Item 54, fare changes proposal

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro

SUBJECT: FARE RESTRUCTURING

One Gateway Plaza zi3.gzz.2000 Tel

Los Angeles, CA 9ooi2-z952 metro net

REGULAR BOARD MEETINGMAY 22, 2014

ACTION: APPROVE RESULTS OF MARCH 29, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING ANDADOPT FARE RESTRUCTURING EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2014

RECOMMENDATION

A. Receive and file comments from the public hearing conducted by the Board ofDirectors on Saturday, March 29, 2014;

B. Adopt Resolution in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) finding that the purpose of the Fare Restructuring Plan is to payoperating expenses; and

C. Adopt fare restructuring plan (requires 2/3 majority)

ISSUE

Metro faces an operating deficit of $36M in two years. This deficit is projected to grow to

$225M in ten years. Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan and full funding grant

agreements assume that Metro is financially solvent to operate the bus and rail system

as it expands. To do this, Metro must achieve a 33% farebox recovery ratio. Metro's

current farebox recovery is only 25.8%.

Metro's fare policies are incompatible with current and future services. Metro's currentbase fare is $1.50 and does not include transfers. This discourages riders without apass from transferring because they are required to pay another full fare at eachboarding. As the transit network continues to expand, the ability to transfer on a singlefare will benefit riders and allow greater connectivity.

The fare restructuring proposal currently under consideration is intended to address the

deficit, as well as to improve connectivity for Metro's customers. A public hearing on the

fare restructuring proposal was held on March 29, 2014. Now the Board must consider

the results of the public hearing and, if desired after deliberation, approve the farerestructuring by atwo-thirds majority.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of the fare restructuring is to increase Metro's fare revenues in order tomitigate the projected deficit, align fares with service, improve system connectivity, andbring Metro's farebox recovery ratio and subsidy per passenger more in line withcomparable agencies. With a fare adjustment, we seek to ensure Metro's ability tocontinue providing reliable service, as well as to encourage riders to use the expandingsystem, and their investment in it, to its fullest potential. Initial implementation of the fareadjustments is proposed for September 1, 2014.

In compliance with federal public hearing requirements and Metro policy, the Board held

a public hearing and received public testimony regarding restructuring fares. In addition,public comment was received at five fare forums held at the regular Service Councilmeetings in March. There were two options presented at the public hearing, both ofwhich were developed as a multi-year fare restructuring program in three phases, withincremental increases taking place in FY15, FY18 and FY21. Significant changes to the

fare structure proposed by both options are summarized below.

• Inclusion of free transfers to any Metro rail or bus line within 90 minutes ofpayment of the base fare when using a TAP card (not valid for round trips)

• Consolidation of the two zone charges for Express bus into a single surcharge

• Establishment of a consistent fare for Express bus and Silver Line

• Consolidation of monthly pass and EZ Pass beginning in Phase 2, allowingpassengers to connect between Metro and other local transit operators using asingle pass

• Adjustment of fares based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) beginning in FY23in order to keep fares in line with inflation rates

Option 2 differed from Option 1 by introducing reduced off-peak fares for regular riders.The intent of such a policy was to shift ridership to off-peak hours.

After consideration of oral and written comments, Metro staff is proposing Option 1. SeeAttachment A for a detailed breakdown of the recommended fare structure. Option 2 isalso included for reference in Attachment A1. However, Option 2 is not recommended.

If fare restructuring is approved, it is projected that ridership would initially decline byabout four percent after the implementation of Phase 1. However, past experience atMetro and other agencies has shown that this decline is temporary and that ridershiprecovers as people get accustomed to the new fares.

DISCUSSION

The fare proposals have undergone an extensive public outreach over a four month

period. During this time, notice of the hearing was heavily promoted in the electronic

and print media, as well as at stakeholder briefings. Five special fare forums were held

at the Service Council meetings in March (Van Nuys 3/5, EI Monte 3/10, Beverly Hills3/12, Huntington Park 3/13, and Inglewood 3/14). Additional notice of the hearing was

Fare Restructuring 2

also provided through rider brochures distributed on Metro buses and trains throughout

the service area. The media used to advertise the public comment period and public

hearing is listed in Attachment I.

Public Comment on the Fare Proposals

The formal comment period began January 23, 2014 and concluded March 31, 2014.

Overall, Metro received 208 written comments, and 124 speakers presented their

comments at the public hearing. The addition of free transfers to the base fare was

generally supported, especially in written comments. See Attachment B for a summary

of all comments received, including staff responses.

Comments received by type:In agreement with fare changes 40Opposed to fare changes 230Neutral position on fare changes 56Unrelated to fare changes 6Total comments received 332

Key topics discussed included preference for Option 1, potential impacts on low income

riders, and alternatives to a fare increase. There was also significant public support for

extending the 90 minute transfer period to 120 minutes. Based on current ridership

data, the impact to fare revenues of extending the transfer period to 120 minutes is

minimal. Thus, Metro is revising the original proposal to include 120 minutes of transfers

for customers who pay the base fare.

At the March 29, 2014 public hearing, there were several questions related to the fare

proposal that were raised by the Board and members of the public. Staff responses

were provided in a Board Box, which is included in Attachment J to this report.

Projected Operating Deficit and Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan

While Metro's current base fare is $1.50, the average fare per boarding is only 70¢ and

dropping. As Metro continues to expand and improve our transit network, Metro faces

an operating deficit of $36.8M in two years, which will grow to $225M in ten years.


Table 1:

FY34 FY15 FYl6 FY37 FY38 PY39

Sp-,-~.__ __., __ __. _ .._.~. ~ ~._ .~.. .-- ~~__

•$50

-S2oo

-SiSoNc0

-5200

c

•$250

_5300

•5350

-$40f3

~rzo ~2 Frzz Frrzs

$(100.7)

S(225.8)

The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) assumes a farebox recovery ratio of 33%,

while Metro is currently at 25.8%. Furthermore, Metro's full funding grant agreements

with FTA are dependent on a 33% farebox recovery ratio and the assurance that Metro

will be able to operate and sustain new lines.

Since 1995, CPI has increased by 46%, while Metro's average fares have onlyincreased by 17%. Compared to Metro's peer agencies, Metro has the lowest base fare,

fare per boarding, load factor and farebox recovery ratio of major US cities withcomparable systems. This is an unsustainable structural deficit that must be addressed

now. An analysis of how Metro compares to its peer agencies is presented inAttachment G.

Adjusting fares will help increase revenues to fund future operational costs. Metrocustomers have seen only three fare increases in nineteen years. In 2008, senior,

disabled and student fares were frozen through December 2012 and still remain the

same. As labor costs and other costs have risen, Metro's fare revenues have not kept

pace with inflation. Metro must increase its fare revenues to comply with its LRTP and

be able to meet its expenses.

Because farebox recovery is so low, Metro has historically had to use funds designated

for improving its capital assets to cover operating shortfalls. This issue was identified

and addressed in an American Public Transportation Association (APTA) peer review

report issued in 2006. As noted by APTA, the costs associated with maintenance

deferrals greatly exceed expenditures required if needs are addressed on a timely


basis. If fares are not increased, this may limit Metro's. ability to maintain its fleet and

infrastructure in accordance with industry standards.

Three Phased Approach

To minimize financial impact to customers, this fiscally responsible fare policy would

incorporate incremental and periodic fare changes. Fare restructuring has been

proposed in three phases, with incremental 25¢ base fare changes occurring every

three years, and pass fares increasing accordingly. The first phased change would take

place in FY15, the second in FY18 and the third in FY21.

Inclusion of Transfers in the Base Fare

Under the proposed fare structure, payment of the base fare includes 120 minutes of

free transfers when paid with a TAP card. Transfers will not be valid for round trips.

However, there is no limit to the number of transfers a customer can make on one base

fare, as long as the last boarding is made within 120 minutes of the first boarding. Many

passengers transfer at least one time to reach their destination, but the current fare

structure requires payment for each boarding. While Metro offers discounted inter-

agency transfers (Metro to Muni), we do not offer intra-agency transfers (Metro toMetro). However, industry trends show that most transit agencies offer free or

discounted transfers. The inability to transfer results in system. inequities, because

riders whose origin and destination are not served by a single route pay more when not

using a pass. Further, this policy does not encourage full use of the public investment in

Metro's system.

Metro passengers will only receive free transfers if the base fare is paid using stored

value on a TAP card. Passengers currently have several options for loading TAP cards

with stored value: ticket vending machines at rail stations and Orange Line stations,

TAP vendor locations, online or via telephone. New technologies are currently in

development to offer even more ways to load a TAP card, such as reloading by text

message and a TAP mobile phone application. In addition, enhancements and

improvements to the TAP website will make it more convenient for customers to load

their TAP cards: recent revisions include a newly updated live map of the 500+ TAP

retail outlets throughout the LA County region.

Benefits of Free Transfers

As 12% of riders pay cash and transfer, there is a significant number of riders who will

actually experience a fare decrease if the revised fare structure is approved. For

example, a cash rider who transfers once will currently pay $3.00 for their trip. Under

the new fare structure, the same trip would cost $1.75—a decrease of over 40%.

Metro currently offers a day pass at a rate of $5.00. Because the current fare structure

does not allow for transfers, anyone who makes more than 3 boardings in a day would

currently save money over the base fare by purchasing a day pass. Under the proposed


fare structure, a customer making two one-way trips within 120 minutes would actually

experience a price decrease if they pay the base fare for two trips, which would cost

$3.50. This is a decrease of 30% over the current day pass price.

Overall, staff estimates that a minimum of 15% and up to 30% of riders will experience a

fare decrease by taking advantage of the new transfer policy. It is expected that many

riders will need to reassess how they pay their fare, and that paying the base fare

instead of purchasing a pass will be cost beneficial to those who make fewer trips.

Consolidation of Regular Monthl~Passes and EZ Passes

The proposal includes consolidating the Metro regular monthly pass with the EZ pass,

allowing riders to connect to other transit operators and ride throughout LA County with

one pass. However, because all municipal operators are not yet TAP-enabled, this

consolidation can only be implemented during Phase 2.

Silver and Express Bus Lines

Also to benefit riders, this proposal includes a simplification of zone and premium fares.

Under the current fare structure, a premium fare is charged on the Silver Line, and there

are two zone upcharges in addition to the base fare for Express buses. To simplify the

fare structure, the proposed changes include the consolidation of the two express zones

into one premium surcharge. Furthermore, the new fare structure equalizes the fares for

the Silver Line and Express buses, with the goal of eventually eliminating zones. Once

zones have been eliminated, the cost of riding the Silver Line or an Express bus would

be the same as the base fare.

Future Fare Adjustments Based on CPI

Historically, Metro's fares have not kept pace with inflation. This creates a situation in

which fares fall behind and increases become reactionary, making them unpredictable

to riders. To ensure that the farebox recovery ratio remains at a sustainable level

beyond the implementation of Phase 3 and to allow the riding public to plan accordingly,

the fare proposal includes a provision for fare adjustments commensurate with the rate

of inflation. Every two years after the implementation of Phase 3, fares would be

adjusted by CPI, rounded to the nearest 5¢ for regular fares and to the nearest dollar for

passes.

Discounted Fares Under the Fare Proposal

While all fares in the proposal are higher than current rates, Metro maintains discounted

fares and passes for senior, disabled and student riders at lower rates than federally

required. As 31 % of riders are eligible for discounts, it is important to note that Metro is

keeping fares relatively low for nearly 1/3 of its ridership.


Impact Statement

Board policy requires staff to provide a general assessment of the potential social,

economic, environmental and energy impacts these changes may have on the

community. The Board is required to consider this information prior to approving any

changes to the fare structure.

Attachment C identifies the four impact categories and summarizes the findings.

Overall, the approval of these recommendations will have moderate adverse impact on

the community. However, raising fares has a lesser adverse impact than the alternative

of cutting bus and rail service. It is projected that after initial implemention of the fare

changes, ridership will decrease by about 4%. Estimates suggest that slightly more than

50,000 daily boardings may be lost due to the fare increase.

Title VI Data

The formal Fare Change Analysis Methodology &Results for the proposed fare

restructuring was completed in March and is included in this report as Attachment D.

There is no disparate adverse impact on minorities, nor a disproportionate burden on

low income Metro passengers attributable to the fare changes.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA~

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the restructuring of

fares charged by public agencies, which the public agency finds are for the purpose of

meeting operating expenses. Metro's proposed fare increases will be used solely to pay

its operating expenses, including wages and fringe benefits, fuel costs and insurance

reserves. Therefore, the proposed fare restructuring plan falls within a statutory

exemption and is not subject to CEQA. Before Metro adopts the proposal, CEQA

requires that the Board make written findings to support the fact that the rate changes

fall within the statutory exemption. If adopted by the Board, the Resolution (Attachment

E) constitutes Metro's written findings.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

In Phase 1, the proposed fare restructuring is estimated to provide approximately $30M

of incremental fare revenues over the FY15 budgeted amount of $350M for total FY15

fare revenues of $380M. Implementation of Phase 2 is estimated to provideapproximately $40M of incremental fare revenues over the FY18 projected amount of

$385M for total FY18 fare revenues of $425M. Phase 3 is estimated to provide

approximately $50M of incremental fare revenues over the FY21 projected amount of

$420M for total FY21 fare revenues of $470M. Additional revenues will be used solely to

fund bus and rail operations.


Financial projections assume that increased fares will cause short-term declines inridership after each phase is implemented. Historical experience suggests that someriders will return to the system within three to six months after each price change.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

One alternative considered was the introduction of lower off-peak fares for regularriders. This alternative was presented as Option 2 for the May 29 public hearing. Basedon negative public comments received, most of which stated that the off-peakdifferential was confusing for riders, this approach is no longer being recommended.

Distance-Based

A distance-based fare structure was also considered. Because origin and destinationinformation would need to be collected to charge a fare based on distance traveled,Metro would not be able to accommodate cash paying customers, who currentlyrepresent about one fourth of ridership, using the existing fare collection system. Inaddition, this would require riders to tap their TAP card a second time when exiting aMetro bus or train. Implementation of such a policy would require incentive for nottapping or penalty for not tapping, such as charging the maximum fare in the absence ofa second tap. Because nearly 70% of Metro riders are low income riders who likelycould not afford a maximum fare for every trip, a distance based fare structure is notconsidered to be a viable option.

Rail Premium

A premium fare for rail was also considered. However, charging higher fares for railwould discourage the use of the new rail lines that are being added. The cost oftransporting a single passenger on a bus is more than on rail: Metro's cost perpassenger mile on bus is 66¢, while the cost per passenger mile on rail is only 46¢. Asonly 20% of systemwide boardings are on rail lines, a higher fare for rail may requireoffering at least two sets of passes: one pass for all modes, and a pass valid on busesonly for a lower price. In order to encourage use of the expanding system and to keepthe fare structure simple, premium rail fares are not recommended.

RECOMMENDED PLAN

Staff recommends that the fare proposals shown in Attachment A be approved by theBoard. The fare structure recommended to be approved is the same as originallyproposed in Option 1, except that the valid transfer period for passengers who pay thebase fare has been extended from 90 minutes to 120 minutes.

NEXT STEPS

With Board approval, staff will develop a detailed fare restructuring and communicationsplan and will work with the municipal operators in making a smooth transition to the newfares. The new fare restructuring will be implemented as early as September 1, 2014.


ATTACHMENTS

A. Recommended Fare StructureA1. Option 2 as Presented at the Public Hearing (Not Recommended)B. Summary of Results of Public Hearing on March 29, 2014C. Impact StatementD. Title VI ReportE. CEQA ResolutionF. Ridership Statistics and DemographicsG. World and Peer Agency ComparisonsH. Fare Subsidy ProgramsI. Public Hearing NotificationJ. Response to Inquiries from the March 29, 2014 Public Hearing

Prepared by: Michelle Navarro, Director of Budget (213) 922-3056Koreyne Clarke, Budget Management Analyst IVAmber Palacios, Senior Administrative Analyst


Na ini ujaExecutive Director, Finan &Budget

nc,

Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer


ATTACHMENT A

Recommended Fare Structure

OPTION 1

r-CURRENT PHASE 1 PHASE ' PHASE 3

FY15 I FY18 ~ - FY2~

Re ular CunenY Pricin

Base Fare (°n m ̂ ••̂ °̂f°• TA° ̂^•~' ̂ ^'.,) $1.50 $1.75

(120 minutes, TAP card only, NO R/T)

Day Pass $5.00 $7.00

Weekly (7 day) $20.00 $25.00

Monthly (30 day) $75.00 $100.00

EZ Pass $84.00 $110.00

Muni Transfers $0.35 $0.50

Monthly Zone Upcharge (EZ/Silver/Express) $22.00

~

$22.00

SeniorlDisabled

Peak $0.55 $0.75

Off-Reak~ $0.25 $0.35

Day Pass $1.80 $2.50

Monthly (30 day) $14.00 $20.00

EZ Pass $35.00 $42.00

Monthly Zone Upcharge (EZ Pass) $9.50 $9.50

Muni Transfers $0.10 $0.25

tudentlCollege-- - - - -

$1.00Student Cash $1.25

Student 30 Day $24.00 $29.00

College 30 Day $36.00 $43.00

Silver

Regular Siive~ $2.45 $2.50

Silver Upcharge $0.25 - $0.95 $0.75

Senior/Disabled Silver $1.15 $1.35

Senior/Disabled Off-peak Silver $0.85 $0.95

SeniodDisabled Silver Upcharge3- - __r X0.30 - $0.60 $0.60

Ex ressP

$2.50Express Fare $2.20 - $2.90

Express Zone Upcharge3 $0.70 - $1.40 $0.75

Senior/Disabled Express Upcharge $0.30 - $0.60 $0.60

Boardings -4°/

{MPACTS:

Farebox Recovery 269°k '0.~0,

Rev. Farebox Recovery 25.8% 28.3%

AdditionatRevenues $30M

$2.00 $2.25

$8.00 $9.00

$30.00 $32:00

Consolidate w/ EZ Consolidate w/ EZ

$120.00 $135.00

$0.50 $0.50

$22.00 $22.00

$0.90 $1.10

$0.50 $0.70

$3.00 $3.50

$24.00 $28.00

$50.00 $60.00

$9.50 $9.50

$0.25 $0.25

$1.50 $1.75

$35.00 $42.00

$52.00 $62.00

~ $2.50$2.50

$0.50 $0.25

$1.35 $1.35

$0.95 $0.95

$0.45 $0.25

$2.50 $2.50

$0.50 $0.25

$0.45 $0.25

-3°/ -2%

32:4°!0 3~~%

31.1 % 32.5%

$40M $SOM

After Phase 3, staff is recommending that fares be adjusted by CPI every two years, beginning in FY23. The

escalated fares would be rounded to the nearest 5¢ for regular fares and to the nearest dollar for passes.

