Meeting_Body
AD HOC BOARD COMPOSITION COMMITTEE
MARCH 23, 2026
Subject
SUBJECT: BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT AND INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCIES
Action
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
RECEIVE AND FILE the Report on Benchmarking Analysis of Transit Agencies.
Issue
ISSUE
In November 2024, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure G, a charter amendment that expands the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors from five to nine members and implements related county governance reforms, including the election of a countywide Chief Executive Officer. Measure G does not amend Metro's statutory governance structure, though its passage has prompted discussion of whether Metro’s Board composition should be changed to accommodate the impending change in county governance.
Background
BACKGROUND
An Ad Hoc Committee of the Board was established by Chair Dutra in January 2026 to focus on potential governance considerations arising from Measure G. Motion 33.1 by Directors Dutra, Barger, Horvath, Padilla, Najarian, and Dupont-Walker (Attachment A) directs that the Ad Hoc Committee’s deliberations and recommendations be informed by relevant demographic, historical, and comparative context which was presented at last month’s Ad-Hoc meeting. The motion also requested that staff provide benchmarking of peer agencies, which is the purpose of this report.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
Motion 33.1 specifically directed staff to prepare a benchmarking analysis of peer transit agencies of comparable size, scope, and governance complexity, including a summary of each agency’s governing board composition, appointment or selection structure, voting authority, and any relevant statutory or local governance provisions.
To benchmark governance practices among large U.S. transit systems, staff reviewed peer agencies with comparable scale, multimodal operations, and regional service areas.
While not direct peers in scale, the following agencies were also selected as examples of different transit governance structures to further inform the benchmarking analysis.
Attachment B (Summary of Findings Peer Agencies) focuses on the agencies’ Board composition and governance, including member selection process, statutory authority, voting authority, and member compensation. In addition, it includes a detailed overview of the agencies’ area of jurisdiction, organization and structure, service characteristics, budget and funding sources.
Attachment C (Summary of Findings Reference Agencies) summarizes the findings for other reference agencies. Attachment D provides a summary of the appointment process for county representatives. Attachment E provides an analysis of the board structure of other government agencies in Southern California.
Transit Agency Key Themes
Board Composition
Board composition and appointment structures vary across transit agencies. On average, peer agency Boards have 10 voting members. Large transit agencies in this study (operating budgets greater than $2 billion) have an average of 10 voting members, whereas smaller transit agencies (operating budgets less than $2 billion) have 12 members on average.
County Representation and Appointment Processes
The agencies reviewed demonstrate that no two transit systems use the same governance structure or appointment process. While counties often play an important role in board composition, the method of appointment, eligibility requirements, and level of county representation vary significantly across agencies.
At Metro, five members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors serve, representing 38% of the Board. Metro is the only agency reviewed in which all County-elected officials serve on the board by virtue of their positions as County Supervisors.
Among the agencies reviewed, CTA is the only other system whose jurisdiction is entirely within a single county, similar to Metro. Most other agencies serve multi-county regions, which results in governance structures designed to balance representation across multiple jurisdictions.
Across these multi-county systems, counties typically participate through direct appointments or nominations by county executives or county governing bodies. For example, SEPTA, Sound Transit, MARTA, and Pittsburgh Regional Transit include members appointed by county officials or county governing bodies, sometimes with confirmation by local legislative bodies. These agencies may also require appointees to be local elected officials or residents with relevant expertise, and in some cases ensure geographic representation across the service area.
The New York MTA uses a hybrid structure in which county executives recommend candidates to the governor, who then appoints members subject to state senate confirmation. In contrast, Community Transit includes two county representatives selected by the Snohomish County Council, reflecting a more limited county role.
Overall, these examples illustrate that county involvement in transit governance is common but structured differently across agencies, reflecting differences in service areas, regional governance arrangements, and statutory frameworks.
Attachment D provides additional details on the appointment process for each agency reviewed for which the board includes County representation.
Local and Regional Infrastructure Agencies Key Themes
To provide further context for different approaches to regional governance, staff also reviewed several countywide and regional public authorities operating in Los Angeles County (Attachment E). The examples include entities responsible for infrastructure investment, environmental regulation, regional planning, and public service delivery.
While each agency operates under a different statutory framework, Attachment E summarizes key governance features for each agency, including governing body composition, the process for selecting county representatives, voting structures, statutory authority, and the scale of fiscal oversight.
While LA County Board members commonly play a role in board composition, the method of representation and appointment varies significantly across entities, reflecting differences in statutory design, service responsibilities, and institutional purpose.
In several agencies, including the Metropolitan Water District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, the LA County Local Agency Formation Commission, and the Southern California Association of Governments, county representatives are appointed directly by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through formal Board action. Some governance structures rely on ex officio representation, such as the LA County Sanitation Districts, where the Chair of the Board of Supervisors represents unincorporated county areas and other Board members service on the Districts that encompass their jurisdiction. In contrast, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District is governed directly by the Board of Supervisors acting as the district board, with all supervisors serving as members.
These examples demonstrate that no single model governs Los Angeles County’s participation in regional authorities, and that governance structures are often shaped by the statutory authority, service area, and policy objectives of the agency.
Equity_Platform
EQUITY PLATFORM
This item is informational and does not propose changes to Metro governance, policies, or programs. Providing contextual information regarding County governance reforms supports informed and transparent decision-making, which aligns with Metro’s equity principles.
Vehicle_Miles_Traveled_Outcome
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OUTCOME
VMT and VMT per capita in Los Angeles County are lower than national averages, the lowest in the SCAG region, and on the lower end of VMT per capita statewide, with these declining VMT trends due in part to Metro’s significant investment in rail and bus transit.* Metro’s Board-adopted VMT reduction targets align with California’s statewide climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. To ensure continued progress, all Board items are assessed for their potential impact on VMT.
As part of these ongoing efforts, this item is not expected to contribute to further reductions in VMT. Because the Metro Board has adopted an agency-wide VMT Reduction Target, and this item supports the overall function of the agency, this item is consistent with the goals of reducing VMT.
*Based on population estimates from the United States Census and VMT estimates from Caltrans’ Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data between 2001-2019.
Implementation_of_Strategic_Plan_Goals
IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Approval of this recommendation supports Metro Strategic Plan goal #5 to provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization by establishing organizational excellence, transparency, and accountable governance.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
Upon receipt and filing of this report, staff will incorporate Committee feedback and continue to provide informational materials as requested to support future deliberations of the Ad Hoc Board Composition Committee.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Motion 33.1
Attachment B - Summary of Findings (Peer Agencies)
Attachment C - Summary of Findings (Reference Agencies)
Attachment D - Appointment of County Representatives
Attachment E - Local Infrastructure Agency Peer Review
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Madeleine Moore, Deputy Executive Officer, Government Relations, 213 922-4604
Marisa Perez, Deputy Chief, Community Relations, 213-922-3808
Reviewed_by
Reviewed by: Nicole Englund, Chief of Staff, 213-922-7950
