It looks like someone at Metrolink in Southern California reads The Consumerist, because their communications manager responded today to yesterday’s post about some potentially confusing language on their website. He even posted a suggested revision to the language in an attempt to clear it up, and is asking for reader feedback.

As we noted yesterday, Metrolink technically did nothing wrong, but the way they described the monthly pass program was confusing enough that one of our readers earned himself a hefty $250 fine despite a good faith attempt to follow the rules. What do you think of Metrolink’s suggested revision? Too much? Personally, we like their inclusion of examples.

Here is some proposed new language for our website that I hope will clear things up:

Valid for unlimited travel between the origin station and selected destination during a calendar month. PASSES CLEARLY STATE ON THE FRONT THE CALENDAR MONTH THEY ARE VALID FOR. Passes can be purchased in advance.

MONTHLY PASSES ARE VALID FOR THE CALENDAR MONTH FOR WHICH THEY ARE PURCHASED. THEY ARE NOT VALID FOR A 30 DAY PERIOD FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THEY ARE PURCHASED.

These passes are sold from the 15th of the current month to the 14th of the new month.

EXAMPLE I: If you purchase a monthly pass from March 1 through March 14, it will only be valid for the balance of the month of MARCH from the date of purchase. It will expire on March 31. THE PASS CANNOT BE USED IN APRIL.

EXAMPLE II: If you purchase a monthly pass on the 18th of March, the pass will only be valid for the month of APRIL. It CANNOT be used until APRIL 1 and will expire on APRIL 30.

RELATED
“SoCal’s Metrolink Monthly Pass Doesn’t Work The Way You Probably Think”

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.