1' Off-Peak hours are Weekdays 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. - 5 a.m. and all day on weekends and Federal holidays.

2' The special fares for Silver and Express lines will be gradually phased out to be the same price as the base fare.

3' The Silver and Express upcharge applies to weekly, monthly and EZ pass holders. Senior/Disabled,

Students/College monthly pass holders and Day Pass holders pay no additional upcharge, currently or in any future

phases.


ATTACHMENT Al

Option 2 as Presented at the Public Hearing(Not Recommended)

OPTION 2 -Off Peak included

CURRENT PHASE 1-~

I PHASE 2__

I PHASE 3

FY15 FY18---

L FY21

Re ular CuRent Pricin

Base Fare (90 min transfer TAP card only) $1.50

Off Peak'

Day Pass $5.00

Weekly (7 day) $20.00

Monthly (30 day) $75.00

EZ Pass $84.00

Muni Transfers $0.35

Monthly Zone Upcharge (Silver/Express) $22.00

Monthly Zone~charge( EZ Pass)

f

R?_2.00

Senior(Disabied T

Peak X0.55

Off-Peak' $0.25

Day Pass $1.80

Monthly (30 day) $14.00

EZ Pass $35.00

Monthly Zone Upcharge (EZ Pass) $9.50

Muni Transfers $0.10

Stude~UCoilege ~-

Student Cash $1.00

Student 30 Day ~ $24.00

College 30 Dav _

~

$36.00

Silver ~

Regular Silver $2.45

Regular Silver Off-Peak'

Silver Upcharge3 $0.25 - $0.95

Senior/Disabled Sliver $1.15

Senior/Disabled Off-peak Silver' $0.85

Senior/Disabled Silver Upcharc~? $0.30 - $0.60

Express

Regular Express $2.20 - $2.90

Regular Express Off-Peak

Express Zone Upcharge3 $0.70 - $1.40

Senior/Disabled Express $0.85 - $1.15

Senior/Disabled Express Upcharge $0.30 - $0.60

Boardings

IMPACTS:Farebox Recover 26%

~_

$2.75

~-

$2.25 $3.25

$1.50 $1.75 $2.00

$9.00 $11.00 $13.00

$32.00 $38.00 $45.00

$125.00 Consolidate w/EZ Consolidate w/EZ

$135.00 $150.00 $180.00

$0.50 $0.50 $0.50

$22.00 $0.00 $0.00

$22.00 ~ X22 on _ $22.00

$0.90 $1.U0 $1.10

$0.50 $0.55 $0.60

$2.75 $3.25 $3.50

$22.00 $25.00 $28.00

$42.00 $50.00 $60.00

$9.50 $9.50 $9.50

X0.25 $0.25 $0 25

- - -$1.25 $1.50 ~ 1.75

$29.00 ( $35.00 I $42.00

$43.00 $52.00 $62.00- ~ -

$2.50 ~ Same as Base Fare Same as Base Fare

$1.75 Same as Base Fare Same as Base Fare

$0.25 none none



$0.45 none none

- ~ _- - _.



$0.25 none none


$0.25 none none

-6% -4% -3%

31.23%

After Phase 3, staff is recommending that fares be adjusted by CPI every two years, beginning in FY23. The

escalated fares would be rounded to the nearest 5¢ for regular fares and to the nearest dollar for passes.

Off-Peak hours are Weekdays 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. - 5 a.m. and all day on weekends and Federal holidays.

Z' The special fares for Silver and Express lines will be gradually phased out to be the same price as the base fare.

3' The Silver and Express upcharge applies to weekly, monthly and EZ pass holders. Senior/Disabled,

Students/College monthly pass holders and Day Pass holders pay no additional upcharge, currently or in any future

phases.


ATTACHMENT B

RESULTS OF MARCH 29, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING FOR

FARE RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC COMMENT

On Saturday March 29, 2014, a public hearing on possible fare restructuring was held.

Metro has an average of over one million daily boardings. Approximately 300 people

attended the hearing where a quorum of the Board of Directors heard testimony from

124 speakers. In addition to the verbal testimony, 208 emails and other written

comments were submitted into the public record on this subject. Collectively, 332

people commented on the fare proposals by the close of the public record on March 31,

2014.

In summary:

The addition of free transfers to the base fare was generally supported, especially in

written comments. Of the 332 total comments, 40 were in agreement with the fare

changes, 230 were opposed to the fare changes, 56 were suggestions on how to

improve fare collection and other operational revenues without taking a position on the

proposed fare increase, and 6 were unrelated to the fare proposals. Those in

agreement with the fare changes cited the inclusion of transfers in the base fare and

positive feedback on the continued expansion of Metro's system.

The key topics discussed included:

A. Positive feedback about inclusion of transfers in the base fare

B. Prefers Option 1 over Option 2

C. Affordability/impact on low income riders

D. Prefers an alternative to fare increase

E. Problems with service levels, service area, and on time performance

F. Fare evasion rates and problems with security and safety

Comments on (A) "Positive feedback about inclusion of transfers in the base fare" cited:

• Anew policy of allowing transfers is a good idea that is long overdue

• The transfer period should be extended from 90 to 120 minutes to ensure that

customers have enough time to connect and complete their trip


Comments on (B) "Prefers Option 1 over Option 2" cited:

• Simplicity of the fare structure

• The peak/off-peak pricing differential in Option 2 is too confusing—prices should

be the same at all times

• Option 2 fare increases are too high and too drastic

Public support for Option 2 was very limited, with only 2 written comments favoring the

alternative. There were no oral comments at the public hearing in support of the off-

peak pricing differential.

Those opposing fare modification due to (C) "Affordability/impact on low income riders"

cited:

• The inability to afford the increase due to low income, fixed income,

unemployment or underemployment

• Economic hardship and the state of the economy

• Proposed increases to pass prices are too high

• Riders will choose to drive instead of using public transit

Several commenters, most notably members of the Bus Riders Union, demanded a fare

reduction instead of a fare increase. The idea of a free bus pass for students was also

very popular amongst the public. There was also considerable support for moving

towards a no-fare system.

Those opposing fare modification due to (D) "Prefers an alternative to fare increase"

proposed the following alternatives:

• Find other sources for revenue, such as increased advertising and increased

charges for use of park and ride lots

• Reduce spending and use those funds to subsidize fares

• Cancel rail construction and/or highway projects and use those funds to

subsidize fares

• Impose additional taxes or congestion charges on drivers and use those

revenues to subsidize transit


Those who commented on (E) "Problems with service levels, service area, and on time

performance" cited the following specific complaints:

• On time performance is not good

• Coverage of service area is poor and headway times are too long, especially in

areas such as the San Fernando Valley

• Buses and trains are overcrowded

Those who commented on (F) "Problems with fare evasion rates and inadequate

security and safety" cited:

• Fare evasion is the issue that is causing the deficit, and eliminating fare evasion

would solve the problem

• Riders don't feel safe on bus and rail lines because security and officer presence

is insufficient

• LASD uses excessive force to check fares

• Fare evasion tickets given to minors are causing the "criminalization of youth"

In opposition to the numerous public comments stating that fare evasion is the root of

the problem, members of the Bus Riders Union also called for an end to fare checks

altogether.

Other issues that were raised in relation to fare restructuring included:

• Senior and disabled fares are too low, which puts a burden on low income riders

who do not qualify for discounted fares

• Would prefer premium rail or distance based fare structure

• Too many maintenance and mechanical problems

• Complaints about cleanliness on the system

All non-fare related comments were forwarded to appropriate Metro management.

STAFF RESPONSES

In response to topic (A) "Positive feedback about inclusion of transfers in the base fare":

The intent of including transfers is to allow easier connections on Metro's expanding

transit system. The fare proposals were developed based on current ridership data,

which shows that 98% of riders can complete their trip within 90 minutes; therefore, the

financial impact of increasing the transfer period to 120 minutes is minimal. Based on

public comments received, the recommended fare structure has been revised to extend

the transfer period to 120 minutes.


In response to topic (8) "Prefers Option 1 ":

Due to the lack of public support for the off-peak pricing differential, Option 2 is not

recommended. Staff recommends the fare structure presented in Option 1.

In response to topic (C) "Affordability/impact on low income riders":

Staff acknowledges that this fare restructuring will have an impact. However, Metro staff

also notes that there has been no fare increase since 2010. Over the last 18 years, the

average fares have increased by 17%, while CPI has increased by 46%. Metro faces a

deficit of $225.8M by FY22. If the fares are not increased, other options would have to

be considered to alleviate the mounting deficit.

One viable alternative to increasing fares is to reduce service. By December 2015,

Metro would need to consider service reductions. Such reductions would include a

combination of cuts to bus service, cuts to rail service, delay of the operations of new

rail lines, or deferral of capital projects, which would increase the backlog of deferred

maintenance projects. Because service cuts have a greater impact on customers than

fare changes, this alternative is not recommended.

Moreover, per the Board approved fare policy, transit users should pay a reasonable

portion of the costs of services utilized. Metro's current farebox recovery ratio is 25.8%

and falling, which means that over 74% of each passenger's ride is subsidized by other

funding sources. Metro's farebox recovery is the lowest among its peer transit agencies.

As such, neither a fare reduction nor a no-fare system is being considered as a real

alternative.

In addition, there are many fare subsidy programs available for riders in need of fare

assistance. Metro allocates $10.5M annually to its fare assistance programs, and the

County of Los Angeles and other local governments also offer discounted passes to

their constituents. Over 150 local employers also offer transit subsidies to their

employees.

In response to topic (D) "Prefers an alternative to fare increase":

Staff agrees with the importance of seeking non-fare revenue enhancements. However,

estimated potential new revenues from increased advertising, leases and park &ride

charges total only $3M, which will not mitigate the deficit.

Staff also agrees that expenditures should be cut when possible. In fact, Metro has

streamlined internally over the past few years in order to keep operational costs down.

116 full time employees were eliminated, and technology, such as CNG buses and solar

panels, is being used to operate more cleanly and efficiently. In addition, non-labor bus


&rail operating costs and administrative costs of running the system have both

decreased since the last fare change in 2010.

The alternative of cancelling all rail construction and highway projects in order to further

subsidize fares is not a viable option. Metro's funding sources for these projects, such

as Measure R and the recent Federal grant for the Regional Connector, specifically

require that the funds are used on these projects. Metro is legally prohibited from using

capital funds or highway funds to pay for bus &rail operations.

Many members of the public suggested imposing additional taxes, fees or congestion

charges on drivers in order to subsidize transit. Currently, 74% of the cost of bus and

rail operations is subsidized by other sources such as sales taxes, state funds and

federal funds. Because transit riders only pay 25.8% of the cost of each ride, it is not

reasonable to require those who do not use the system to pay a larger portion of the

costs of transit operations.

In response to topic (E) "Problems with service levels, service area and on time

performance":

On time performance is a crucial issue to any transit provider, and Metro is constantly

looking for ways to improve service. Metro has been targeting the most heavily used

lines with the poorest on time performance at each bus division and focusing scheduling

and division efforts on selected lines for improvements at each service shake up. Metro

is working with a group of University of California at Berkeley students to evaluate an

on-board system that can help pace and regulate operators to achieve more even

headways. Metro is also in the process of replacing the Exhaust Gas Recirculation

(EGR) components of the bus engines. The new units have improved engine reliability

by 30%. In addition, Metro is evaluating 21 new doors for the articulated buses that

have resulted in zero failures. These capital improvements are designed to help

minimize the mechanical failures that cause poor on time performance.

Headways on Metro bus and rail lines range from 5 to 60+ minutes. Because Metro

service covers a very large area of over 1,500 square miles using limited resources,

longer headways must be scheduled for less heavily used routes. However, on the

average weekday, less than 5% of boardings have headways of over 45 minutes, while

over 70% of boardings have headways of 20 minutes or less.

In response to topic (F) "Problems with fare evasion rates and inadequate security and

safety":

Fare evasion is an issue that all transit agencies need to combat. Eliminating fare

evasion would not be enough to make up the deficit. Metro has begun to latch gates on

the rail lines that can be gated, and that expected increase in revenue has been

included in the financial projections. Currently, Metro is proactively addressing the issue

of fare evasion through education, engineering, and enforcement. In FY13, performance


metrics were set to monitor how many fare checks LASD is doing on a monthly basis.

This is to ensure the visibility of the LASD staff to deter fare evasion.

Fare evasion directly correlates with crime. In FY13, Metro installed Advanced

Transportation Management System (ATMs) buttons on the fare boxes inside the

buses. Each time a rider is short fare or does not pay the fare, the bus operator pushes

this button, and the time/line/longitude/latitude is recorded. On a monthly basis, LASD

generates a fare evasion report, and the data is used to target deployment on lines with

high fare evasion rates. The more visible and saturated the LASD staff is throughout the

system, the less crime and fare evasion will occur and the safer Metro riders will feel.

Another issue brought up was alleged criminalization of our youth riders. Juveniles

receive significantly fewer citations when compared to adults. In 2013, juveniles

received 31 % of all transit violation citations. It is important to note that while fare

evasion citations given to adults are handled internally by Transit Court, Metro is

prohibited from issuing these administrative citations to minors by California Public

Utilities Code Section 99580, which requires that all transit violation citations issued to

minors must be referred to Superior Court.

In response to the other issues raised:

Some public comments included complaints that discounted fares were too low, which

puts the burden on low income riders that do not qualify for reduced fares. At 17% to

37% of the full fare, senior and disabled fares and passes are much lower than the 50%

discount required by federal law and offered by Metro's peer agencies. Projections

show that raising senior/disabled fares up to 50% of regular fares would generate an

estimated $20M in additional fare revenues. However, such a revision is not being

recommended, because a significant variation such as this from the proposed fare

changes would require another public hearing process.

A distance-based fare structure and a premium fare for rail were both considered in

development of the current fare proposal. However, both of these options were

determined to have significant drawbacks. Distance-based fares would require origin-

destination information for every ride, which would call for tapping at the beginning and

the end of each trip. Such a system would be difficult to implement on buses and on

ungated rail lines. Unless Metro reverted back to a paper ticketing system, each rider

would need to have the maximum fare on a TAP card to ensure that the rider can pay

up to the maximum fare when tapping off. In addition, adistance-based system would

make the fare structure complex and would create the need for several types of

passes—or elimination of passes altogether. Premium rail fares would also require the

establishment of at least two distinct sets of passes valid on bus and rail. Charging

higher fares on rail would also discourage the use of the new rail lines required by

Measure R, inhibiting system connectivity.

Fare' Restructuring 18

Keeping assets in a state of good repair is a top priority. Maintenance and cleanliness of

the bus and rail system is currently being improved, with $283M in preventative

maintenance programmed for FY15. In addition, Metro continues to progress on the

Division Inspection Program initiated in FY14 to improve division performance. These

inspections enhance the stability of the transit system by focusing on safety, vehicle

servicing and maintenance, vehicle condition and management at the divisons.

NOTE: A complete listing of public comment is available in the Board Secretary's office.


ATTACHMENT C

IMPACT STATEMENT

The following is a general assessment of the potential social, economic, environmental

and energy impacts that may result from the implementation of the staff

recommendation. These fare adjustments are being proposed to meet a projected

operating deficit, and are exempt from statutory requirements under the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the Los

Angeles County Clerks Office upon approval of these proposals.

