Q&A on the MTA's giant, enormous, great big board meeting Thursday

With gas prices soaring and mass transit ridership up, the MTA board on Thursday took a step toward asking voters in November to consider a half-cent sales tax increase in Los Angeles County to pay for at least $30 billion in road improvements and transit projects.

It's a complicated process, at best. Here's a quick guide to the basics:

Q: How does the sales tax actually get on the ballot?

The board on Thursday voted 9 to 2 to draft an ordinance that allows the MTA to go forward with the tax proposal. That ordinance will be voted on by the board at its meeting in late July. The no votes were from Long Beach Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal and L.A. County Supervisor Don Knabe.

The key to the ordinance will be its expenditure plan -- in other words, what the money gets spent on and when. There will be a lot of haggling over that between now and the vote in July.

Q: What could go wrong?

In short, everything.

The state Legislature may not pass AB 2321, which gives the MTA the right to pursue the sales tax hike.

And it's also possible that local politicians who serve on the board won't be able to figure out a satisfactory way to divvy up sales tax revenue. That could result in the MTA board deciding not to go forward to the ballot.

A coalition of southeast L.A. County cities is already unhappy that the sales tax won't fund any big mass transit projects in their area. That's the reason that Lowenthal voted no. "The feeling is we're not getting our fair share," Lowenthal told the board. But she said she could change her mind over the next month -- if the expenditure plan is changed.

Also upset are officials from the San Gabriel Valley. The board on Thursday also voted not to put $80 million for the extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena into its long-range plan. Proponents of the project say they need that money now to seek federal funds to build the project, which they estimate would cost $400 million. The MTA says it would cost more than $584 million.

"I think it's going to be very difficult for folks along the [Gold Line] alignment to support a sales tax if they don't know our partner can be trusted," said Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond.

Hammond said he struck a deal earlier in the year with board member Richard Katz -- an appointee of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- that the $80 million would be included in the plan. In exchange the San Gabriel Valley would support the sales tax increase.

But Katz said that it was only a potential deal and that there were other elements involved, although he wouldn't elaborate on the other deal points (if you are reading this and want to elaborate, e-mail me at steve.hymon@latimes.com.

Katz also said that it didn't help when this spring San Gabriel Valley officials began resisting a plan to convert carpool lanes on parts of the 210 and 10 freeways in the San Gabriel Valley into congestion pricing lanes in exchange for $213 million in federal funds that would go toward new buses and Metrolink improvements.

"They want us to allocate $80 million we don't have when they're fighting $213 million, some of which will go to them," Katz said.

It gets better. Some San Gabriel Valley officials aren't happy that Villaraigosa is supporting the congestion pricing, noting that the toll lanes are not in the city of Los Angeles -- so it's not his constituents who will be as affected by the tolls.

But Villaraigosa tackled that issue head on. "I don't know if it will work," the mayor said, referring to the congestion pricing plan. "People can't continue to say we want [public officials] to deal with gridlock, but you can't try new things."

Q: So what would get funded?

The state bill that would allow the sales tax spells out several items that would get a minimum level of funding. These include: a busway or light rail along Crenshaw Boulevard; a north-south busway in the San Fernando Valley; the Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Duarte; a light rail line downtown connecting the Gold, Blue and Expo lines; and money for the subway. There's also money for various road improvements, particularly to the 5 Freeway.

All that totals about $4 billion. The sales tax is expected to bring in more than $30 billion, meaning it's up to the MTA to spell out how to spend the difference. Complicating matters, there's language in the state bill that says the MTA must finish the above projects.

And that leaves some MTA board members wondering if some of those projects could suck up some of the money. That was the main concern of board member and county Supervisor Gloria Molina, who pointed out that the MTA board has never formally voted to go forward with the Westside subway extension, which she said could eat up an awful lot of money -- leaving her constituents on the Eastside without much.

With all these complications, how did it pass 9 to 2?

There were enough members who said the sales tax is Los Angeles County's best hope of moving big projects forward now.

Villaraigosa and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky -- who a year ago quarreled over fare hikes -- were not only in agreement, but complimentary of each other. Both agreed that the sales tax would give the county money it wouldn't have otherwise.

