Board urges MTA to study $30 FastPass for 18–21; measure passes after close votes

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick introduced a resolution urging the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) to consider a reduced $30 monthly FastPass for 18- to 21-year-olds, and the Board of Supervisors adopted the measure after a series of amendments and close roll-call votes.

The resolution asks MTA officials to consider a $30 FastPass to take effect in January of the 2007–08 MTA budget cycle and includes a fiscal estimate supplied to the board during debate. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, the item’s author, said the measure is an urging resolution rather than a mandate: “I think that is a very, very worthy effort that our city should be making on behalf of young people,” he said, and described an estimated annual cost of about $3,139,000 and a partial-year startup cost of roughly $1.6 million.

Nut graf: The measure is nonbinding. It directs the MTA to study whether a lower-priced monthly pass for younger riders could be implemented and asks the MTA to report back; proponents argued it would help lower-income young adults who disproportionately ride Muni, while opponents warned of pressure on an already strained Muni budget and urged a broader review of transit funding and fare evasion enforcement.

Supporters cited ridership patterns and equity concerns. McGoldrick said young adults use Muni at high rates and often have limited incomes; he and allies pointed to internal city analyses and potential revenue options—such as improving meter collections and transit-shelter advertising revenue—that could offset costs. McGoldrick referenced an analysis he distributed to supervisors estimating a $3.139 million annual cost and suggested phasing the program in mid-year if feasible.

Opponents pressed the board to consider the fiscal effect on Muni service and reliability. Supervisor Chris Daley (appearing in the transcript as “Daley”) said, “I just don't think [quality of] Muni service is where it ought to be,” and warned that reduced fares could exacerbate budget shortfalls unless the city and MTA addressed fare evasion and service quality. Other board members recommended sending the measure back to committee for further study of impacts and alternatives.

The resolution’s path included multiple procedural motions. An attempt to refer the measure back to committee failed at one point, and an initial vote left the measure short of passage (the transcript records an earlier failure). After additional floor debate and amendment—narrowing the eligible ages and adjusting the proposed effective date—the board ultimately approved the amended urging resolution by roll call, 6 ayes to 5 noes.

What the measure does and does not do: The resolution urges the MTA to consider the reduced fare and asks city staff and the agency to analyze fiscal impacts and implementation issues; it does not compel MTA to adopt the fare and does not appropriate funds. Supervisors repeatedly noted that under the city charter and recent legal guidance the board’s authority over MTA fare-setting is limited; the resolution is advisory.

Next steps: The resolution asks the MTA to return with fiscal and implementation information. McGoldrick said he would meet with MTA staff and other stakeholders. Several supervisors recommended further review of fare-evasion enforcement, meter revenue strategies, and potential revenue sources before any MTA action.

Ending: The board’s action places the reduced-fare proposal on the MTA’s agenda for study and signals supervisor interest in targeting fare relief to younger riders, while leaving the agency and budget offices to assess whether and how it could be implemented without harming service.