SOCIAL IMPACT

It is estimated that approximately 50,000 daily boardings may be lost from the bus and

rail system as a result of the fare increase. Of this total, about 40,000 daily boardings

are regular riders, while the remaining 10,000 are senior/disabled, student and college

riders. Overall, ridership is expected to decline by about 4%.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Regular cash paying riders of the Metro bus and rail system will be required to pay an

increase in the base fare of approximately 17% with the implementation of Phase 1 of

the recommended fare structure. Assuming the average cash paying person rides 22

days per month and makes two trips per day, the net economic impact to this individual

is slightly more than $10 per month. However, current ridership surveys show that about

12% of all riders pay cash and transfer. Because the recommended fare structure

includes free transfers, these 12% of riders will actually experience a fare decrease

although the base fare is higher.

Regular monthly pass riders would initially experience a $25 increase in their monthly

transportation costs, an increase of 33%. Similarly, weekly pass riders will see about a

$20 increase in their monthly transportation costs, an increase of about 25%. While

these increases are more than those experienced by the cash paying rider, it is

estimated that many pass holders who do not use the system very heavily will shift to

paying the base fare. Riders will be able to take advantage of the free transfers offered

in the fare structure, and doing so will be cost beneficial to those who make fewer trips.

It is expected that many riders will need to reassess how they pay their fare, and that

many may even see a fare decrease by paying per trip instead of purchasing a pass.

Special discount rider groups using passes will also see their travel costs increase by

an average of about 30%. This group of riders includes the elderly, disabled, students

and college/vocational passengers. Their monthly transportation cost will increase

between $5 and $7 depending upon the group. It is important to note that these

discount rider fares and passes have remained frozen since 2007, while all other fares


have increased. Furthermore, the discounted fares offered to these groups are still

significantly lower than is required by Federal law.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Since few existing riders of the bus and rail system would be diverted to other forms of

transportation, the potential impacts upon the environment are minimal.

ENERGY IMPACT

There are no significant energy impacts likely to result from the proposed increase in

bus and rail fares.


ATTACHMENT D

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY

2014 FARE RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL

TITLE VI /ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS

1. Program Overview

Metro staff is proposing a revised fare structure. Because the revised fare structure

represents a fare increase, a fare change impact analysis is required. The purpose of

this evaluation is to determine if the fare changes will create disparate impacts for

minority (Title VI) passengers or a disproportionate burden on low income

(Environmental Justice) passengers.

2. Methodological Approach

A Title VI Equity Evaluation is presented herein in accordance with the requirements of

Federal Transit Administration Circular 4702.1 B. The evaluation assesses whether or

not there are adverse disparate impacts on minority passengers and/or disproportionate

burdens on low income riders arising from the proposed fare changes.

Data Sources

Metro fare media usage was obtained from the FY2012 Fare Media Mix which identifies

boardings by method of payment and unit sales data that can be used to estimate

revenue per boarding for each method of payment. The 2012 Customer Satisfaction

Survey was used to determine ethnicity and low income ridership by method of fare

payment. On the Customer Satisfaction Survey, customers are asked if their household

income exceeded $25,000. This is the only income data available from these surveys.

Therefore, low income for this analysis is defined as annual household income less than

$25,000.

Because the fare changes have been proposed in three phases, it was necessary to

project future fare media usage in order to complete the fare change impact analysis for

phases 2 and 3, which are proposed to take effect in future fiscal years. The fare model

used to develop the fare proposals includes elasticity calculations that predict how rider

behavior and fare media usage will change following each of the proposed fare

increases. The data on ridership shifts from the fare model was applied to the current


ridership levels to predict future fare media usage when completing the analysis for

phases 2 and 3.

In addition, Option 2 of the fare proposals includes a pricing differential for regular riders

during peak and off-peak hours. Ridership demographics for peak and off-peak riders

who pay the base fare was obtained from the 2012 Onboard Survey.

Step By Step Methodology

All of the system fares were analyzed by determining the percentage share of overall

usage for all methods of payment and the percentage share of minority and low income

usage for all methods of payment. The percentage of overall usage for each particular

fare was then compared to the usage by minority and low income ridership for each

fare. For phase 2 and 3 increases, ridership shifts from the fare model used to develop

the proposal were applied to current ridership data in order to project future rider

behavior.

As required by Title VI guidelines, the public was engaged in the development of

Metro's disparate impact and disproportionate burden policy. As approved by the Metro

Board, the threshold for disparate impact and disproportionate burden is 5% greater

absolute usage by minority or low-income ridership than overall ridership for a particular

fare method or 35% greater differential usage between minority and low income usage

and overall usage.

3. Result

For all fare media and for both Option 1 and Option 2, no fare change results in a 5°/a or

more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater difference from overall.

Therefore, none resulted in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden. A summary

of the calculation of the analysis is included in the attachments to this report.


TITLE VI /ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 1 PHASE 1

Fare Media

CURRENTRI

DERS

HIP

MINORITY

LOW INCOME

All Ri

ders

Minority Rid

ers

Low Income

Ride

rs

Absolute

Diff

eren

ceDi

ffer

ence

from

Ove

rall

Absolute

Diff

eren

ceDi

ffer

ence

from

Ove

rall

Base Far

e20.347%

19.855%

19.614%

-0.492%

-2.418%

-0.733%

-3.602%

Day Pa

ss11.733%

12.220%

12.046%

0.487%

4.15

1 %0.313%

2.66

8%

Weekly

15.161%

16.189%

15.777%

1.02

8%6.

781%

0.616%

4.063%

Monthly

12.144%

12.184%

10.946%

0.040%

0.329%

-1.1

98%

-9.8

65%

EZ Pass

2.297%

2.185%

1.72

0%-0.112%

-4.8

76%

-0.577%

-25.120%

Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.819%

0.730%

0.749%

-0.089%

-10.867%

-0.070%

-8.547%

Monthly Zo

ne Upc

harg

e (Express)

0.304%

0.305%

0.274%

0.001%

0.329%

-0.030%

-9.8

68%

Mont

hly Zo

ne Upc

harg

e (EZ)

0.05

7° /a

0.055%

0.043%

-0.002%

-3.5

09° /a

-0.014%

-24.561%

Seni

or/Disabled Ca

sh (Peak)

3.06

2%2.500%

3.27

6%-0.562%

-18.354%

0.214%

6.98

9%

Seni

or/Disabled Ca

sh (Off-Peak)

3.06

2%2.500%

3.27

6%-0.562%

-18.35

4%0.214%

6.98

9%

SeniorlDisabled Day Pa

ss2.311%

2.414%

2.574%

0.103%

4.45

7%0.263%

11.380

%

Seni

or/Disabled Monthly

12.251 %

11.589%

13.184%

-0.662%

-5.4

04%

0.933%

7.61

6%

Seni

or/Disabled EZ Pass

0.887%

0.836%

0.950%

-0.051%

-5.7

50%

0.063%

7.10

3%

Seni

or/Disabled Muni Transfers

0.088%

0.078%

0.081%

-0.010%

-11.364%

-0.007%

-7.9

55%

Seni

or/Disabled Mo

nthl

y Zo

ne Upc

harg

e (EZ

)0.022%

0.021%

0.024%

-0.001%

-4.5

45%

0.002%

9.091%

Stud

ent Ca

sh1.

010%

1.11

5%1.

016%

0.105%

10.3

96%

0.006%

0.594%

Student 30 Day

7.00

3%7.

688%

6.94

6%0.685%

9.78

2%-0.057%

-0.814%

College 30 Day

2.092%

2.167%

2.155%

0.075%

3.58

5%0.063%

3.01

1

Regular Silver

0.135%

0.13

2° /a

0.130%

-0.003%

-2.222%

-0.005%

-3.7

04%

Sil~

r Up

char

ge0.260%

0.254%

0.251°/a

-0.006%

-2.308%

-0.009%

-3.462%

Seni

or/Disabled

Silver

0.020%

0.017%

0.022%

-0.003%

-15.000%

0.002%

10.000

%

Seni

or/Disabled Of

f-Pe

ak Silver

0.020%

0.017%

0.022%

-0.003%

-15.

000%

0.002%

10.000%

Seni

or/Disabled Si

l~r Up

char

ge0.041%

0.033%

0.044%

-0.008%

-19.512%

0.003%

7.31

7%

Expr

ess Fa

re0.537%

0.524%

0.518%

-0.013%

-2.421%

-0.019%

-3.538%

Expr

ess Zo

ne Upc

harg

e0.537%

0.524%

0.518%

-0.013%

-2.421%

-0.019%

-3.5

38%

Seni

or/Disabled Express Zo

ne Upc

harg

e0.154%

0.126%

0.165%

-0.028%

-18.182%

0.011 %

7.14

3%

Tota I'

96.3

54%

96.2

58%

96.321 °/

a

Perc

enta

ge of Total Ri

ders

hip

100%

86.2

%68

.2%

Free/non

-paid/underpaid boardings are excluded fro

m this ana

lysi

s. Therefore, ri

ders

hip totals are

less than 100 %.

Fare Res

truc

turi

ng

24

Zs.0

00i

20.000%

15.000%

10.000'

5.~0%

Option 1 Phase 1

All Riders

Minority Riders

Low Income Riders

■

Base Fare

■

Day Pass

Weekly

■Monthly

■

EZ Pass

er Senior/Disabled Cas

h (Peak)

■Senior/

Disabled Cas

h (Off-Peak)

■

Seni

or/Disabled Day Pas

s

Senior/Disabled Monthly

■Student Cas

h

Stud

ent 30 Day

Coll

ege 30 Day

Fare Restructuring

25


Fare

Media

PROJECTED RIDERSHIP - 201

7MI

NORI

TYLOW INCOME

All Ri

ders

Mino

rity

Riders

Low Income

Ride

rsAb

solu

teDi

ffer

ence

Difference

from Ove

rall

Absolu

teDi

ffer

ence

Difference

from

Overall

Base Far

e22

.612

%22

.080

%21.827%

-0.532%

-2.353%

-0.785%

-3.472%

Day Pass

9.48

4%9.

884%

9.75

0%0.400%

4.21

8%0.266%

2.80

5%

Weekly

15.5

47%

16.6

14%

16.202

%1.067%

6.863%

0.655%

4.21

3%

Mont

hly

12.0

63%

12.1

11%

10.8

89%

0.048%

0.398%

-1.1

74%

-9.7

32%

EZ Pas

s2.286%

2.177%

1.715%

-0.109%

-4.768

%-0.571 %

-24.978%

Muni Transfers

0.715%

0.638%

0.656%

-0.077%

-10.

769%

-0.059%

-8.252%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (Express)

0.302%

0.303%

0.272%

0.00

1 %0.

331 %

-0.030%

-9.9

34%

Mont

hly Zone Upc

harg

e (EZ

)0.057%

0.054%

0.043%

-0.003%

-5.263%

-0.014%

-24.561%

Seni

orlD

isab

led Cash (Pe

ak)

3.01

8%2.465%

3.23

3%-0.553%

-18.

323%

0.215%

7.12

4%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Cash (Off-Pe

ak)

3.01

8%2.465%

3233%

-0.553%

-18.

323%

0.215%

7.12

4%

Seni

or/Disabled Day Pass

2.271%

2.374%

2.533%

0.103%

4.53

5%0.262%

11.5

37%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Mo

nthl

y11

.967

%11

.328

%12.8

96%

-0.639%

-5.340%

0.929%

7.76

3%

Seni

or/D

isab

led EZ Pass

0.900%

0.849%

0.965%

-0.0

51 %

-5.667%

0.065%

7.22

2%

Seni

or/Disabled Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.077%

0.069%

0.070%

-0.008%

-10.

390%

-0.007%

-9.0

91%

Seni

or/Disabled Mo

nthl

y Zone Upc

harg

e (EZ

)0.022%

0.02

1 %0.024%

-0.001 %

-4.5

45%

0.002%

9.091

Student Cash

1.016%

1.122%

1.022%

0.106%

10.4

33%

0.006%

0.59

1%

Student 30 Day

7.09

2%7.

792%

7.04

4%0.700%

9.87

0%-0.048%

-0.677%

College 30 Day

2.124° /

a2.202%

2.191 %

0.078%

3.67

2%0.067%

3.15

4%

Regu

lar Silver

0.150%

0.147%

0.145°/

a-0.003%

-2.000%

-0.005%

-3.3

33%

Silver Upc

harg

e0.289%

0.282%

0.279%

-0.007%

-2.422%

-0.010%

-3.460%

Seni

or/Disabled Silver

0.020%

0.01

6° /a

0.022%

-0.004%

-20.000%

0.002%

10.0

00%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Of

f-Pe

ak Silver

0.020%

0.016%

0.022%

-0.004%

-20.000%

0.002%

10.0

00%

Seni

or/Disabled Silver Upc

harg

e0.040%

0.033%

0.043%

-0.007%

-17.

500%

0.003%

7.50

0%

Express Fa

re0.597%

0.583%

0.576%

-0.014%

-2.345%

-0.021 %

-3.518%

Express Zone Upc

harg

e0.597° /

a0.583%

0.576%

-0.014%

-2.345%

-0.021%

-3.5

18%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Express Zone Upc

harg

e0.152%

0.124%

0.163%

-0.028%

-18.

421%

0.011%

7.23

7%

Tota

I~96.436%

96.332%

96.391

Perc

enta

ge of Total Ridership

100%

86.2

%68

.2%

Free/n

on-pai

d/un

derp

aid bo

ardi

ngs are ex

clud

ed from th

is ana

lysi

s. Therefore, ridership to

tals

are les

s than 100%.

Fare Res

truc

turi

ng

26

Fare Restructuring

2~


Fare Media

PROJECTED RIDERSHIP -

2020

MINO

RITY

LOW INCOME

All Ride

rsMi

nori

ty Riders

Low Income

Ride

rsAb

solute

Difference

Difference

from Ove

rall

Abso

lute

Difference

Difference

from Ove

rall

Base Far

e25

.777

%25.049%

24.696%

-0.728%

-2.824%

-1.081 °/a

-4.194

%

Day Pass

11.3

83° /a

11.8

06%

11.6

15%

0.423%

3.716°/

a0.232%

2.038%

Weekly

23.6

00%

25.096%

24.410%

1.496%

6.33

9%0.810%

3.432%

Monthly

0.000%

0.000%

0.000%

0.000%

0.000%

0.000%

0.000%

EZ Pass

4.51

3%4.276%

3.35

9%-0.237%

-5251%

-1.154%

-25.571%

Muni Transfers

0.680%

0.603%

0.618%

-0.077%

-11.

324%

-0.062%

-9.1

18%

Mont

hly Zone Upcharge (

Express)

0.304%

0.304%

0.273%

0.000%

0.000%

-0.0

31° /a

-10.

197%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (EZ

)0.113%

0.107%

0.084%

-0.006%

-5.310%

-0.029%

-25.664%

Seni

or/Disabled Cash (Pe

ak)

2.716%

2.208%

2.887%

-0.508%

-18.

704%

0.17

1 %

6.296%

Seni

orlD

isab

led Cash (O

ff-Peak)

2.716%

2.208%

2.887%

-0.508%

-18.

704%

0.171%

6.29

6%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Day Pass

2.076%

2.160%

2.298%

0.084%

4.04

6%0.222%

10.6

94%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Mo

nthl

y10.941 °/a

10.3

07%

11.7

03%

-0.634%

-5.795%

0.762%

6.96

5°/a

Seni

or/Disabled EZ Pas

s0.823%

0.773%

0.877%

-0.050%

-6.075%

0.054%

6.56

1

Seni

or/D

isab

led Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.073%

0.065°/

a0.066%

-0.008%

-10.

959%

-0.007%

-9.5

89%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (EZ)

0.021%

0.019%

0.022%

-0.002%

-9.5

24%

0.001%

4.76

2%

Student Cash

0.928%

1.020%

0.927%

0.092%

9.91

4%-0

.001

%

-0.108%

Student 30

Day

6.46

9%7.

073%

6.377%

0.604%

9.33

7%-0.092%

-1.422%

Coll

ege 30

Day

1.936%

1.998%

1.983%

0.062%

3.20

2%0.047%

2.42

8%

Regu

lar Silver

0.171%

0.167%

0.164%

-0.004%

-2.339°/a

-0.007%

-4.0

94%

Silver Upcharge

0.329%

0.320%

0.316%

-0.009%

-2.736%

-0.013%

-3.951%

Seni

or/Disabled Silver

0.018%

0.015%

0.019%

-0.003%

-16.

667%

0.001%

5.556° /

a

Seni

or/Disabled Of

f-Pe

ak Silver

0.018%

0.015%

0.019%

-0.003%

-16.

667%

0.001%

5.556%

Seni

or/D

isab

led

Silver Upcharge

0.036%

0.029%

0.038%

-0.007%

-19.

444%

0.002%

5.556%

Express Fa

re0.681%

0.661%

0.652%

-0.020%

-2.937%

-0.029%

-4.2

58%

Express Zone Upc

harg

e0.681%

0.661%

0.652%

-0.020%

-2.937%

-0.029%

-4.2

58%

Seni

or/Disabled Express Zone Upc

harg

e0.137%

0.111%

0.145%

-0.026%

-18.

978%

0.008%

5.83

9%

Total

97.140%

97.051%

97.087%

Percentage of Total Ridership

100%

86.2

%68

.2%

Free/n

on-pai

d/un

derp

aid boardings are ex

clud

ed from th

is ana

lysi

s. Therefore, ridership to

tals

are less than 100 %.