The mayor argued that the county really needs $100 billion, but that's not likely. "I would love if we had a White House investing in public infrastructure, but we're a nation at war," Villaraigosa said. "The likelihood in the next few years of getting the support [in federal dollars] we need is not likely. The sales tax is just a down payment. We need a lot more."

Yaroslavsky made the point that not everyone is going to be pleased, and even if the sales tax is passed, there won't be money for every project right away. He also defended the fact that a lot of the money would go to the Westside, a part of town only served by two freeways.

Perhaps the most impassioned plea came from MTA board member Ara Najarian, a Glendale city councilman. Najarian said that even though the sales tax doesn't devote much money to his part of the county, transportation funding is desperately needed now.

"God help us," he said, "if we don't grow the pot."

--Steve Hymon

Comments

[john rizzi]

It looks to me as if the mta is playing porkbelly politics with the inclusion of all the plans under the new tax... I dont think they are looking to actually accomplish anything... but the Goldline part 1 was done outside their scope as well. Perhaps it should be completed in the same manner. I think the mta will get their funding and again snub the SGV because they really dont care about anything outside of the city of LA.

If you look at the mta vision and mission statements below, you will see how far from satisfied we all are.

Mission/Vision Statement

Our Vision
Metro...leading the nation in safety, mobility and customer satisfaction.

Our Mission
Metro is responsible for the continuous improvement of an efficient and effective transportation system for Los Angeles County.

not so much.

[Dan W.]

"We’re all in this together."

----------------

Absolutely true. A rising transit tide can lift all boats.

[RB]

It's interesting to me that the Southeast LA communities and San Gabriel Valley communities will accept money and transportation projects paid for by all of the communities and tax payers, but when they are asked to support a tax increase that will help build rail lines on the west side (but benefit everyone who rides them) they baulk. Those areas have freeways and metrolink. What does the Westside have, the 10 and the 405? Talk about unfair.

I am in full support of the Gold Line extension and feel it's irresponsible that the Board left that project off of the Long Range Funding list. That line and community are ready with shovels in their hands to start construction. It's a huge difference from the controversy surrounding the Expo line. But the county is in such dire straights we need to start building somewhere, now. We need to act like a community and support all of our neighbors. The Westside should support southeast LA for a gold line extension. SE LA should support the San Gabriel valley for their light rail extension. The SGV should support the valley in extending the red line North, and the valley should support the west side in getting some relief of their own.

We’re all in this together.

[Dan W.]

"Um, Dan W., Santa Monica has over 3300 low-to-moderate-income public and private housing units, in a town with fewer than 30,000 apartments, of which about 10,000 have historically low rents under rent control."

-----------------

Um, I didn't make any comments regarding housing units in Santa Monica or anywhere else.

I think you meant to address someone else.

[Pico Rider]

Um, Dan W., Santa Monica has over 3300 low-to-moderate-income public and private housing units, in a town with fewer than 30,000 apartments, of which about 10,000 have historically low rents under rent control.

I'm not proud of our "progressive" city, but to suggest we don't have enough low-income housing is ignorant, at best. We have far too many, and the city is hell-bent on building more, so as to assure future voting blocs for the one-party system.

[Tom A.]

Preach it, Dan!

[Dan W.]

The meeting itself was a zoo.

There were several people representing various organizations who waited for up to four hours to speak, but did not, but the Bus Riders "Unions' was given a ten minute block of time as a group, plus several individual comments on their behalf. Other organizations managed to give their point of view by one person in the one minute allotted time.

Here is a letter I wrote in response to what I saw today at the meeting.

----------------------------

Dear Metro Board of Directors,

Thank you for having today's meeting and accepting feedback on the proposed Long Range Transportation Plan. I have addressed the substance of the plan in other correspondence, so I would like to address my concern with the meeting itself.

My heart and appreciation goes out to Chairwoman O'Connor. It must have been very difficult to chair the public comment portion in a meeting like today's.

However, I have a huge concern about how the Public Comment portion was structured for Items 51 and 54 on the agenda, regarding the Long Range Transportation Plan and the proposed Sales Tax Increase.

I understand why the various service sectors were each given 10 minutes to address their concerns. They each represented many cities and groups with different points of view.

