Diane DuBois becomes new chair of Metro Board of Directors

New Metro Board Chair Diane DuBois

Diane DuBois

As many of you know, the position of Chair of the Metro Board rotates between directors each year to enhance representation of all L.A. County geographic areas. Today Diane DuBois, from Lakewood in the Gateway Cities, becomes chair for fiscal year 2013-14. Here’s the release:

City of Lakewood Councilmember Diane DuBois has taken over as chair of Metro’s Board of Directors, effective July 1. She replaces outgoing Board Chairman Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

“I look forward to a successful year as Chair of the MTA,” DuBois said. “We will concentrate on continuing to design and implement Measure R projects and grow the transportation opportunities in Los Angeles County for accessibility to all corners of the region.”

A Councilmember for the City of Lakewood, DuBois was elected to the Metro Board of Directors in 2009, where she represents the 28 cities of southeast Los Angeles County collectively known as the Gateway Cities Council of Governments.  She also serves on Metro’s Executive Management and Audit Committee, as well as the Planning and Programming Committee.

DuBois became involved in local government through her appointment to the City of Lakewood Planning and Environment Commission, where she served for 28 years before being elected to the Lakewood City Council in 2005. She served as Mayor in 2008 and 2012.

In addition to her city responsibilities, DuBois has a long history of civic service. She has been a board member and volunteer of Lakewood Meals On Wheels, a board member of Lakewood Regional Medical Center, a member and past president of Soroptimist International of Lakewood/Long Beach and Board Chair of Pathways Volunteer Hospice. She was appointed Community Outreach chair by the Board of Trustees for the Long Beach Ronald McDonald House and served on the founding Board of Directors.

Metro is the third largest public transportation agency in the United States. It has a $5 billion annual budget and more than 9,000 employees. It operates approximately 191 bus routes serving 1,433 square miles of service area and six subway and light-rail lines.

23 replies

  1. I took the Expo/Blue Line for the first time to Anime Expo today and I found how ridiculous it was how a person can travel all the Blue Line all the way from Long Beach to Pico can get by with $1.50 while a person taking the Expo Line for a short ride from USC to Pico pays the same $1.50. Who came up with this? No wonder no one rides Metro, it makes absolutely no sense at all to use them for short hop trips!

    When I was in Tokyo for Comiket, their fare system made so much sense that even a gaijin who barely understand Japanese could figure it out in the first try. I load up my Suica pass, I tap in at the gate of entry, and I tap out at the gate of exit, and it deducted my fare based on how many stations I traveled through. Short rides cost less, going farther cost more. It made so much more sense in figuring out the Japanese system in Japanese than trying to figure it out how to ride Metro here in English.

    Don’t people who work at Metro have the common sense to think rationally, that a trip from USC to Pico should be in the $1.00 range while a trip from Long Beach to Pico should be around $3.00?

    Like

  2. While distance based fares may be all well and good, what everyone is forgetting is the Title VI issues. Metro lost a lawsuit by the Bus Riders Union because of this issue, and recently got put through the ringer by the Federal government again. Metro would have to collect racial and socioeconomic data on every trip to determine if poor people and minority people make longer trips than rich people. If there is a disproportionate impact, then it’s a no go, not if they want to avoid millions of dollars in legal fees. Time based fares at least are defensible from an American standard practice format No other transit system in the United States has the fine granular distanced based fare system like other countries, and since most Americans don’t travel outside the country they will just get confused. Even the few systems that do distanced based fares, like Golden Gate Transit, charge one fare for most local trips (Marin County Cash Fare) and so is much easier to enforce.

    Like

  3. At the bare minimum, I think now is the time to require tapping out as well as in. Firstly, this will allow more accurate data gathering. Secondly, it cuts down on freeloaders as well as folks who keep using the emergency exits (failing to TAP out = maximum fare is charged at end of day or next time TAP is used). Lastly, in most scenarios regarding a future fare system, a tap out would be required to determine how much the rider owes. Since Metro is bending over backwards to notify folks of station latching, might as well take this outreach opportunity to begin requiring tap outs.

    As for Metro making “absolutely no sense at all … for short-hop trips”, I doubt we’d see Metro lower the minimum fare since it’s comparably low already. We’d probably just see the addition of higher fare tiers. That said, I’d welcome a $1 base fare and I think if correctly marketed, it would sell itself fairly well to discretionary riders.

    Like