Fare Restructuring

28

3o.000io

25.000%

zo.00a~

15.000'0

10.000%

5.000%

0.000%

Option 1 Phase 3

All Ri

ders

Minority Riders

■

Base Far

e

■Day Pass

Weekly

■

EZ Pas

s

~r Sen

ior/Di

sabl

ed Cash (Peak)

Seni

or/D

isab

led Cash (Off-Pe

ak}

Seni

or/D

isab

led Day Pas

s

Seni

or/D

isab

led Monthly

Stud

ent Cash

Stud

ent 30 Day

Coll

ege 30 Day

Fare Res

truc

turi

ng

29


Fare Media

CURRENTRIDERSHIP

MINORITY

LOW INCOME

All Ri

ders

Minority Riders

Low Income

Ride

rs

Abso

lute

Diff

eren

ce

Diff

eren

cefr

om Ove

rall

Abso

lute

Diff

eren

ceDifference

from

Ove

rall

Base

Far

e10

.174

%9.

713%

9.74

7%-0.461%

-4.5

31%

-0.4

27%

-4.197%

Base

Far

e Of

f-Peak

10.1

74%

10.1

42%

9.86

7%-0.0

32%

-0.315%

-0.307%

-3.017%

Day Pass

11.7

33%

12.2

20%

12.0

46%

0.48

7%4.

151%

0.313%

2.66

8%

Weekly

15.1

61%

16.1

89%

15.7

77%

1.028%

6.781%

0.61

6%4.063%

Monthly

12.1

44%

12.1

84%

10.9

46%

0.040%

0.329%

-1.1

98%

-9.8

65%

EZ Pass

2.29

7%2.

185%

1.720%

-0.1

12%

-4.8

76%

-0.5

77%

-25.

120%

Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.819%

0.73

0%0.749%

-0.0

89%

-10.

867%

-0.070%

-8.5

47%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (Express)

0.30

4%0.305%

0.27

4%0.

001%

0.32

9%-0.0

30%

-9.8

68%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (E

Z)0.

057%

0.05

5%0.043%

-0.0

02%

-3.5

09%

-0.014%

-24.

561%

Senior/D

isab

led Ca

sh (Peak)

3.06

2%2.

500%

3.27

6%-0.562%

-18.

354%

0.214%

6.989%

Senior/D

isab

led Cash (Of

f-Pe

ak)

3.062%

2.50

0%3.

276%

-0.5

62%

-18.

354%

0214°

/a6.

989%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Da

y Pass

2.31

1%2.

414%

2.57

4%0.

103%

4.45

7%0.263%

11.3

80%

Senior/D

isab

led Monthly

12.2

51%

11.5

89%

13.1

84%

-0.6

62%

-5.404%

0.93

3%7.616%

Seni

or/D

isab

led EZ Pass

0.88

7%0.

836%

0.95

0%-0

.051

%-5.750%

0.063%

7.10

3%

Senior/D

isab

led Muni Transfers

0.08

8%0.

078%

0.081%

-0.010%

-11.364%

-0.0

07%

-7.9

55%

Seni

or/D

isab


harg

e (E

Z)0.

022%

0.02

1%0.

024%

-0.0

01%

-4.5

45%

0.00

2%9.09

1%

Student Ca

sh1.

010%

1.11

5%1.016%

0.10

5%10

.396

%0.006%

0.594%

Student 30 Day

7.003%

7.688%

6.946%

0.685%

9.78

2%-0.057%

-0.814%

College 30 Day

2.09

2%2.

167%

2.15

5%0.

075%

3.58

5%0.063%

3.011

Regular Silver

Regu

larS

ilv~

rOff-Peak

Silver Upc

harg

e

0.06

8%0.

068%

0.26

0%

0.06

5%0.

067%

0.254%

0.065%

0.06

6°/a

0.251%

-0.0

03%

-0.001%

-0.0

06%

-4.4

12%

-1.4

71%

-2.308%

-0.003%

-0.002%

-0.0

09%

-4.4

12%

-2.941%

-3.4

62%

Senior/D

isab

led Silver

0.020%

0.01

7%0.

022%

-0.003%

-15.000°/

a0.

002%

10.000%

Senior/D

isab

led Of

f-Peak Silver

0.02

0%0.017%

0.022%

-0.003%

-15.

000%

0.002%

10.000%

Seni

odDi

sabl

ed Silver Up

char

ge0.

041%

0.03

3%0.044%

-0.0

08%

-19.

512%

0.00

3%7.317%

Express Fa

re0.

269%

0.262%

0.25

7%-0.007%

-2.6

02%

-0.0

12%

-4.4

61

Express Fa

re Off-Peak

0.26

9%0.256%

0.261%

-0.0

13%

-4.8

33%

-0.0

08%

-2.974%

Express Zone Upc

harge

Senior/D

isab

led Express Zo

ne Upc

harg

e0.537%

0.15

4%0.

536%

0.126%

0.51

8%0.165%

-0.001%

-0.028%

-0.1

86%

-18.

182%

-0.019%

0.011%

-3.538%

7.14

3%

Total

96.357%

96.264%

96.322° /a

Perc

enta

ge of To

tal Ri

ders

hip

100%

86.2

%68

.2%

Free/n

on-paid/underpaid boardings are excluded from this ana

lysi

s. Therefore, ri

ders

hip totals are

less than 100 %.

Fare Res

truc

turi

ng

30

1s.0

00io

16.000'

14.000%

12.000%

10.000%

8.~0%

6.000%

4.000%

2.000%

0.~0%

Opti

on 2 Phase 1

All Ri

ders

Mi

nori

ty Riders

Low Income Rid

ers

■

Base Fare

■Base

Fare Off-P

eak

Day Pass

■Weekly

■Monthly

er EZ Pa

ss

■Senior/Disabled Cas

h (Peak)

■

Seni

or/Disabled Ca

sh (Off-Pe

ak)

Seni

or/D

isab

led Day Pas

s

■

Senior/Disabled Monthly

Student Ca

sh

~ Stu

dent

30 Day

Coll

ege 30 Day

Fare Restructuring

31


Fare Media


7MINORITY

LOW INCOME

All Riders

Minority Rid

ers

Low Income

Riders

Abso

lute

Difference

Diff

eren

cefr

om Ove

rall

Abso

lute

Diff

eren

ceDifference

from Ove

rall

Base

Far

e12

.725

%12

.181

%12

.229

%-0.5

44%

-4.2

75%

-0.496%

-3.8

98%

Base

Far

e Of

f-Peak

12.7

25%

12.7

20%

12.3

80%

-0.0

05%

-0.0

39%

-0.345%

-2.711%

Day Pass

7.433%

7.762%

7.655%

0.32

9%4.

426%

0.222%

2.987%

Weekly

14.2

98%

15.3

09%

14.9

26%

1.011 %

7.071 %

0.628%

4.392%

Monthly

12.0

78%

12.1

50%

10.9

21 %

0.07

2%0.

596%

-1.157%

-9.5

79%

EZ Pass

2.17

0%2.

070%

1.63

0%-0.1

00%

-4.6

08%

-0.540%

-24.

885%

Muni Transfers

0.74

1%0.

662%

0.68

0%-0.079%

-10.

661%

-0.0

61%

-8.2

32%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (Express)

0.30

2%0.304%

0.27

3%0.

002%

0.66

2%-0.0

29%

-9.6

03%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (E

Z)0.

054%

0.05

2%0.041%

-0.0

02%

-3.7

04%

-0.0

13%

-24.

074%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Cash (Peak)

2.967%

2.42

8%3.

183%

-0.5

39%

-18.

166%

0.21

6%7.

280%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Ca

sh (Off-Pe

ak)

2.96

7%2.

428%

3.18

3%-0.5

39%

-18.

166%

0.21

6%7.

280%

Senior/D

isab

led Da

y Pass

2.30

3%2.413%

2.57

4%0.

110%

4.776%

0.271%

11.767%

Senior/D

isab

led Monthly

12.1

40%

11.5

15%

13.1

05%

-0.6

25%

-5.148%

0.965%

7.949%

Senior/D

isab

led EZ Pass

0.93

1 %0.

880%

1.001 %

-0.051 %

-5.478%

0.07

0%7.

519%

Senior/D

isab

led Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.

080%

0.07

1%0.

073°/

a-0.0

09%

-11.

250%

-0.007%

-8.7

50%

Seni

orlD

isab

led Monthly Zone Upcharge (E

Z)0.

023%

0.022%

0.02

5%-0.001%

-4.3

48%

0.002%

8.696%

Student Cash

1.05

1%1.

163%

1.06

0%0.

112%

10.6

57%

0.00

9%0.

856%

Student 30 Day

7.342%

8.082%

7.304%

0.740%

10.0

79%

-0.0

38%

-0.518%

Coll

ege 30 Day

2.19

8%2.

284%

2.27

2%0.

086%

3.913%

0.07

4%3.

367%

Regu

lar SilUer

0.08

5%0.081%

0.081%

-0.004%

-4.7

06%

-0.0

04%

-4.706%

Regu

lar SilUer Off-Peak

0.08

5%0.

085%

0.082%

0.000%

0.00

0%-0.0

03%

-3.5

29%

Silv

er Upc

harg

e0.

325%

0.31

8%0.314%

-0.007° /a

-2.1

54%

-0.011%

-3.3

85%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Silver

0.02

0%0.

016%

0.02

1 °/a

-0.0

04%

-20.

000%

0.00

1 %5.000°/a

Senior/D

isab

led Of

f-Peak Sil~r

0.02

0%0.016%

0.02

1 %-0.004%

-20.

000%

0.00

1 %5.000%

Senior/D

isab

led

Silver Upc

harg

e0.039°/a

0.032%

0.04

2%-0.0

07%

-17.

949%

0.003%

7.69

2%

Express Fa

re0.

336%

0.32

2%0.323%

-0.0

14%

-4.1

67%

-0.0

13%

-3.8

69%

Express Fa

re Off-Peak

0.336%

0.33

6%0.

327%

0.000%

0.00

0%-0.009%

-2.679%

Express Zone Upc

harg

e0.

672%

0.65

8%0.

650%

-0.0

14%

-2.0

83%

-0.022%

-3.274%

Senior/D

isab

led Express Zone Upc

harge

0.14

9%0.122%

0.16

0%-0.027%

-18.

121%

0.011%

7.38

3%

Total

96.595%

96.482%

96.536%

Perc

enta

ge of To

tal Ri

ders

hip

100%

86.2

%68.2%

Free/n

on-pai

d/un

derp

aid ho

ardi

ngs are ex

clud

ed fro

m th

is ana

lysi

s. The

refo

re, ri

ders

hip to

tals

are less than 100%.

Fare Restructuring

32

Opti

on 2 Phase 2

All Riders

Mino

rity

Riders

Low Income Riders

■Base

Fare

■Base

Fare Off-Peak

Day Pas

s

■Wee

kly

■Month

ly

■

EZ Pas

s

■Senior/

Disabled Cas

h (Peak)

■Sen

ior/Disabled Cas

h (Off-Peak}

Senior/D

isab

led Day Pas

s

■Sen

ior/Disabled Monthly

Stud

ent Ca

sh

Student 30 Day

Coll

ege 30 Day

Fare Restructuring

33


Fare Med

ia


MINORITY

LOW INCOME

All Ri

ders

Minority Rid

ers

Low Income

Ride

rsAbsolute

Diff

eren

ceDi

ffer

ence

from

Overall

Abso

lute

Difference

Difference

from Ove

rall

Base

Far

e14

.821

%14

.165

%14

.224

%-0.656%

-4.426%

-0.5

97%

-4.0

28° /a

Base

Far

e Of

f-Peak

14.8

21%

14.7

91%

14.3

99%

-0.0

30%

-0.2

02%

-0.422%

-2.8

47%

Day Pass

7.046%

7.346%

7.246%

0.30

0%4.

258%

0.200%

2.83

8%

Weekly

21.3

44%

22.8

17%

22.2

50%

1.473%

6.901%

0.90

6%4.245%

Monthly

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.000%

0.00

0%0.000%

EZ Pass

6.387%

6.08

3%4.

791 %

-0.304%

-4.760%

-1.5

96%

-24.

988%

Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.

702%

0.627%

0.644%

-0.0

75%

-10.

684%

-0.0

58%

-8.2

62%

Monthly Zone Upc

harg

e (Express)

0.31

5%0.

316%

0.28

4%0.001%

0.317%

-0.031%

-9.8

41%

Monthly Zone Upc

harge (E

Z)0.

160%

0.152%

0.12

0%-0.008%

-5.000%

-0.0

40%

-25.

000%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Cash (Peak)

2.75

9%2.

254%

2.95

6%-0.5

05%

-18.

304%

0.19

7%7.140%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Cash (Off-Peak)

2.75

9%2.254%

2.95

6%-0.505%

-18.

304%

0.197%

7.14

0%

Senior/D

isab

led Da

y Pass

2.110%

2.20

7%2.

355%

0.097%

4.59

7%0.

245%

11.611%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Mo

nthl

y11

.212

%10

.617

%12

.086

%-0.595%

-5.307%

0.87

4%7.

795%

Senior/D

isab

led EZ Pass

0.88

3%0.

833%

0.948%

-0.0

50%

-5.663%

0.065%

7.361

Seni

or/D

isab

led Muni Tra

nsfe

rs0.

075%

0.06

7%0.

069%

-0.0

08%

-10.

667%

-0.006%

-8.0

00%

Senior/D

isab


harge (E

Z)0.

022%

0.02

1 %0.

024%

-0.001 %

-4.5

45%

0.002%

9.09

1

Student Cash

0.959%

1.05

9%0.

965%

0.100%

10.4

28%

0.00

6%0.626%

Student 30 Day

6.685%

7.347%

6.642%

0.66

2° /a

9.90

3%-0.0

43%

-0.643%

College 30 Day

2.001 %

2.07

5%2.065%

0.07

4%3.

698%

0.06

4%3.198%

Regu

lar Silver

0.09

9%0.

094%

0.09

5%-0.0

05%

-5.051%

-0.004%

-4.040%

Regu

lar Sil~r Of

f-Peak

0.09

9%0.098%

0.09

6%-0.001%

-1.0

10%

-0.0

03%

-3.030%

Silv

er Upcha

rge

0.37

9%0.

370%

0.366%

-0.0

09%

-2.375%

-0.013%

-3.4

30%

Senior/D

isab

led Sil~r

0.01

8%0.

015%

0.02

0%-0.003%

-16.

667%

0.002%

11.111%

Senior/D

isab

led Of

f-Peak Silver

0.01

8%0.015%

0.020%

-0.003%

-16.667%

0.002%

11.111%

Seni

or/D

isab

led Silver Upcha

rge

0.037%

0.03

0%0.

039%

-0.0

07%

-18.

919%

0.00

2%5.405%

Express Fa

re0.

391 °

/a0.374%

0.37

6%-0.017%

-4.3

48%

-0.0

15%

-3.836%

Express Fa

re Off-Peak

0.39

1%0.

391%

0.380%

0.000%

0.00

0%-0.011%

-2.8

13%

Express Zone Upc

harg

e0.

783%

0.76

5%0.

756%

-0.0

18%

-2.2

99%

-0.0

27%

-3.448%

Senior/D

isab

led Express Zo

ne Upc

harge

0.13

9%0.113%

0.149%

-0.026%

-18.

705%

0.010%

7.194%

Total

97.415%

97.296%

97.321%

Perc

enta

ge of To

tal Ri

ders

hip

100%

86.2%

68.2%

Free/n

on-pai

d/un

derp

aid bo

ardi

ngs are ex

clud

ed fro

m th

is ana

lysi

s. Therefore, ri

ders

hip to

tals

are less than 100%.

Fare Res

truc

turi

ng

34

Opti

on 2 Pha

se 3

25.000%

_...._

.._.__

_---._

___.--

------

---._.

______

.—~._.___---------._

__._

.~_.

____

._ __---------------------------------------

..._..

_____.

__._._

..._..

.____

i■Base

Fare

20.000%

■

Base Fare Off-Pe

ak

Day Pass

(-■W

eekl

y15.000%

.___..

_.._..

__._._

__.

_.._..

_..____

..._

_---

----

---___.--_

.____.

__.__.

__._.-

---__

___.._

____--

------

-.__

..~----

■

EZ Pas

s

■

Senior/Disabled Ca

sh (Peak)

■Senior/

Disabled Cas

h (Off-P

eak)

10.000'

_ __

__._.~

._._~_

_ _ ...

_ __

__--

----

--____.

--

-._.___

_---.

----_ _._--

--

---.

.___

._—

--_ _■

Senior/D

isab

led Day Pas

s

Seni

or/Disabled Monthly

■Student Cas

h

5.000%

~- _ _

_.._

__

____

__

~.-

___-

-._.

----

---_

_ F` ' __

____

~ Stu

dent

30 Day

;. ~ Col

lege

30 Day

0.000%

~.._

_ _ ..