I do not understand why the so-called Bus Riders "Union" was given a 10 minute block of time when other advocacy groups were not. In addition, several of their supporters were also able to speak additionally during individual comments. This is unfair.

There were many people representing various organizations who waited hours to speak and were not given a chance to address the Board. Other transit advocacy organizations had one person speak for the alloted time giving that organization's point of view. Southern California Transit Advocates had one person speaking for one minute, as did the Rail Riders Union, and every other group present. The "BRU" is simply one advocacy organization out of many in Southern California. No one organizations deserves that kind of special privilege just because their members are loud and demanding. The BRU speakers were repetitive in their comments. One person from the BRU could have stood up and given their point of view in one minute, just like every other organization that was there. That would have allowed enough time for probably 15 other individuals and organizations with differing points of view to address the Board.

In the future, I ask the Board do the one of the following in the spirit of fairness:

A) If the BRU is given a significant time slot, that the following other transit advocacy organizations: Southern California Transit Advocates, The Transit Coalition and the Rail Riders Union, also be given the SAME amount of time as the BRU; Or,

B) Do not give the BRU a block of time, and let one individual speak in one comment period for the whole organization, as happened with the other advocacy groups today.

The time has long since come to stop giving the BRU special privileges it doesn't warrant, especially when their speakers all had the same basic rant.

I am not trying to take away their freedom of speech or their right to their opinion. I absolutely defend the right of the BRU, and of any advocacy group, to speak and address the Board like any other organization. I ask in the future that the BRU be given the same treatment as every other advocacy organization, no better and no worse.

I feel really bad for those 15 individuals and organizations who waited for up to four hours to be heard by the Board, and didn't get a chance to speak, but could have if it weren't for the special privilege and extra time given to the BRU. No more special treatment, please.

Best regards,

-----------------------

[jill]

As Sheila Keuhl's article pointed out in the Times yesterday, the westside is the biggest job magnet in the city after downtown and Santa Monica -- AND takes much of the traffic from Santa Monica, too. (Because Santa Monica, the "progressive city," is notorious for creating jobs and attracting business but building no affordable housing.)

Zev knows he messed up in scotching the subway two decades ago, then a decade ago getting Waxman to halt fed funding for tunneling -- glad he's not too proud to admit he was wrong, though. He also knows that he's the one who came up with the Pico-Olympic one way plan to alleviate some of this westside traffic, and now the Mayor's taking the heat from that bunch of always- angry activists over it after trying to modity it and make it work. The same bunch he'd listened to over the subway. Sometimes, leadership is about listening until it's clear the opposition is hoping details will be a quagmire, and just moving on.

Gloria Molina and her Eastside politics are another big reason the Red Line was not extended to the Westside: the Latino pols of the day argued that the poor of the Eastside needed a subway more, and running it through the "rich" westside to the ocean was discriminatory. Well, they have their Red Line east of Highland, from downtown to the Valley, but now Molina's trying to stop the westside subway and Expo Lines again. TOUGH.

I'm also sick of Valley people claiming westside favoritism, when they're the ones clogging the two major freeways in question, AND every north-south road from the Valley, and every single canyon is in gridlock. We need them to take more mass transit, leave our streets passable for the locals. Relatively few make the reverse rush hour commutes, if you look at the freeways and local roads, yoiu can confirm that.

I wish we could do like every other major city, and charge those from outside, and those with polluting cars, a surcharge to drive in. Even New York;s Bloomberg suggested an $8 midown drive-in fee, in addiiton to the tolls they have on every bridge and access into Manhattan already. If we had tolls on the 405/ Sepulveda and Canyons at Mulholland, and at the southern and eastern confines AND bordering Santa Monica, to fine everyone with a license plate outside the area, we'd fund the subway in no time.

(True, we have one unique problem in L A, involving illegals: as with state colleges, they get in-state fees whereas citizens of other states pay more, when many feel they should be treated as foreign nationals. SO: anyone without a legit Calif, license or registered address would be put in a database sent to the DMV/ City Attorney in case they're stopped for other violations.)

[lsm]

Had never before heard of Glendale city councilman Ara Najarin, but his foresighted recognition that we must flourish in an interdependent region rather than flounder in Balkanized fiefdoms earned my appreciation. Would that all in our county shared this insight.