode share will likely be expanding at a much faster rate than transit due to the greater percentage of new corridors opening up for bicycling compared to transit in the next few years. The miles of bikeways in LA has more than doubled since 2009. Much of that increase was made in the last two fiscal years.

    Bike lanes are not as appealing for potential bike users as having a barrier protection. It does increase the pool of users by several fold compared to not having any sense of separation from motor vehicles.

    There are 2,600 miles of arterial and collector streets and only 348 miles of them have bike lanes. Just using the 1,800 miles of arterial streets, it would take 36 years to put bike lanes on all of the remaining arterial streets at the current installation pace of 40 miles a year.

    Even with the rejection of bike lane installation on streets such as Westwood Blvd, there is still lots of streets that can get bikeways. There are also 3,900 miles of residential streets that can be improved for bicycling.

    Transit simply does not have many more places to create exclusive corridors without a massive increase in funding to create tunnels or elevated railways. Reallocating mixed use lanes to bus only lanes on the busiest streets is another way to create transit only corridors. That brings up the same problem of resistance to taking away space from cars that bike lane installations are having.

    Driving would need much more lanes to be added in order to keep, or increase, its modal share significantly. Adding more cars to lanes that are reaching their maximum capacity slows the average car speed down during peak hours. This makes driving less attractive in terms of time to get somewhere compared to bicycling, taking a train or brt.

  • Metro’s regional modal share will be impacted by raising the fare, that is without dispute. But comparing modes as to growth potential has little to do with whether a fare increase is advisable. Your argument deserves its own separate article. Maybe you should approach Damien and propose such. Though the point you are making seems implicit in a lot of this blog’s coverage of the slow growth of bike infrastructure.


Metro Memo Quietly Responds to Board and Public Fare Increase Concerns

On March 29th, Metro held a public hearing on its proposal to restructure fares. At that meeting, I presented the position of Southern California Transit Advocates. Among other stakeholders at the March 29th hearing was the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Transportation Committee, represented by its co-chair Darrell Clarke. He pointedly asked why Metro would raise fares […]

The History Thats Led Us to This Weekend’s Special Metro Board Meeting

Photo: biofriendly/Flickr (Everyone knows that Dana is one of the Board members for the Southern California Transit Advocates, right?  Good. – DN) May 24, 2007 the Metro Board held a public hearing to consider what the agency termed euphemistically "fare restructuring". Tumultuous is word that best captures what the six hours of public hearing held in the Metro […]

This Time, It Really Would Be a Restructuring

One of the more maddening parts of covering and discussing the mass transit system in Los Angeles is a fare structure that, quite honestly, doesn’t make a lot of sense. Fares vary wildly depending on whether one is riding Metro or a local system. Transfers are rare among agencies, and difficult for new riders to […]

Doubling Efforts on Metro’s Fare Studies?

It is interesting that Steve Hymon reports that Metro Board member Diane Dubois asked for a staff report on fare restructuring at the last Metro Board meeting. My curiosity is piqued mostly because such a study is already underway. I know this from viewing the staff presentation on it made at the March 27, 2013 […]

So.CA.TA Special Meeting: New Fare Edition

Southern California Transit Advocates will hold a special meeting on Saturday Feb. 15th at Angelus Plaza, 255 S. Hill St. in downtown Los Angeles beginning at 1 p.m. Among the items for discussion will be the Metro fare restructuring concepts and any possible comments on them to present at the March 29th public hearing. Members of the public are welcome to attend and […]