- --

- __

All Riders

Mino

rity

Riders

Low Income Riders

Fare Res

truc

turi

ng

35

ATTACHMENT E

CEQA Resolution

RESOLUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA FINDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF

THE FARE RESTRUCTURING PLAN IS TO PAY OPERATING EXPENSES

WHEREAS, Metro's projected operating deficit over the next 10 years is over $887 million;

and

WHEREAS, Metro's average cost per boarding on a system-wide basis is $2.68 but the base

cash fare is $1.50, and the average Metro rider pays only 70 cents per boarding due to deep

discounts offered to various riders; and

WHEREAS, the average senior or disabled rider pays an even lower proportion of the cost

per boarding at less than 24 cents per ride; and

WHEREAS, since 2007 the discounted fares for seniors, disabled and student riders have not

changed and are maintained at levels significantly lower than federally required; and

WHEREAS, Metro reduced the price of the day pass from $6 to $5 in 2011 to counter the

rising cost of gas, and has not increased the reduced price to date; and

WHEREAS, Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan assumes that Metro is financially

solvent to operate the bus and rail system as it expands, and to do so fares collected should cover

33 percent of operating costs beginning in FY15; and

WHEREAS, fares currently cover only 26 percent of the cost of an MTA ride and 74 percent

of the cost is subsidized by taxpayers (in comparison to 1988 when the taxpayers subsidized only

56 percent of each passenger's ride); and

WHEREAS, allowing the fare recovery ratio to fall below 26 percent could jeopardize

Federal New Starts funding; and

WHEREAS, Metro continues to raise more revenues for operations by proactively addressing

fare evasion, through education, engineering and enforcement and through gate latching efforts,

however the additional revenues from these ongoing efforts are not expected to substantially

increase Metro's fare recovery ratio; and

WHEREAS, the passage of Measure R in 2008 mandates the construction of specific rail

transit projects, but does not include sufficient revenues to fund operations of the new lines; and

WHEREAS, the alternative of reduction in service conflicts with Metro's goal of expanding

and improving the public transportation system in the Los Angeles County region; and


WHEREAS, Metro eliminated 116 positions in the past few years and cost of living

allowances were not offered in order to control costs; and

WHEREAS, Metro has pursued avenues to raise more revenue including placing

advertisements on buses and rail stations, and parking fees but the operating deficit continues to

grow; and

WHEREAS, Metro funds that are typically programmed for future capital investments have

already been used to augment Metro's bus operations budget for years, and if these resources are

used to offset the deficit in fiscal year 2017, minimal fund balances will remain; and

WHEREAS, Metro's operating deficit is siphoning funds that could be leveraged with state

bond money or other state and federal dollars to fast track critical relief on the region's congested

highways and transit system; and

WHEREAS, Metro will not be able to meet its operating expenses as soon as fiscal year 2017

or add new transit services if action is not immediately taken to offset or eliminate the

operational deficit now; and

WHEREAS, all Metro fare revenues are credited to the Enterprise Fund, an account which is

used solely to pay for bus and rail operating costs, including operating employee wages and

fringe benefits, fuel and propulsion power, materials and supplies, contract transportation

services, professional services for operations, Public Liability/Property Damage and other

insurance related to operations, utilities, taxes and overhead allocated to bus and rail operations;

and

WHEREAS, the Enterprise Fund is prepared in accordance with all applicable standards of

the Government Accounting Standards Board and supported by reports of all operations-related

transactions; and

WHEREAS, internal controls, such as authorization, verification, and monitoring, are in

place to ensure that fares are used solely to fund bus and rail operations, and Metro's financial

transactions are audited annually by an independent CPA firm.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Metro Board of Directors finds that any future fare structure

adopted on this date will be solely used for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, including

employee wage rates and fringe benefits, purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials,

meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and obtaining funds for capital projects

necessary to maintain service within existing service areas.

Adopted this day of , 2014.

Fare Restructuring 3~

ATTACHMENT F

Ridership Statistics and Demographics

Riders by Fare Media Type

Free (incl. Access), 10.04%

College. Monthly Pass, 2.30

K-12 Manthfy Pass, 5.59 % ~---

Cash, 19.27%K-12 Cash; 1.48%

i~TM x

SID EZPass. 0.60 % _/ ~~yz~,,

.~

S(D Monthly Pass, 1122Day Pass, 13.21%

SID Cash,SID Day Pass, 0.90 % ~~ g q~ ~ Weekly Pass, 14.07%

Transfers 8 Foreign County,0.83

Mnual Pass, 3.39 % ~-~--

EZ Pass, 2.52

Monthly Pass, 8.12

Source: FY13 Fare Media Mix

Revenues by Fare Media Type

Mnual Pass. 1.82 % ..

S/D EZ Pass, 0.83 % Stored Value,

7.89%

K-12 Monthly Pass, 3.05

EZ Pass, 6.68%

College Monthty Pass, 1.15 ",

S/D Monthly Pass, 2.43 %t.

Gash , 39.44;4,

Weekly Pass, 14.15%

Day Pass, 1328%

Monthly Pass,9.11 %,

S/D Day.. Pass. 0.17

Source: El(13Fare Revenue Statistics


ATTACHMENT F (cont.)

Riders Household income60°!0

51%

50%

40%

30%0

20% 17% 16°!0

10% 7% 7%3%

0% ~ ~

'Under $15,000 $15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $100,000 or

$24,999 $34,999 $49,000 $99,000 more

Source: 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey

Riders Ethnicity

American Indian, 1%

White, 9% Asian/

Other, 4% Pac Is, 8°/

61ack, 23%

Latiiao. 55%~

Source: 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey


ATTACHMENT G

World Comparison

.Base Bus Fares

$2.50

$2.00 $2.25 $2.25

$1.23 $1.36 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.60 $7.66

$0.24 ■

$2.90 $2.94

~`0-hj~a `~ahf'a si°9dA ~Q~~° ~Pw~e eosf°o ~ash~o sa~'°a ch;~a90 Ah,~`~a@i Sa,~'e ~@~yo~ ea~ce~o ~ofPQa

~'~ ~~ ~~e ~SQ.~ ~ 9f~h ~C4~o ~~ Ah~a Aq yo c~ ,~c~~ ~~ i

Source: US data from agency websites; international data from Regional Ptan Association (Transit Leadership Summit, April 2012)

Farebox Recovery

36.4% 38.8% 41.4% 42.7% 43.0% 46.0% 47.2%

51.2% 54.2%

25.8°/a 31.3% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ■

101.4%

83.1% 85.8% 87.3% 87.7% _

4fef~o sa,~~d~iepsfoh ~ ~~aae ~,O'~9N@~ J@~meh~ca9o'bQ~~co C~ash'h9oa~~P'oh~'@~yo~~C,f~ea~ o,~ao' SaaAa4'oa,~f~dg s%,~9dAO~e

s~o c q a A~ ~ cq J~ h, ~C SAa~' ~~ ~y

~9

Source: US data from 2012 National Transit Database; international data from Regional Plan Association (Transit Leadership

Summit, April 2012)


ATTACHMENT G (cont.)

Peer Agencv Comparison

TransitAgency

City Fare Category30~day11-month 7~day11week 1-day Peak base fare

Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail

LACMTA(Proposed)

Los Angeles, CA~u~~/adult $100.00 $100.00 $25.00 $25.00 $7.00 $7.00 $1.75 $1.75

senior/disabled $20.OQ $20.00 $2.50 $2.50 $0.75 $0.75

youthlstudent $29.00 $29:Q0 $1.25 $t25

LACMTA Los Angeles, CAfullladult $75.00 $75.00 $20.00 $20.00 $5.00 $5.00 $1.50 $1.50

seniorldisabled $14.00 $14.00 $1.80 $1.80 $0.55 $0.55

youthlstudent $24.00 $24.00 $1.00 $1.00

MBTA Boston, MAfullladult $48.00 $70.00 $18.00 $18.00 $11.00 $11.00 $1.50 $2.00

senioddisabled $28.00 $28.00 $0.75 $1.00

youthlstudent $25-28 $25-28 $0.75 $1.00

CTA Chicago, ILfull/adult $100.00 $100.00 $28-33 $28-33 $10.00 $10.00 $2.00 $2.25

seniorldisabled $50.00 $50.00 $1.00 $1.10

youthlstudent $0.75 $0.75

NYCT New York, NYfullladult $112.00 $112.00 $30.00 $30.00 $2.50 $2.50

seniorldisabled $56.00 $56.00 $15.00 $15.00 $1.25 $1.25


SEPTA' Philadelphia, PAfull/adult $91.00 $91.00 $24.00 $24.00 $12.00 $12.00 $2.25 $2.25

senioddisabled $1.00 $1.00


MTS San Diego, CAfullladult $72.00 $72.00 $5.00 $5.00 $2.25 $2.50

seniodtlisabled $18.00 $18.00 $1.10 $1.25

youthlstudent $36.00 $36.00 $2.25 $2.50

Muni2 San Francisco, CAfull/adult ,$66-76 $66-76 $15.00 $15.00 $2.00 $2.00

senioddisabled $23.00 $23.00 $0.75 $0.75

youthlstudent $23.00 $23.00 $0.75 $0.75

KC Metro3 Seattle, WAfullladult $90-108 NIA IV/A WA $2.50 IVIA

senioddisabletl $27.00 NIA NIA NIA $0.75 NIA

youthlstudent $45.00 NIA NIA WA $1.25 IVIA

WMATA4 Washington, DCfull/adult $230.00 $16.00 $57.50 $14.00 $1.60 $2.10

senioddisabled $8.00 $0.80 $1.05

youthlstudent $30.00 $30.00 $0.75 $0.95

Notes

Seniors are free at all times; limited day pass for 8 rides is $8; a similar youth day pass for 6 rides is $6; discounted student

prices with many restrictions not included here (not comparable)

2 Higher monthly pass includes BART (SF stations only)

3 No rail system (buses only)

4 Regular monthly pass and regular weekly pass are for regional/commuter rail only (not valid on buses); regular rail fare is

distance-based


ATTACHMENT G (cont)

Fare Per Boarding

$1.6s

$1.18 $1.24

$1.01 $1.03 $1.07

Metro San Seattle, WA Chicago, IL San Diego, New York Boston, MA Philadelphia, Washington,

Francisco, (KC METRO) (CTA) CA (MTS) City, NY (MBTA) PA (SEPTA) DC

CA (MUNI) (NYCT) (WMATA)

Source:.2012 National Transit Database

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

-0.0%

Farebox Recovery

Metro Seattle, WA San Boston, MA Philadelphia, San Diego, Chicago, IL Washington, New York

(KC METRO) Francisco, CA (MBTA) PA (SEPTA) CA (MTS) (CTA) DC (WMATA) City, NY

(MUNI) (NYCT)

Source: 2012 National Transit Database



Base Bus Fares

$2.50 $2,50$2.25 $2.25

$2.00 $2.00

$1..50 $1.50 $1.60

~~ ~ . ,.

r~-

Metro Boston, MA Washington,. Chicago, IL San Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle, WA New York

(MBTA) DC (WMATA) (CTA) Francisco, PA (SEPTA) CA (MTS) (KC METRO) City, NY

CA (MUNI) (NYCT)

Source: Agency websites

Senior/Disabled Base Bus Fare vs Regular Base BusFare

$2.25 $2.25

$1.50

n

$0.25

$2.50 $2.50

Metro Metro (Peak) Boston, MA Washington, San Chicago, IL Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle, WA New York, NY

(Off-Peak) (MBTA) DC (WMATA) Francisco, (CTA) PA (SEPTA) CA (MTS) (KC Metro) (NYCT)

CA (MUNI)

■Senior/Disabled Base Bus Fare

Source`. Agency websites ■'Re9U~aC [email protected] Faf@



Senior/Disabled 30-Day/1-Month Pass vs Regular 30-Day/1-Month Pass

$112.00$100.00 $100.00

$90.00

..$70.00 $72.00 575.00

$6~0 ~ ~ --- -- $56.00

$23.00

San Francisco, Boston, MA San Diego, CA Metro - Current Seattle, WA Metro Proposed Chicago, IL

GA (MUNI) (MBTA) (MTS} (KC Metro) - 2014 (CTA)

■Senior/Disabled 30-Day/1-Month

■Regular 3Q-Day/1-MonthSource: Agency websites

30-Day/1-Month Pass (Bus and Rail)

$7Q.00 $72.00- $75.00

Boston, MA San Diego, CA Metro -(MBTA) (MTS) Current


New York, NY(NYC

$112.00

San Seattle, WA Philadelphia, Metro Chicago, IL New York, NY

Francisco, CA (KC Metro) PA (SEPTA) Proposed - (CTA) (NYCT)

(MUNI) 2014



Youth/Student 30-Day/1-Month Pass.

$36.00

$28.00 529.00 $30.00

$23.00 $24.00 I I ■

$45.00

San Francisco, CA Metro - Current Boston, NL4 Metro Proposed - Washington, DC San Diego, CA Seattle, WA

(MUNI) (META) 2014 (WMTA) (MTS) (KC Metro)


Maximum Load Factor

a~:s1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0Washington ̀ Metro Boston New Jersey - San

DC (MBTA) (NJ Francisco

(WMATA) Transit) (MUNI)

`Source: Agency websites

1 7

San Diego New York Chicago Seattle Philadelphia(MTS) (NYCT) (CTA) (KC Metro) (SEPTA)


ATTACHMENT G (cont)

Price Increases 1995 - 2013

250%

200%0

150%

100%60%

4450%0

11'i~ 17%

~% _ _——

Metro Gallon of milk First class Eggs(Base Fare) stamp

Source: Consumer Price Index 2013

221%

200

LA Times Gallon of gas(Daily)


ATTACHMENT G (cont)

Fares in other California Cities

Other California Cities Type Base Fare Monthly Pass

LADOT Bus $0.50 None

Santa Clarita Bus $1.00 $32.00

Long Beach Bus $1.25 $65.00

West Covina (FTZ) Bus $1.25 $70.00

Foothill Transit Bus $1.25 $70.00

Riverside Bus $1.50 $50.00

San Bernardino Bus $1.50 $47.00

Stockton Bus $1.50 $65.00

Antelope Valley Bus $1.50 $50.00

MetroBus/Light

Rail/Heavy Rail$1.50 $75.00

Orange Bus $2.00 $69.00

San Jose Bus/Light Rail $2.00 $70.00

Santa Cruz Bus $2.00 $113.00

Oakland Bus $2.10 $80.00

San Diego Bus $2.25 $72.00

Sacramento Bus/ Light Rail $2.50 $100.00

Note: Prop A, Prop C and Measure R Local Return Funds allocated to cities total

$427.5M for FY15. These funds are used by most transit operators to augment their

revenues, which allows them to keep their fares low.


ATTACHMENT H

Fare Subsidy Programs

Program Subsidy Amount Description~ - n~G, w v~aa.vu~~~cu ~ a~ca _

Regular cash fare is $1.50. FTArequirement is 50% off peak, butindustry trends are 50% of full fareat all times. Current S/D cash fare

Senior/Disabled Cash Fare $10,710,000 is $0.55 peak/$0.25 off peak.Subsidy in excess of industrytrends is $0.20 peak/$0.50 offpeak. FY13 S/D cash boardingswere 30,600,000.S/D pass is not required. S/D daypasses are sold annually at $1.80

Senior/Disabled Day Pass $1,017,600 versus $5.00. Subsidy per pass is$3.20. 318,000 S/D day passessold in FY13.S/D pass is not required. 585,000

Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass $35,685,000S/D passes were sold in FY13 at$14 versus $75. Subsidy per passis $61.Regular cash fare is $1.50.

K-12 Cash Fare (with TAP $3,500,000Student cash fare is not required.Student cash fare is $1.00.

Card) Subsidy is $0.50. 7,000,000student cash boardin sin FY13.K-12 pass is $24 versus $75.

K-12 Student Monthly Pass $21,879,000 Subsidy per pass is $51. 429,000asses sold in FY13.C/V pass is $36 versus $75.

College/Voc Monthly Pass $4,212,000 Subsidy per pass is $39. 108,000asses sold in FY13.

S/D pass is $35 versus $84.

EZ S/D Monthly Pass $3,234,000 Subsidy per pass is $49. 66,000passes sold in FY13.

Other Metro Pro ramsSupport for Homeless on Re-entry— Shelter Partnership distributestokens through homeless and

Support for Homeless Re- $500,000social service agencies in the city

Entry Program (SHORE) of Los Angeles. These agenciesdistribute the tokens to eligiblehomelss/indigent population toseek emplo ment, housin ,etc.


Other Metro Pro ramsThe Rider Relief TransportationProgram (RRTP) was establishedto help mitigate the impact of the

Rider Relief Transportation $5,000,0002007 fare adjustment on lowincome and transit dependent

Program (RRTP) riders of Los Angeles County.Eligible participants receive passsubsidy coupons through a networkof non rofit a encies.The Immediate NeedsTransportation Program (INTP)provides subsidized bus/taxi faresto Los Angeles County residentswho have a need for transportation

Immediate Needswith no other resources. The First

Transportation Program $5,000,000African Methodist Church (FAME)and the International Institute of

(INTP) Los Angeles (IILA) are theadministrators of the program andthey work through non-profitagencies to distribute the taxivouchers and bus tokens to eligibleindividuals.Incentive funded programs include

Prop A Incentive Program $6,080,000Subregional Paratransit service (23programs provided by 21 agencies)to the Elderl and Disabled.Job Access and Reverse Commute(JARC) and New FreedomPrograms. Through these federalprograms, Metro allocates fundingto Los Angeles County eligiblerecipients who are able to developand implement local programs thatoffer job access and reverse

JARC/New Freedom $7,000,000commute services that offertransportation for low incomeindividuals who may live in the citycore and work in suburbanlocations or services and facilityimprovements to address thetransportation needs of personswith disabilities that go beyondthose required by the Americanswith Disabilities Act.


-Metro Discounted FaresAccess Services is responsible forthe administration of AccessParatransit, the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) mandated

Access Services $57,000,000paratransit transportation programfor Los Angeles County andprovides for the mobility of personswith disabilities. Access Servicescosts have increased to $67M inFY14 and $68M in FY15.

Local ProgramsFor FY13, 56 cities and the County

Specialized Dial-a-ride for the ~2~,800,000 of Los Angeles (unincorporatedelderly and disabled areas rovided S ecialized DAR.

Over 30 local cities and the Countyof Los Angeles also provide transitsubsidies to their residents.Subsidy amounts vary depending

Subsidies Offered by Local on the jurisdiction. Regular monthlyJurisidictions pass subsidies vary in value up to

$17, senior/disabled pass subsidiesare up to $10, and college/studentsubsidies are up to $ 23.

GRAND TOTAL $188,6'7,600


ATTACHMENT

Public Hearing Notification

Notification of the public comment period and public hearing occurred as follows:

WEB

Metro Website• Section with information on fare proposal and hearing on metro.net with information in

English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Armenian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Russian, Thai

and Cambodian

• Rotating banner on metro.net directing to fare hearing section of website

Social Media• Facebook,Twitter, and Instagram posts

• Posts on The Source discussing the fare proposal

E-blasts• Metro general information e-mail lists

• Key stakeholder e-mail lists

PRINT ADS

Printed legal notice of public hearing — published 30 days before hearing (English, Spanish,Chinese, Korean, Armenian, Russian and Japanese)• Los Angeles Daily News

• Long Beach Press-Telegram

• Orange County Register

• Torrance Daily Breeze

• Asbarez Armenian Daily

• Sarashi News

• Panorama

• LA Sentinel

• Asian Journal Publication

• La Opinion

• Chinese Daily

• World Journal

• Rafu Shimpo

• Korean Times


Additional Print Ads —published week before hearing• 17 publications (English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Armenian, Japanese and Thai)

• LA Times

• La Opinion

• Los Angeles Daily News

• Long Beach Press-Telegram

• Torrance Daily Breeze

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune

• Pasadena Star News

• Whittier Daily News

• LA Downtown News

• Impacto USA

• Asbarez Armenian Daily

• Sereechai News

• World Journal News

• Sing Tao Daily

• Rafu Shimpo

• Korea Daily

• Korean Times

"Metro Briefs" ads item• Included in February and March monthly ads in 105 publications that include

newspapers in 8 languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Armenian, Russian,

Japanese and Thai)

ON METRO SYSTEM

"Take-one" brochure• On-board buses and trains, and at Customer Centers

• In 10 languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Armenian, Vietnamese, Russian,

Japanese, Thai and Cambodian

Metro Insider• On-board buses and trains and at Customer Center (English and Spanish)

On-board posters• Rail posters on trains

• Car cards on buses (English and Spanish)

Union Station East Portal Ticker• Scrolling message above Customer Center (English and Spanish)

Message on hold announcement• Recorded announcement for customers calling Metro (English and Spanish)


ATTACHMENT J

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro

One Gateway Plaza zi3.gz2.z000 Tel

Los Angeles, CA gooiz-z95z metro.net

May 09, 2014

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THROUGH: ARTHUR T. LEAHYCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

FROM: NALINI AHUJAEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FINANCE 8~ BUDGET

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES FROM THE MARCH 29, 2014PUBLIC HEARING (FARE RESTRUCTURING)

ISSUE

In compliance with federal public hearing requirements and Metro policy, the Board held

a public hearing and received public testimony regarding restructuring fares on March

29, 2014. During the hearing, there were specific questions and issues that were raised

repeatedly by members of the public. Following the hearing, members of the Board also

posed various questions and requests for additional information regarding the fare

proposals. The purpose of this report is to provide responses to those inquiries.

DISCUSSION

Below is a list of questions raised by the Board and members of the public at thehearing, as well as a summary of staff responses. Further information can be found in

the attachments to this report.

Inquiries from the Board

1. Why is the farebox recovery ratio for Boston, Washington DC, and New Jersey

so much higher than Metro, while the base bus fare is close to Metro's current

cost of $1.50?

Although it seems that the farebox recovery ratio for these transit agenciesshould be comparable to Metro based on the minimum base bus fare, significant

differences are apparent when we look at the overall fare structure, servicestatistics, and operating data. See Attachment A for a detailed analysis.

2. Provide more information on the effect of a fare increase on minority and low

income customers, and an explanation on why we concluded there is no Title VI

or Environmental Justice issue.

Metro's ridership is about 90% minority and 80% low income, and all of our

existing fare products are proportionately used by minority and low income

customers when compared with total ridership. As a result, there is no Title VI or

Environmental Justice issue, although Metro's thresholds for disparate impact

and disproportionate burden are relatively low. See Attachment B for further

explanation.

3. What are other potential revenue sources besides fares?

Metro could potentially generate new revenue from advertising, digital

advertising, leases and park &ride lots. However, total new revenues that may

be collectible from these sources are estimated at about $3.2 million annually

and would not be sufficient to mitigate the projected deficit. See Attachment C for

a listing and discussion of potential new revenue sources.

4. What cost cutting measures have been taken since the last fare increase?

Over the past few years, Metro has streamlined internally to keep operational

costs down. 116 full time employees were eliminated, cost of living allowances

were not given, and technology, such as CNG buses and solar panels, is being

used to operate more cleanly and efficiently. In addition, cuts to non-labor

operating costs and administrative costs have caused expenses in these

categories to decrease. See Attachment D for an analysis of changes in

operating costs since the last fare increase in 2010.

5. Provide more information on how fare enforcement inspections are being

conducted, with an emphasis on the public's concern about the "criminalization of

youth."

Fare inspections are targeted on problematic lines where fare evasion is known

to be a problem. Inspections are conducted the same way for minors as they are

for adults. However, adult citations are an administrative citation that is handled

internally by Metro Transit Court, while juvenile citations are referred to the

Superior Court as required by California Public Utilities Code

Section 99580. See Attachment E for more details on fare inspections and

citations.

6. What is the average trip distance and duration?

This question appears to be related to repeated suggestions from the public that

the 90 minute transfer period be extended. As of February 2014, the average

bus trip is 4.08 miles and takes about 22.4 minutes per boarding. The average

Response to Inquiries from the March 29, 2014 Public Hearing2

rail trip is 5.65 miles and takes about 16 minutes per boarding. See Attachment

F for a detailed schedule of average trip length on rail lines.

Inquiries from Members of the Public

7. Provide more information on ridership statistics by headway times. This item is to

address complaints from several public speakers regarding service frequency in

specific areas such as the San Fernando Valley.

Headways on Metro bus and rail lines range from 5 to 60+ minutes. Because

Metro service covers a very large area of 1,500 square miles using limitedresources, longer headways must be scheduled for less heavily used routes. On

the average weekday, less than 5% of boardings have headways of over 45

minutes, while over 70°/a of boardings have headways of 20 minutes or less. See

Attachment G for a schedule of headway times for trips and boardings by day of

the week.

8. Provide information on what programs would be unfunded as a result of moving

all eligible funding to bus and rail operations. This item is to address demands

from members of the public that all eligible funding be moved to operations.

All funding that is legally mandated to be used for bus and rail operations, such

as Measure R 5% Rail Operations and Measure R 20% Bus Operations, is

programmed as such in compliance with the law. However, there are additional

discretionary funds available for use on bus and rail operations that are currently

being used to fund other projects. While it is possible to move this revenue to

operations, it would require unfunding other projects.

Bus and rail operations are not the only demand on Metro's discretionary funds.

Access Services subsidies, which are paid from Prop C 40% Discretionary funds,

have been increasing faster than forecasted and currently cost Metro over $60

million annually. Because there is no designated funding source, Prop C 40% will

continue to fund Access Services. See Attachment H for a detailed breakdown of

funding currently used for bus and rail operations, and Attachment I for adetailed listing of total funding eligible for operations.

9. Provide information on how service has improved, including the expansion of

other transit systems in the region. This item is to address public complaints that

service has only been cut and has not improved.

Since 1996, the year the Consent Decree was implemented, Metro's revenue

vehicle hours for bus have increased by 7%, and revenue vehicle hours for rail

have increased by 220%. In addition, overall service in the Los Angeles County

region has increased dramatically, with revenue vehicle hours provided by other

municipal operators increasing by 54%. See Attachment J for a narrative of


changes in service since the 1996, and Attachment K for a detailed listing ofhistorical operating data for Metro and municipal operators over the same period.

Transfers and Discounted Fares Under the Fare Proposal

The current fare structure requires a full fare for cash paying customers who pay the

base fare and transfer. To provide for better system connectivity, Metro's fare proposal

includes a provision to include 90 minutes of transfers for those paying the base fare.

As 12% of riders pay cash and transfer, there is a significant number of riders who will

actually experience a fare decrease if the revised fare structure is approved. Forexample, a cash rider who transfers once will currently pay $3.00 for their trip. Under

the new fare structure, the same trip would cost $1.75—a decrease of over 40%.

Metro currently offers a day pass at a rate of $5.00. Because the current fare structure

does not allow for transfers, anyone who makes more than 3 boardings in a day wouldcurrently save money over the base fare by purchasing a day pass. Under the proposed

fare structure, a customer making two one-way trips within 90 minutes would actuallyexperience a price decrease if they pay the base fare for two trips, which would cost

$3.50. This is a decrease of 30% over the current day pass price.

While all fares in the proposal are higher than current rates, Metro maintains discounted

fares and passes for senior, disabled and student riders at lower rates than federallyrequired. As 31 % of riders are eligible for discounts, it is important to note that Metro is

keeping fares relatively low for nearly 1/3 of its ridership. See Attachment A for details

on Metro's discounted fares and pass prices in comparison with other transit agencies.

NEXT STEPS

The information gathered in response to inquiries from the Board and members of the

public will be considered along with all public comments received in staff's development

of the final fare proposal. The information attached to this report will be included in the

Board Report for fare restructuring, scheduled for the regular May Board meeting on

May 22.


ATTACHMENTS

A. Agency Comparison — Metro, Boston, Washington DC, and New Jersey

B. Civil Rights &Fare Changes PrimerC. Potential New Revenue SourcesD. Cost Cutting Measures Since the Last Fare IncreaseE. Fare Enforcement Inspections and Juvenile CitationsF. Rail Passenger Average Trip LengthG. Ridership Statistics by Headway TimesH. Funding Used for Bus &Rail OperationsI. Schedule of Funds Eligible for Bus &Rail OperationsJ. What's Changed Since 1996, Year Consent Decree Was Implemented

K. Historical Operating Data — 1996 to Present


ATTACHMENT A

Agencv Comparison -Los Angeles, Boston. Washington DC, and New Jersey

Objective: To illustrate differences in fare structure and pricing that result in Boston, DC and New Jersey maintaining

higher farebox recovery ratios although the minimum base bus fare is comparable to Metro's $1.50 base fare

Source: Current Metro fare structure, current fare schedules for MBTA, W MATA and NJ Transit per fare information

from each agency's website

Summary: Although the fares for these transit agencies appear to be comparable based on the minimum bus fare,

significant differences affecting farebox recovery are apparent when we look at the o~,erall fare structure,

sen~ice statistics, and operating data. Details are provided in each section below.

ONE WAY FARE AND MONTHLY PASS COMPARISON FOR REGULAR RIDERS

Discussion of Modes of Transit Offered - Boston, DC and New Jersey all provide heavy rail or commuter rail services that

differences from the are distance based and hake significantly higher single ride fares and pass prices. In addition, Boston provides

other agencies ferty services, which none of the other agencies in this comparison offer.

Distance Based Fares -All of these agencies have modes of transit that are priced based on the distance

tra~,eled. Metro has limited "distance-based" fares on express bus and Sileer Line only. These senrices are a

relatively small portion of systemwide ridership.

Premium Rail - Boston and DC have a heavy rail system, on which the fare charged is a higher premium over

regular bus fares. In addition, DC's heavy rail system is distance-based.

6ctensive Pass Structure - Monthly passes offered by the other agencies vary in price based on the

modes/zones for which they are valid fare media. For example, Boston has a $48 bus-only monthly pass, a

$70 bus-and-local-rail pass, and various other passes valid on a specified mix of modes of treeel. By contrast,

Metro offers one pass valid on all modes with additional upcharges for express zones only.

One Way Fares by Los Angeles, CA Boston, MA Washington,DC New Jersey

Mode of Travel Minimum - Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Bus $1.50 $2.90 $1.50 $6.50 $1.60 $4.00 $1.50 $44.50

Light Rail $.1.50 $1:50 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1.50 $2.10

Heavy Rail $1.50 $1:50 $2.00 $2.50 $2.10 $5.75 N/A N/A

Commuter Rail N/A NIA $2.00 $11.00 N/A N/A $1.50 $15.00

Ferry N/A N/A $3.00 $16.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Monthly Passes by Los Angeles, GA - Boston, MA Washington,DC New Jersey

Mode of Travel Minimum ' Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Bus $75.00 $119:00 $48.00 $160.00 $64.00 $64.00 $50.00 $455.00

Light Rail $75.00 $75.00 None None None None $50.00 $64.00

Heavy Rail :$75.00 $75:00 $70.00 $70.00 $140.00 $230.00 None None

Commuter Rail None None $70.00 $345.00 None None $75.00 $458.00

Ferry None None $70.00 $262.00 None None None None

Los Angeles, CA -Base fare is the same on all modes, except for additional zone charges on express bus. Monthly passes are valid on

all modes, with ad~tional zone charges for express bus.

Boston, MA -All local buses are offered at the $1.50 fare, with extra charges for express bus. Fare structure includes premium cost for

local rail. Commuter rail and ferry fares are distance based. The monthly bus pass with the minimum price is valid on local buses only,

with higher priced bus passes also ~ralid on subway, express bus, and limited commuter rail and ferry sen~ices. Monthly local rail passes

are valid on local bus and local rail.

Washington, DC -All local buses are offered at the $1.60 fare, with extra charges for express bus. Heayr rail fares are distance based.

Monthly bus pass is not valid on rail, nor is monthly rail pass valid on bus.

New Jersey - Services are proHded statewide, as well as into New York City and Philadelphia. All fares are distance based, except Tight

rail sen~ice which is a flat fee that caries depending on the line. Morrthly passes are generally wlid on ail modes, subject to suflicierrt

zone upcharges.

NOTE: While Boston, DC and New Jersey provide modes of travel that Metro does not provide, we noted that removing the modes of

travel not offered by Metro (commuter rail and ferry) had no significant effect on farebox recovery rates. That is, if we isolate bus, light

rail and heavy rail services, the farebox recovery ratio for the other agencies does not decrease.


ATTACHMENT A

ONE WAY FARE AND MONTHLY PASS COMPARISON FOR REDUCED FARE RIDERS

Discussion of differences Tvpes of Reduced Fares -Metro offers more types of discounted passes than the

from the other agencies: other transit agencies in this comparison.

Percent Discount of Reduced Fares -The other agencies offer discounts that are

40-50% (or more) of the full fare or monthly pass price. By contrast, Metro's

senior/disabled discounted fares are as low as 17% of the full fare.

One Way Fares by Mode

of Travel

Reduced Fare as a Percentage of Regular/Full Fare

Los Angeles, CA Boston, MA Washington, DC New Jersey

SeniodDisabled Peak 37%0 50% 50% 40-50%

Senior/Disabled Off-Peak 17%0 50% 50°/a 40-50%

Students/Youth 67% 50% 50% 40-50%

College Students Not offered Not offered Not offered Not offered

Monthly Passes by Mode

of Travel

Reduced Pass Price as a Percentage of Regular/Full Pass Price

Los

Angeles,

CA' Boston, MA Washington, DC New Jersey

Senior/Disabled 19%0 40% 50% Not offered

Students/Youth 32% 40% N/A -See Notes Not offered

College Students 48% Not offered Not offered 75%a

Los Angeles, CA - K-12 students are eligible for the student/youth discount.

Boston, MA - Middle school and high school students are eligible for the student/youth discount. Children

under 12 ride free with a paying adult at all times.

Washington, DC - Students attending school within DC limits are eligible for the reduced student/youth

monthly pass price of $30 for travel on all modes within DC limits only. There is no comparable pass for regular

riders. With a special eligibility card, K-12 students ride buses free during specified hours and while school is

in session.

New Jersey - No discounted monthly passes are offered for senior/disabled or student/youth riders. College

students attending participating schools get a 25% discount off the full monthly pass price.

