Los Angeles Metro was recently awarded the Independent Institute’s California Golden Fleece® Award because it is a dangerous, costly public transportation system. Even in a post-COVID transportation world where major urban transit systems are struggling, LA Metro stands out as an example of an ill-conceived and poorly run system.
The transit system’s biggest problem is crime. Even if Los Angeles had the best public transportation system in the world, no one would ride it if it’s unsafe and crime-ridden. May 2024 was a particularly rough time for the agency: a Metro train rider was shot and a security officer was stabbed in East Hollywood; a fight on a bus spilled into the street and led to two people being stabbed; another rider was stabbed inside an elevator; a homeless man attacked a rider with a wrench; and another rider was shot in the head and an additional rider was stabbed on a bus. After these incidents, Metro established its own police force, but violent incidents are still far too common. The agency needs to ban dangerous and disruptive riders for life and ensure that a police presence is visible throughout the system.
Another problem is high system costs. The system has the highest cost per rider out of any transit system in the nation. LA Metro employees are also not cheap. The highly unionized workforce makes $38-$40 per hour, which is approximately 33 percent more than similar jobs, such as truck drivers or construction laborers.
LA Metro has also mistakenly focused on expanding its rail network. It hopes to lure wealthier transit-choice riders out of their cars and onto shiny new trains. But it has a history of building white elephant projects while chasing off working-class transit dependent riders. L.A. political leaders favor rail because they want to turn Los Angeles into New York, with its extremely high central-city density. But Manhattan is an island with more geographic boundaries than Los Angeles, and New York was built at a time when the majority of people walked to work. Expecting to duplicate these developments is a fool’s errand.
The riders who actually need public transportation are more likely to ride the bus and don’t have another way to access their jobs. Transit-choice customers may ride the train twice a week while transit-dependent riders take the bus every day. In effect, LA Metro is trading regular riders for less frequent riders. These new rail expansions are also expensive. The new heavy rail extensions cost $707 billion per mile. The new light rail extensions may seem like a bargain at $55 million per mile, but new heavy-duty diesel buses cost less than $500,000 each and the maintenance of the streets are paid for by automobile drivers.
There are a number of common sense reforms that Metro can adopt. The most important is becoming a customer-focused agency. This means prioritizing frequent, reliable bus service that operates 18 hours a day 7 days a week in the most densely populated areas. This service can be supplemented by demand-response service in less densely populated areas.
It also includes operating trains that are clean and ensuring that the police force has enough officers and is ubiquitous.
Another important reform is to require agency board members to have some transportation knowledge. Board members don’t need to be transportation experts, but LA Metro has a multi-billion-dollar long-range capital plan and a board that lacks knowledge of engineering, planning, policy, economics, finance, and sociology is unlikely to spend that money in the wisest possible matter.
The agency should forego federal subsidies for new capital projects. Through the Core Capacity and New Starts programs, the federal government pays 80 percent of the cost to build new transit projects. It is not reasonable for people living in Iowa and other states to pay for California projects from which they do not benefit. Furthermore, this policy entices LA Metro to build expensive and unnecessary projects. And L.A. County residents still must pay the local share. And once the state accepts federal funds to build the system, it must operate in perpetuity even if development patterns change. If they decide to close the project, they would have to pay back all of the federal funding.
For new service, the agency should choose bus rapid transit (BRT) over rail. Transportation Research Board studies have found that BRT mimics light-rail at one-third to one-ninth of the cost. BRT shares the road with other vehicles, so passenger cars and trucks share in the costs. Buses are also cheaper and easier to procure than rail vehicles. Buses can also travel on any public street and don’t require special right-of-way, overhead wires, or an electrified third rail.
LA Metro should also push to contract out more service. The agency already contracts out some bus and paratransit service. For each route or route-pair the agency should issue a request for qualifications for private transit operators and then proposals. It should try to get at least three bidders, determine which offers the best value, and award the project. Contracting out is not about the lowest price; it’s about the best value.
Operating a transit agency is not easy. If Los Angeles is going to spend billions of dollars on public transportation, the system should be one that actually serves riders instead of one that advances political ambitions and wastes taxpayer resources.
Baruch Feigenbaum is the author of “The Los Angeles Metro: Unacceptable Crime, High Costs, and Unnecessary Expansions.” He is senior managing director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation.