MY THOUGHTS - There is something strange happening at Los Angeles Metro. On one hand, Metro is spending millions of dollars installing taller faregates designed to stop people from riding without paying. On the other, Mayor Karen Bass says she wants to move Los Angeles toward a future in which nobody pays a fare at all.
Both ideas cannot be discussed in isolation. If fare compliance matters enough to justify millions in new infrastructure - and if Metro officials believe controlled access contributes to a safer system - then Los Angeles deserves to know why eliminating fares altogether should now become a long-term priority. More importantly, it deserves to know who will pay for it.
Bass has made clear that universal fare-free transit is not imminent. She has called for a long-term financial strategy and suggested expanding programs for low-income riders as Metro moves toward her broader goal. That gives Metro an opportunity to do something Los Angeles government too often does after announcing an ambitious policy rather than before: calculate the cost.
When Metro studied universally fare-less transit in 2021, the estimated regional price tag was approximately $1.1 billion annually for Metro and other participating transit agencies. Fare revenue has declined substantially since then, so that figure should not simply be treated as today's cost. But that is an argument for a new financial analysis not for avoiding the question.
Whatever the current number is, the money has to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a free bus driver, train operator, maintenance crew, security officer, electricity supply or transit infrastructure. Eliminating the fare does not eliminate the cost. It transfers it.
That distinction matters because Metro already has enormous responsibilities competing for public dollars. Los Angeles needs more reliable service. Riders want cleaner stations and vehicles. The system requires maintenance. Expansion projects cost billions. Security remains a major concern. Those priorities should come before a political slogan.
Consider what Metro is doing right now. The agency spent roughly $14.7 million installing upgraded faregates in the last fiscal year and budgeted another $15.5 million to continue installing them. These are taller barriers specifically designed to make fare evasion more difficult.
Metro officials have said the gates are increasing taps and fare compliance. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger has pointed to the gates as part of improving safety and access control. If that investment is working, why would Los Angeles want to abandon the principle behind it?
That does not mean Metro must collect fares forever. It means policymakers need to explain what happens to controlled access if fares disappear. That question is especially important because of Metro's own safety findings.
Metro reported that 96% of people apprehended for violent crimes on the system between April 2023 and March 2024 had not paid fares. That number must be interpreted responsibly. Most people who evade a fare are not violent criminals, and failing to pay a fare does not cause someone to commit a crime. But the statistic cannot simply be dismissed either.
It suggests that fare compliance may serve a purpose beyond revenue. It creates a basic threshold for entering the system and gives Metro another mechanism for enforcing rules. If that mechanism disappears, Metro needs to explain what replaces it.
Mayor Bass has said she does not support transit security officers performing fare checks because she wants them focused on public safety. That position deserves consideration. But fare enforcement and public safety do not necessarily have to be competing objectives. If access control contributes to order aboard trains and inside stations, the two issues may be connected.
There is also a better place to start. Los Angeles can make transportation more affordable without making it universally free.
Metro already provides assistance through its LIFE program for qualifying low-income riders. Students benefit from fare-free programs, while fare capping limits what regular riders pay. Metro can strengthen those programs, simplify enrollment, improve outreach and reach more low-income families.
Someone struggling to get to work, school, a medical appointment or a job interview should not be stranded because of the price of a Metro fare. Targeted assistance is a defensible public investment because it directs limited resources toward people who genuinely need help.
Universal fare-free transit asks a different question: Should taxpayers subsidize every Metro trip for every passenger, regardless of whether that passenger can afford to pay?
Before answering yes, Metro should explain why those dollars would produce greater benefits than spending the same resources on service, security, cleanliness, frequency or expansion. Los Angeles risks debating the wrong problem.
The question is not simply whether people would like Metro to be free. Of course they would. People would also like parking to be free, utilities to be cheaper, taxes to be lower and government services to cost less. Public policy cannot be built around whether the word "free" sounds appealing. It has to be built around priorities.
Metro's priority should be straightforward: build a transit system people trust.
A train that costs nothing but feels unsafe will not persuade enough Angelenos to abandon their cars. A bus that costs nothing but arrives inconsistently is not dependable transportation. A station that costs nothing to enter but is dirty, disorderly or poorly maintained will not build confidence in public transit.
Price matters, but quality matters more. Before Los Angeles tries to make Metro free, it should make Metro worth choosing. That means safe trains and buses, clean stations, frequent service, reliable schedules, effective access control, responsible expansion and financial discipline.
Once those fundamentals are firmly in place, Los Angeles can debate whether universal fare-free transit is worth the cost. Until then, Mayor Bass and the Metro Board should provide the public with an updated financial analysis answering four basic questions: What will universal fare-free Metro actually cost? Where will the replacement funding come from? What programs or projects could be affected? And what happens to safety and access control when fares disappear?
Those answers should come before any major commitment. Los Angeles taxpayers have heard the word "free" before. They know that government can eliminate a price at the point of service without eliminating the underlying cost.
Someone still pays.
Before Los Angeles promises free transit, City Hall should tell us who gets the billion-dollar bill.
(Yonthan Mendal writes on Jewish community issues, antisemitism, Israel, and public policy. His articles focus on civic engagement, education, and issues affecting Jewish communities.)