NOTE: To illustrate the effect on revenues and farebox recovery, we recalculated projected revenues as a

result of increasing discounted fares to the 50% rate offered by other agencies. If discounted fares are raised,

we can lower regular pass prices and still achieve a 29% farebox recovery rate in Phase 1. However, a

significant variation such as this from the proposed fare changes may require another public hearing

process See below for details on how revenues and farebox recovery ratios will change if we increase the

discounted fares and passes to the rates offered by other agencies.

Current Fare

Structure -

Revised toIncrease

Current Fare Discounts to 50%

Structure of Regular

Increase in Revenues $20,000,000

Farebox Recovery Rate 26.0% 27.7%

Response to Inquiries from the March 29, 2014 Public Hearing

ATTACHMENT A

SERVICE LEVEL AND OPERATING COSTS DATA

Discussion of Density of Service Provided -Among these four transit agencies, Metro has the 2nd highest density of service over its total servicedifferences from fhe area (eehicle re~,enue miles per square mile). This means that Metro is running more buses and trains per square mile than most ofother agenciex the other agencies.

Average Trip Length -Among these four transit agencies, Metro has the 2nd longest average trip length on bus and the longest triplength on rail. Given that Boston, Washington DC, and New Jersey all hake distance based fares, the fare collected per passengermile is higher than Metro for all other agencies in this comparison.

Load Facfor -Metro has the 2nd lowest load factor policy among the other agencies. Therefore, relatively more sen~ice is being run incomparison to ridership than the other agencies.

Operating Casts -Metro has the lowest total operating costs of all three transit agencies as well as the lowest farebox reco~ry. Itfollows that the total fares collected from Metro riders are significantly less than fares collected from the other three agencies.

Cost per Passenger Mile, Cost per Vehicle Revenue Mile, Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour -Metro has the lowest cast per passengermile of all agencies in this comparison for both bus antl rail. Thus, operational costs per passenger are lowest at Metro despite havingthe lowest farebox recovery ratio. In addition, Metro has the lowest systemwide cast per vehicle revenue mile and cost per vehiclereeenue hour. This appears to be due to two factors: (1) Metro has the lowest cost per ~2hicle revenue hour for bus at $134.46 incomparison to other agencies' costs which are all close to $150; and (2) Metro runs significantly more vehicle revenue miles on busthan the other agencies.

Revenue per8oardinq -Metro has the lowest revenue per boarding, as well as the most annual hoardings. Therefore, customers ofthe three other transit agencies are paying significantly more far each ride.

2012 Actuals 2012 NTD Data 2012 NTD Data 2012 NTD Data

Farebox Recoeery 26.2% 37.8% 42.7% 41.6%~ ~~-

Boardings (Annual) 464,875,164 401,616,849 424,184,885 266,823,218

Service Area (Square Miles) 1,513 3,244 950 3,4502Service Miles (Vehicle Revenue Miles) 119,973,482 98,053,683 130,733,278 160,672,135Vehicle Revenue Miles per Square Mile 79,295 3,023 137,614 4,657Avg Trip Length (Bus) -Miles 4.17 2.59 3.04 6.44Aug Trip Length (Bus) - Minutes 22.45 15.43 17.64 26.45Aug Trip Length (Rail)- Miles -5.89 3.22 5.59 3.00Avg Trip Length (Rail) - Minutes 16.09 13.58 13.65 12.52Load Factor Policy 1.30 1.40 1.20 1.43

i ~ c,:

Total Operational Cast $1,245,808,764 $1,295,890,428 $1,513,176,930 $1,890,514,517#of total Employees 9,162 6,346 12,659 11,100Cost per Passenger Mile (Bus) $0.61 $1.23 $1.36 $0.78Cost per Passenger Mile (Rail) $0.51 $0.59 $0.53 $1.76Cast per Vehicle Reeenue Mile (Systemwide) $10.38 $13.22 $11.57 $11.77Cost per Vehicle Reeenue Hour (Systemwide) $152.44 $184.41 $174.30 $230.87Cost per Boarding (Systemwide) $2.68 $3.23 $3.57 $7.09Aaerage Revenue per boarding (Systemwide) $0.70 $1.18 $1.68 $3.34

~ MBTA Service Miles includes water transit through Boston Harbor

ZNJ Transit services the entire state of New Jersey


ATTACHMENT B

~~14~etr~pai`it~► Tr~rc~portat~r~ aertt~vity

t~l~~r+~ ~~a~il Fti;gh ~rr~rr~s rrap~li~n~e~~~

F~i~tro ~d~~~h~i~a

I~I~rc~ ri~d~r~F~ip~ ~ku~

— 9~ rr~in~riy

— Icy ir~~~a►m~

~i l~ ~li~f~r~nce I~~ r~+~n F~~s ~r~+~ rail

~ i s+~lf phis ~ ~s n ~ ~r+~~ e ~ ~#~ ~r~~

Fe~!€~ral ~r ~~~e ~~~~~ r Eace~u~ie !i~r~~d~r

Itt€~ ~


ATTACHMENT B

~itl~ ~1 E~ir~irvnm~r~t~lJ~~ti~~ ~E.~~

• ~il~ 'I ~f ~i~ril .ih~~s ~ is alau disp~ar~~:irr~pw~~c , nca~ c~ ~l p~~rcerr ale cif rr~in~ri tri~er~

~a is ~~~u ~i~p~r~~t~ri~rn~~: ~~ar~d~rr, ~~~ ~~Ip~~►r~~na f I incr~n+~ ~s~r~

i~p~~r~~ lmp~ct cr~~~ b~► ,.a fa~ciall~► n~~a~r~lp~li h~~~ ~f~~~~a~,rtc~n~~°l~r aff~spr~~~d cl~~~~s r~ri~~+~u s~F~s~nial,I~i~im~~: j~s~ifiin

