Meeting_Body
AD HOC BOARD COMPOSITION COMMITTEE
APRIL 27, 2026
Subject
SUBJECT: ROLE OF METRO’S ADVISORY BODIES IN DECISION-MAKING
Action
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
RECEIVE AND FILE report on the role of Metro’s Advisory Bodies.
Issue
ISSUE
As the Ad Hoc Governance Committee evaluates potential changes to Metro’s governance structure, it is important to recognize that advisory bodies already serve as established mechanisms to gather diverse community perspectives and inform Board decision-making.
These bodies provide structured forums to elevate the voices of transit riders alongside a broader range of perspectives, including people with disabilities, youth, business stakeholders, technical experts, as well as to discuss issues specific to geographically diverse subregions and initiatives.
As part of the Ad Hoc Board Composition Committee’s efforts, advisory bodies are hosting community listening sessions to gather feedback on Board composition and governance. This approach offers a scalable, inclusive method for informing the Committee’s work.
Background
BACKGROUND
Advisory bodies expand the agency’s ability to incorporate lived experience together with technical, operational, and economic expertise. Through regular engagement, formal recommendations, and community listening sessions, the feedback provided by these Bodies is shared with the Board.
Advisory bodies fall into several categories, including statutorily required advisory committees, ordinance required independent taxpayer oversight committees, service-based bodies, as well as project-specific or subject-matter- focused bodies. Each plays a distinct role, ranging from technical review to direct community engagement and fiscal oversight as policy input for the Board. Notably, the Metro enabling statute, AB152 (Katz) requires both the Citizens’ Advisory Council (CAC) and the Transit Business Advisory Council (TBAC), underscoring the importance of incorporating rider and local small business perspectives into Board decision-making. Each body plays a distinct role, ranging from technical review and policy input to direct community engagement and fiscal oversight.
Collectively, these bodies provide structured and ongoing opportunities for public participation. For example, advisory committees elevate rider and stakeholder perspectives, service councils influence bus service planning through public hearings and provide recommendations to Metro leadership. Independent taxpayer oversight committees ensure transparency and accountability in the expenditure of voter-approved funds.
Through regular meetings, formal recommendations, and public engagement, advisory bodies create a multi-layered framework for feedback to the Board that strengthens the Board’s ability to make informed, transparent, and community-responsive decisions.
Attachment A includes a listing of all Metro Advisory Bodies.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
Metro undertook a review of its governance and stakeholder engagement practices to better understand how advisory input supports Board deliberations and agency decision-making. As part of this effort, staff examined both internal structures and external practices at comparable agencies to identify common approaches, key differences, and opportunities for alignment with best practices.
A review of stakeholder engagement structures across peer transit agencies, including the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit), Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).
This review found that while governance structures vary, peer agencies consistently rely on advisory bodies and stakeholder engagement processes to inform decision-making.
Across agencies:
• Rider and stakeholder advisory committees are a standard practice, serving as a primary mechanism for gathering input.
• Most advisory bodies are consultative in nature, with decision-making authority remaining with agency Boards or executive leadership.
• Community engagement is universally conducted, though the level of formalization varies-from project-based outreach to standing, policy-linked advisory councils.
• Technical and policy advisory committees are consistently used to inform planning, operations, and capital investments.
• Project-specific engagement (e.g., corridor-level committees, working groups) is a common and expected practice across all agencies.
• Oversight structures differ significantly, reflecting varying approaches to transparency and accountability.
• Formal structures for youth and targeted stakeholder groups are limited across peers, representing an area of emerging practice.
Overall, some key takeaways from this comparison include:
• Advisory bodies are a standard governance tool across all agencies.
• While engagement is universal, Metro has a more formalized and structured approach than many peer agencies as detailed in Attachment A.
• Metro’s model is broader, incorporating policy, technical, community, business, and oversight perspectives.
• Metro stands out in a few ways, particularly with our Service Councils, which have direct decision-making authority on bus service, something not commonly seen at peer agencies.
• The CAC and PSAC present quarterly to the Metro Board.
• In areas like youth engagement, Metro is ahead of many peer agencies in having its own advisory body solely focused on strengthening feedback from young audiences.
Consistent with these findings, Metro maintains a diverse network of advisory bodies that support Board deliberations and agency decision-making. As detailed in Attachment A, these bodies provide input across policy, planning, operational, and oversight functions. As outlined above, Metro’s advisory bodies vary in purpose, structure, and authority. Certain bodies are established pursuant to statute or voter-approved measures and include specific requirements related to membership, terms, and responsibilities, particularly those responsible for independent financial oversight of transportation sales tax revenues. Other advisory bodies rely on appointments by Metro Board members or other designated appointing authorities to ensure geographic and stakeholder representation, while some utilize application and interview processes to identify members with relevant lived experience or professional expertise. In many cases, members are required to meet specific qualifications or represent particular constituencies.
Interest in serving on Metro advisory boards is strong, when the recruitment is led by Metro. Most recently, Metro received almost 600 applications for appointment to PSAC. Metro Youth Council received over 200 applications across the nine sub-regions for 27 seats. Sixty-one applicants applied for the second version of East San Fernando Valley Community Leadership Council (CLC), for 14 spots.
While this structure supports broad and inclusive engagement, it can also present challenges. Advisory bodies with specific eligibility requirements or those that rely on external appointing authorities may experience delays in filling vacancies or limitations in the available pool of candidates.
Despite these challenges, advisory bodies remain a critical component of Metro’s governance framework. They provide valuable input on issues such as accessibility, public safety, sustainability, business participation, and regional service delivery, and they support transparency and accountability in agency decision-making. Metro’s approach reflects the scale and complexity of its service area and builds on practices identified through the peer review.
Staff continues to seek ways to strengthen the role of advisory bodies in informing Board decision-making by enhancing coordination, visibility, and integration of advisory input into Board processes. Key efforts include increasing transparency of advisory body activities, expanding inclusive participation opportunities, and strengthening feedback loops to demonstrate how input informs decisions. These efforts will reinforce advisory bodies as a critical bridge between the public and the Board and support more informed, transparent, and community-responsive governance.
Equity_Platform
EQUITY PLATFORM
Advisory bodies advance Metro’s commitment to equity by ensuring that voices historically underrepresented in transportation decision-making are meaningfully incorporated into agency policies and programs.
These bodies elevate perspectives from people with disabilities, youth, transit-dependent riders, small and minority-owned businesses, and reflect the geographic diversity of communities across Los Angeles County. By incorporating lived experience and community-based insight, advisory bodies help ensure that Metro’s decisions are informed by the perspectives of those most impacted by the transportation system.
Project-specific advisory groups further advance equity by engaging communities directly affected by major capital projects, supporting more inclusive planning processes and equitable outcomes.
Through these structures, Metro strengthens transparency, broadens participation, and advances more equitable and community-informed decision-making.
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 expected to contribute to further reductions in VMT. While this item does not directly encourage transit use, it supports Metro’s overall operations by strengthening advisory structures that provide community input on key agency priorities, projects, and programs, which can contribute to an enhanced customer experience. Because the Metro Board has adopted an agency-wide VMT Reduction Target, and this item supports the overall function of the agency and 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
Advisory Bodies provide input to Metro that align with the following strategic plan goals:
• Goal 1 - Provide high-quality mobility options that enable people to spend less time traveling.
• Goal 2 - Deliver outstanding trip experiences for all users of the transportation system.
• Goal 3 - Enhance community and lives through mobility and access to opportunity.
• Goal 4 - Transform LA County through regional collaboration and national leadership.
• Goal 5 - Provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
Metro will continue to coordinate and engage with its advisory bodies to solicit feedback on Metro governance and to ensure their perspectives are incorporated into ongoing discussions related to Board structure, representation, and decision-making processes.
Attachment
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A - Metro Advisory Body Roster
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Marisa Perez, Deputy Chief, Community Relations, (213) 922-3808
Lilian De-Loza Gutierrez, Executive Officer, Community Relations, (213) 922-7479
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: Nicole Englund, Chief of Staff, (213) 922-7950