A~etrt~ a

~tS~~~~~~ Et~~~~

A r~n~i ~~~r~rr~ r~ih ~. ~r ~ mir~~ri

ri~l~r~ pan n~~r~r h~~~ ~ ~ spr~r~~~ im c~

~ ~h~ ~ni~l f+~r +disppar~~~ impr~c ~f~~,~

~~ h~ ~er~~r~~~ ~ rnin~ri► ri~~rs r+~~~Me

Metro


ATTACHMENT B

rT~TT~.C'Fi1l~l~IT ~

~~~~ra~~ tr~a~ ~c ~~res

~# ~r~~► M~ r+~ fire prc ~~c~s ire

d°~~~rr~p~~►r~i~r~art~~~r us~~~i b~~► rnir~~ri~i~s ~h~p~c~~~nti~l ~i~~ t h~~r~ ~ ~li~~ara~~ im~ac~

• ~~ - ~►11 ~f cur e~ci~in~ f~r~ ~rr~ducs ~r~,~r~rti~►r~€~~~1 ~~~~d k~ rr~in~~rii~s~ her~efc~r

~disp~~r~~ imp~c~ ~r~ n ps~~il~Ie

I~etwc~ ~

~ ~~~a r~quir+~s h~ ~~~h r~nsi~ ~~~nt ~r~d~s~~l~lish ~f~r p~ut~l~ ur~~~t~

t+~+l~e r di~J c~u re~~h and h~ ward ~~ limns

t~~#inii~r~~ i:~:— ~ ~bs~lu~~ ~r

Very c~n~+~nr~ ire n~amF~~ra: m ss a ~n~ci~ssel~c ter! ~. car d ~~~ Iu ~, Dui h u~ ~~iff~ren~i~l sn~d~r~

11~etrcx ~


ATTACHMENT B

~l~Cl~~]~QM~f~~'Ic~1~ ~c~C~~

Ea~c~mp~l~s — A►~tual e~~mp~l~es +~f Prc~ri~n~~~

~llinc~ri~ ~~r~~ fr~rr~ ~'i l~ ~'~ rep ro

B ~ B~ ~A a~~~ ~C~iFa I~t Uu!eea~lC"~ff ~ua~

I re ~i t~! ~,1 ~ e ~P EJ ~6 ~i~tie VI EJ °1 C~t~ ~. 19~' 1~~ 0 4.I , ran ~. -a ~ dltr

~'11~~€ ~ ~''a. 1~1 1~ 1 -0. ~k b .'~~ ~c~~ ~~~ 1 a. ~ r~ a -s.~ ~Q

5 S~'rLi~e ~e~ ~o ~. 4. 4. r~ 4. U~. ~o

Ito 5

~~p~~a~~~rt~a~~~~~ ~~i~~s

• Hlaw~~h~i~al ~x~m~l~s f ~is~p~rri~n~~~

f~r~~ ~~+I~~r rd~s n h~rrc~ ~r~y►~

~~—~~~~:p~:''

~~E~~ ~- ,

~~:~ ~ ~ ~ :~s

i ~ ;, ,

T

~"'~

~ ~ a~~1

~3~bT~~ ~P~ E.1 Falk ~'~ ~.P3.! ~.2 ids . ~9~ih' 36

.,'Pies

-E1 ~ 3~~a' i'~s ~ ~,.1r'3' t&o~

~.~'~ ~.~`~ '~3 1~' ~.M ~F~S


ATTACHMENT B

~t~l~ 1JJ'~ ~4n~~~~~1~

• 1# I~t~~rc~ h~~ ~ ~i~p~rc~ rr~i+~rr~~e fare per uc

~1~1~ the ~rc~d~c~ hard ~ #~r~ in~r~a~e k~u~

S her fare per u~ h~~ n~n~ ~r ~rrti~Uer

i~rcrease~) ~h~r~ ~I~# F~~ ~ ~ii~~a~r~~~ imp~a~

* ~'I~~r~ ~r~ ~currr~t~~l n ~lisp~r~wprtie~n~~l

min~~ii fa~r~ ~rdu~ ~~ lt€~~r~ ar~€~

th~~r~~f~rr~ I~I~r~ ~I~~~r~~~ ~r~v~ ~r~ ~ispar~€~

irr~p~c~ ~rih~ h~ pwr~~~ ~M~n~~

~i~~~ fkf~ 1~~~ ~~

+~i~p~r~~ itn~~ i~ c~ni ~~cep~~l~ if ~r~r~e

i~ ~ ~~a~~r~i~l~ I~i~im~e jusi~fi~in

~p~t~r~~re~d b~~t h~ r~! — rf~►~' ~nr~.~~+~ttt

~ E i~p~~t~p~ r i n~ ~ ~ar~en fir ~c~~ur n~~me ~E.l~

p~p~ul~i~n rquir~~ II~in ~ ~Iern~~i~r~~

~~r~ ~~~ ~ mi~iae M~r~e ~r~ci~at~le —

rr~


ATTACHMENT C

POTENTIAL NEW REVENUE SOURCES

Metro could potentially generate an additional $3.2 million in revenue from advertising, digital

advertising, leases and park and ride lots.

An estimated $660,000 in additional revenues could be generated from advertising options not

currently available: bike rack ads, beer and wine ads, and website advertising. These revenue estimates

do not include any capital investments required to accommodate the new advertising displays; some

options would require Board policy changes.

Lease revenues are expected to go up in FY15 by roughly $2 million.

We currently collect fees from park and ride lots net of costs of $300,000. This is expected to increase

to $500,000 in FY15 and to $1 million in later years.

Metro has also considered selling ads/sponsorship of TAP cards. Mockups of ads have been provided to

Metro's advertising vendor, but there has been no interest from advertisers to date.

.-

..

•.

Bike Rack Ads Attach frames to the bike racks to display ads on the TBD $ 400,000

front of bus. Cost to fabricate, install and maintain

frames needs to be estimated. These types of ads are

currently used by OCTA and Miami

Beer &Wine Ads Special displays on vehicle exteriors. Beer and wine $ - $ 225,000

ads are currently prohibited by Board policy but are

allowed by City of LA policy.

Website Advertising Accept advertising on website, requiring Metro to $ - $ 35,000

give up some space on website to accommodate

advertisements.

POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL REVENUES BEFORE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS $ 660,000

Lease Revenues Joint Development/Surplus property $ 2,000,000

Digital Advertising Board Report - Development of agreement and leases $ - $ TBD

for digital advertising signs

POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL REVENUES FROM LEASES &DIGITAL ADVERTISING $ 2,400,000

Park and Ride Lots Parking Fees - FY15 Net Parking Revenues will $ 500,000

increase to $500K, and in FY16 net parking revenues

is projected to grow to $1M annually.

TOTAL POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL REVENUES $ 3,160,000


ATTACHMENT D

COST CUTTING MEASURES SINCE THE LAST FARE INCREASE 120101

Labor costs are the driving force of total operational expenses of Metro's bus and rail system. Due to uncontrollable cost increases per labor union

contracts and additional labor costs required to run added service, labor costs have increased since the last fare change in 2010. However, non-labor

costs and G&A costs have both decreased overthe same period. It follows that the system is operating more efficiently today than it did in 2010, with

a lower proportion ofnon-labor and G&A costs when compared to direct labor costs. The chart below illustrates the changes in these costs since

Metro's last fare increase.

FY10Actual FY11Actual FY32Actual FY13Adual FY14EstActual.%Change from

FY30to FY14Notes

Labor (Direct Operations Only) $804,032,657 $ 801,237,541 $ 811,597,920 $ 904,706,098 $ 918,328,731 141% 2

Bus and Rail Operating Non-Labor 453,396,888 414,119,687 413,322,411 436,822,660 446,865,871 -1.4% 3

General &Administrative ethodologychange 20,568,926 20,932,410 23,367,769 18,038,681 -123% 4

of G&A to Labor 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.0% -0.6% 5

of Operating Non-Labor to Labor 56.4% 51.7'0 50.9% 48.3% 48.T~o -5.9% 6

Notes 1

Notes

1- In FY13, costs increased by 10%with the addition of the Orange Line Extension and the EXPO I Line, both of which opened in June 2012.

In addition, the EI Monte Station opened in October 2012, and increased rail service was added through improved headways and extended late night service.

Finally, maintaining assets in a state of good repairwas a primaryfocus forthe agency, which required allocating more moneyto deferred maintenance.

2- Laborcosts increased as required by union contracts, and due to additional service being added.

3- Non-Laborcosts were cut even with additional service being added, which suggests thatthe system is operating more efficiently.

4- G&A costs includes OH, which includes Construction and PMO.

5- As a proportion to Labor, G&A costs were reduced. Thus, the system is running with a lower percentage of overhead than it did in 2010.

6- As a proportion to Labor, Operating non-labor costs were also cut while maintaining a level necessaryto support operations.

The table below shows the changes from the 2014 budget to 2015 budget for bus &rail operations. As the table shows, controllable costs were cut,

and the total increase of 1.4% is due entirely to uncontrollable cost increases.

Budget $ in Change % to

Item Millions FY14 Budget

FY146Udget $ 1,328.9 100.0'0

Cost Control Measures

UTU Unscheduled Overtime Reduction (12.7) -1.0%

Inventory Parts, Maintenance

Service Contrail, Lubricant for

Less ThanCPlof23%Inflation 4.8 0.4%

Subtotal Cost Control Measures (7.9) -0.6%

Non Controllable Costlncreases

Silver Line Additional Services 2.0 0.2%

Fuel and Propulsion Power 8.4 0.6%

Workers' Comp and PL/PD Regulation Change 13.1 1.0'0

Federal Approved Cost Allocation Plan 0.8 0.1%

Rail Div Leasing Expense 2.3 0.2%

Subtotal Non Controllable Cost Increases 26.7 2.0'0

Total Change over FY14 Budget 18.8 1.4%

Total FY15 Proposed Bus and Rail Operating Expense $ 1,347.7


ATTACHMENT D

The charts below show Metro's total budgeted expenditures per the FY10 Adopted Budget and the FY15 Proposed

Budget. While the total budget has increased significantly by over 40%, General Admin and Agency Oversight costs have

actually decreased from 3% to 1% of total expenditures. I n addition, this represents a total allocation to G&A of $117M

and $55M for FY10 and FY15, respectively. This illustrates the cuts Metro has made to support functions in recent years.

FY15*FY10 Total Budget: $5.58

To#al Budget: ~3.9B


ATTACHMENT E

FARE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS AND JUVENILE CITATIONS

Fare inspections are being conducted on problematic stations/lines to target where there is heavy fare

evasion. Per California Public Utilities Code Section 99580, only transit violation citations issued to

adults can be enforced as an administrative penalty by Metro's Transit Court. The statute prohibits

Metro from handling transit violations issued to minors. Therefore, Metro is required by law to refer all

transit violation citations issued to minors to Superior Court.

Fare inspections are conducted the same as far as adults and minors. However, LASD carries different

ticket books. Adults receive transit court tickets and minors receive notice to appear violations which go

to Superior Court.

As shown in the chart below,luveniles receive less than half of the citations when compared to adults.

In 2013 Juvenile mate and females received 31% of citations. Out of the total of all citations given in

2013, 13% were given to black juveniles and 10% to Hispanic.

Juvenile/Adult Citation Data35000 i ~ ~ S

iifEE

3~OQi

i

250 -'— ~

j

j

2000Q -~ — — ~ Female-Adults

j ■Female-Juveniles E

15000 ~ Male-Adults

■ Maie-Juvenilesi{ I

10000 -' -i

i

5000 ~ —

0 -~- _ I

Black Hispanic Other White


ATTACHMENT E

These are examples of what other types of citations are issued on Metro's system. 91% of the citations

given are Fare Evasion.

•

a

e

..

e

Fare Evasion 146,108 91%

Disturbance 943 1%

Eat, Drink or Smoke 3,035 2%

Failure to Obey Sign 6,847 4%

No Violation Code 2,370 1%

Ride Bikes and Skateboards 1,226 1%

Other 712 0%

Total 161,241 100%


ATTACHMENT F

Rail Passen er Avera e Tri Len th, Fiscal Year 2013(Source: 28,763 trips sampled July 2012 thru June 2013)

AverageAvg Speed

Sample Sample Trip (min/mi) TripPassenger Boardings Length Length

Miles Miles) (min)

Weekday 2,949,778 416,904 7.08 2.43 17.2Saturday 403,679 54,402 7.42

Sunda /Holida 434,202 57,564 7.54

. Weekday 4, 353, 385 899, 301 4.84 1.97 9.5Saturday 440,123 94,571 4.65

Sunda /Holida 368,245 79,674 4.62

Weekday 1,592,117 242,452 6.57 1.69 11.1Saturday 203,565 33,983 5.99

Sunda /Holiday 169,913 29,216 5.82

Gold LineWeekday 1,225,195 202,308 6.06 2.68 16.2

Saturday 133,138 21,405 6.22

Sunda /Holida 121, 381 20, 791 5.84

E LineWeekday 494,200 123,748 3.99 3.26 13.0Saturday 83,737 19,270 4.35

Sunda /Holida 68,907 16,996 4.05

Report Prepared July 10, 2013 By:Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityService Planning. and.: Scheduling. Department


ATTACHMENT G

RIDERSHIP STATISTICS BY HEADWAY TIMES

AVERAGE WEEKDAY

Cumulative

Count ofTrips % ofTrips Boardings

Oto 5 min 1,988 13.71% 172,407

5+to 10 min 2,425 30.44% 220,181

10+to 15 min 2,922 50.59% 272,060

15+to 20 min 1,910 63.76% 160,533

20+ to 25 m i n 1, 323 72.89% 103, 635

25+ to 30 m i n 1,198 81.15% 74,049

30+to 35 min 673 85.79% 41,711

35+ to 40 m i n 418 88.68% 22,262

40+ to 45 m i n 274 90.56% 12, 750

45+ to 50 m i n 259 92.35% 12,125

50+to 55 min 185 93.63% 8,598

55+to 60 min 587 97.68% 20,337

60+ m i n 337 100.00% 12,029

Totals 14,499 100.00% 1,132,677

Fi rst tri ps280 9,969

(not included above)

Source: February 2014 APC Data

Headways based upon scheduled trip starttimes


Cumulative

of Boardings

15.22%

34.66%

58.68%

72.85%

82.00%

88.54%

92.22%

94.19%

95.31%

96.38%

97.14%

98.94%

100.00%

100.00%

20

ATTACHMENT G

AVERAGESATURDAY

Cumulative Cumulative

Count of Trips %ofTrips Boardings % of Boardings

Oto 5 min 747 7.55% 70,550 9.36%

5+to 10 min 1,095 18.62% 103,495 23.09%

10+to 15 min 1,902 37.86% 180,370 47.03%

15+to 20 min 1,726 55.31% 141,114 65.75%

20+ to 25 m i n 862 64.02 % 67, 061 74.65

25+ to 30 mi n 1,003 74.17% 72,480 84.27%

30+ to 35 m i n 543 79.66% 37, 361 89.23

35+ to 40 m i n 478 84.49% 23, 361 92.33

40+ to 45 m i n 174 86.25% 9, 592 93.60%

45+to 50 min 205 88.32% 8,061 94.67%

50+to 55 min 197 90.31% 8,786 95.83%

55+ to 60 m i n 703 97.42% 22, 567 98.83

60+min 255 100.00% 8,827 100.00%

Totals 9,890 100.00% 753,625 100.00%

Fi rst tri ps220 ~'Z92


Source: February 2014APC Data

Headways based upon scheduled trip start times


ATTACHMENT G

AVERAGE SUN & HOL

Cumulative Cumulative

Count of Trips % of Trips Boardings % of Boardings

0 to 5 mi n 455 5.64% 43,100 7.77%

5+to 10 min 520 12.08% 45,328 15.95%

10+to 15 min 1,161 26.46% 107,627 35.36%

15+ to 20 m i n 1, 505 45.11% 121, 854 57.33

20+to 25 min 832 55.41% 61,294 68.38%

25+to 30 min 855 66.01% 55,435 78.38%

30+to 35 min 728 75.02% 46,045 86.68%

35+to 40 min 402 80.00% 21,525 90.57%

40+to 45 min 186 82.31% 8,640 92.12%

45+ to 50 m i n 230 85.16% 8,161 93.60%

50+to 55 min 154 87.07% 5,338 94.56%

55+ to 60 m i n 776 96.68 % 21, 514 98.44%

60+min 268 100.00% 8, 660 100.00%

Tota I s 8, 072 100.00% 554, 521 100.00%

Fi rst tri ps206 6,185


Source: February 2014APC Data

Headways based upon scheduled trip starttimes


Funding Used for Bus and Rail Operations

ATTACHMENT H

FY15 Budgeted Bus &Rail Operating Revenues by Source

State Funds,8.~~~

Federal Funds,

18.2%

Local Funds

TDA nrtide 4 255"„

Prop A 35",; Rail 4.07E

Prop A 40% Bus ~iscretfonary 0.4

Prop C 5% Security 20%

Prop C 40% Discretionary 0.9%

Measure R 20'~o Bus Ops 7.6%

Measure R5% Rail Ops 3.8%

Advertising 1.5%

Tolls 0.9%

General Fund (CNG Credits, Taylor Yard, etc.) 0.5%

Other Misc. Operating Revenues 0.4%

Transit Court 0.1%

Dodger Express 0.0%

Total Local Funds 47.6°rb

Federal Funds

Sec[ion5307 (for Pre v. Maint.) 17.2"S

Section 5337-State of Good Repair 43%

Section 5340- Growing States 0.6%

CMAQ Operati ng 2.0%

Homeland Security 0.1%

Totalfederel Funds iR.2%

State Funds

STA Bus 4.2°6

STA Rail 4.2%

Total State Funds 8.4%

Local Funds,

47.6%

~TDA, 25.5%

~~Measure R, 11.4%

~PropA,4.4%

LPropC,2.9%

Other, 3.4%


ATTACHMENT

SCHEDULE OF FUNDS ELIGIBLE FOR BUS &RAIL OPERATIONS

Below is a sc

hedu

le of local fu

ndin

g so

urce

s considered eli

gibl

e fo

r bus and/or

rai

l op

erat

ions

, in

clud

ing de

tail

s of

how the fun

ds are cur

rent

ly programmed. In FY14, about 12~ of to

tal fund

balance el

igib

le for

bus and rai

l op

erat

ions

was used to

fund debt ser

vice

for

pri

or bor

rowi

ngs.

Con

trary to comments from the public. less than 5%was used for

cap

ital

projects. Nea

rly

20% of th

is total fun

ding

is al

loca

ted to

oth

er operators in the region, in

clud

ing ASI. Al

l fund bal

ance

s ar

e carried over to fu

ture

years

to fund Metro ope

rati

ons,

ope

rati

ons of

mun

icipal

oper

ator

s, and other pro

ject

s. While it

is po

ssib

le to re

prog

ram these operations

-eligible funds to Metro bus and r

ail ops, other programs would have to be cut to do so.

See cha

rt, and the

list

below for

a summary of th

etyp

es of programs that would go unfunded i

f we decided to shift all funds to subsidize fa

res.

FY14 Budeet

MRS%

MR 20Y

Prop A35%Rail Ops

Prop A40

Prop C40

1 PundT e $'sinmfllions

NewRa110 s

BusO s

&Ca Ital

Dlscretiona

Dlsc

retl

ona

iDAArticle4

STABus

STAR

all

70TAL

%

2 Beginning Balance

$

94.5

$

17.7 $

55.8

$

129.

5 $

63.0

$

279.3$

19.8 $

7.8

3 New Revenue

34.9

139.6

235.5

255.

727

9.1

318.4

64.1

51.5

4

Transfer of PA 95/40 ro

wth over CPI

Sho

rtfa

l I~

r ~

0.1 ~

0.1 ~

~

5 To

tal Revenue

$

129.

4$

157.3 $

291.

3 $

385.

3 $

3420 $

597.

7$

83.9

$

59.3

$2,046.2

100.0%

6 7 Debt Ser

vice

s

8

S

-$

- S

162.1

S2.3 $

73.8

5

1.5

S

- S

-$ 239.7

11.7%

9 1 11

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Uait

al:

> ~

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

Bus Deferred Mai

nten

ance

-

- 03

- 9.

9 30

.6

LR Deferred Ma

inte

nanc

e -

- 18

.7

- -

O.T

2 'HR Def

erre

d Maintenance

- -

13.7

-

- -

-

3 Ot

her Deferred Mai

nten

ance

-

- OJ

- 4,1

5.0

- -

Sust

aina

bili

ty Cap

ital

Pro

ject

s -

- 2.0

2.0~

-

- '

-

5 Bus ConstructionlAcquisitions

- -

- ~~

3~

- lA

6 LRConstruction

- -

4.z

- 2.

~ -

-

7 HR Construction '

- -

1.0

-.

" "-

. -

- -

_

Tota

l Ca

pita

l $

- $

- $

36.6 $

2.3 $

16.0 $

36.7 $

- S

9

$

91.6

4.5%

20 Pl

anni

n¢Ac

tivi

ty:

21 Bus Su

bsid

ies to Oth

er Ope

rato

rs

$

$

45.1 $

$

107.

4 $

118.

5 $

95.5

$

16.5

$

-

22 To

tal Planning Activity

$

$

45.1 5

$

107.

4 S

118.

5 S

95.8

S

16.5 $

$ 3833

18.7%

23

24 Amount Used by LACMTA Ope

rati

ons

$

51.6 $

1023 $

543 $

5.9 $

123 $

345.

3 $

57.5 $

57.8

$ 687.0

33.6%

25

26 Es

tima

ted En

ding

Fund Balance at June 30,

2014

S

77.8 $

9.9 $

36.3 $

267.

4 $

121.

4 S

118.4 $

9.9

S

1.5

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Impacted Projects/Proerems:

1. Access Services (A

SI) - About $64.SM of PC40 is used to fund A51

, which is mare than

half of the PC40 bus subsidies to other op

erat

ors.

2. A sho

rt li

st of pr

ojec

ts to be

unf

unde

d wo

uld include:

Bus Acquisition

Bus De

ferr

ed Maintenance

Gold Lin

e Si

gnal

System Rehab

Red

Line Station Refurbishment

Blue

Lin

e Re

plac

emen

t Bo

otin

gBl

ue Lin

e Si

gnal

Synch

Escalator/Elevator

Disp

osit

ion of Fund Balance

Amount Owed to Muni and Other Ope

rato

rs

$

- $

9.9 $

- $

44.4 $

453 $

35.5 S

9.9 $

-

Est. End

ing Fund Balance att

une 30

, 2014

$

77.8 $

9.9. $

38.3

:. $

267.4

S

121.

4 $

118.

4 $

9.9

S

1.5

NOTE: In LACMTA's Ten-Y

ear Financial Forecast all ava

ilab

le Fund Balance reported above is used to cover the cost of Operet~ons and Capital over the ten yea

r re

port

ing period.

145.0

7.1%

499.

6 24.4%

Response to Inquiries from the

March 29, 2014 Public He

arin

g 24

ATTACHMENT J

WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE 1996, YEAR CONSENT DECREE WAS IMPLEMENTED

There's really no comparison between 1996 and today. Not only has Metro significantly

expanded service in the past two decades but there has been exponential growth in service

offered by municipal bus operators —more than 200 percent. In addition there are more than

three dozen small bus operators like the Glendale Beeline and Pasadena ARTS that came into

existence thanks to local transit sales tax revenue received by the various cities. And

paratransit service has expanded.

Moreover, there are many new rail transit options and Metro Rail is expanding thanks to

Measure R approved in 2008 by 2 million voters of all income levels and ethnicities. Measure R

earmarked funding for a dozen new transit projects. Both bus and rail service are being

improved.

In FY 1996 Metro operated 6,252,300 bus revenue service hours and 245,600 rail revenue

service hours. In FY 14, we're operating 7,048,717 bus revenue service hours and 1,012,355

hours for rail

We have lower passenger load ratios today (1.3) than at the start of the Consent Decree (1.45)

Our bus fleet is an average of 8.8 years old and getting younger with the recent purchase of

550 New Flyer low-floor buses.

We'll soon have a 100 percent low-floor bus fleet.

• We've implemented TAP and Nextrip

• Red Line extended to Wilshire/Western FY 1996

• Red Line extended to Hollywood/Vine FY 2000

• Rapid Bus implementation begins FY 2000

• Red Line extended to North Hollywood FY 2001

• Gold Line opens to Pasadena (SMV) FY 2004

• Orange Line opens to Warner Center FY 2006

~ Gold Line extended to East LA FY 2010

~ Silver Line began service (Artesia to EI Monte) FY 2011

• EI Monte Bus Station opened in 2012

• Orange Line Extension opened in 2012

• Wilshire BRT is currently under construction


HISTORICAL OPERATING DATA

Metro

FY 1996

Max Veh Operated

Rev Veh Hou

rsBoardings

Passenger Miles

Bus

Rail

Bus

Rail

Bus

Rail

Bus

Rail

1,79

4 64

6,25

2,30

0 24

5,60

0 336,853,600 26,730,300 1,252,230,600 166

,211

,400

363, 583, 900

1, 418,442,000

ATTACHMENT K

FY 2012

Max Veh Operated

Rev Veh Hou

rsBoardings

Passenger Miles

Bus

Rail

Bus

Rail

Bus

Rail

Bus

Rail

1,86

8 210

6,707,800

787,

500

352,100,000 95

,100

,000

1,4

69,2

29,7

00 597,916,400

447,200,000

2,067,146,100

Ante

lope

Val

ley

Beac

h Cities

Commerce

Culver Cit

y

Foothill Transit

Gardena

Long

Bea

ch

LADOT

Mont

ebel

lo

Norwalk

Santa Monica

Torrance

31

64,7

001,

704,

700

24,043,400

43

144,500

2,880,400

37,735,000

39,700

81,400

219,500

10

32,800

387,

200

1,703,500

618

,100

1,03

1,00

04,

023,

600

618

,800

662,

900

2,41

8,20

0

24

92,3

004,

210,

700

12,035,300

39

142,500

5,33

1,10

017,969,300

212

482,

400

13,4

64,2

0012

3,59

2,30

0266

671,

600

13,860,300

99,2

95,5

00

38

99,800

4,149,500

16,774,300

43

116,900

3,78

7,60

014

,704

,100

146

579,500

23,5

00,4

0063,567,600

182

665,

900

28,1

83,4

0085

,719

,800

105

200,300

5,44

7,40

022

,154

,200

169

556,200

22,0

75,4

0035,693,300

35

137,700

5,94

3,70

014

,383

,800

56

235,800

8,415,70p

27,754,500

15

46,600

1,20

4,10

05,

940,

200

22

86,900

2,126,900

7,71

9,90

0

106

285,500

18,433,200

60,111,400

157

505,100

21,2

88,1

0080

,017

,300

59

155,

900

4,574,400

22,5

83,2

0054

164,500

4,06

4,00

017

,923

,700

Muni Tot

als

780

2,172,500

83,744,700

369,428,800

1,047

3,341,500

113,

063,

000

428,654,100

All Op

erat

ors

2,57

4 64

8,42

4,80

0 24

5,60

0 420,598,3W 26,730,300 1,621,659,400 166,211,400

2,91

5 210

10,049,300 78

7,50

0 465,163,000 95

,100

,000

1,8

97,8

83,8

00 597,916,400

447,

328,

600

1,787,870,800

560,

263,

000

2,495,8,200

Overall Change

13%

19%

25%

40%

Muni Change

34%

54%

35%

16%

Metro Change

4%

228%

7%

221%

23%

46%

Sour

ce: Na

tion

al Tra

nsit

Dat

abas

e

Sisnificant Metro Chances in Pe

riod

FY19

96

Red Line extended to Wi

lshi

re/Western

FY2000

Red Line extended to Hollywood/Vine

Rapi

d Bus imple

ment

atio

n begins

FY2001

Red Line extended to No

rth Hollywood

FY2004

Gold Line opens to Pasadena (Si

erra

Madre Vil

la)

FY20

06

Orange Line opens to Warner Cen

ter

FY20

10

Goid

Line extended to East Los

Angeles

FY2011

Silver Line in

itia

ted (A

rtes

ia to

EI Monte)

FY2012

Expo Lin

e opens to Culver Cit

y

Orange Line extended to Chatsworth

Response to Inquiries from the March 29, 2014 Pub

lic He

arin

g26

Item 54, fare changes proposal

Documents

Transcript of Item 54, fare changes proposal