The sales tax initiative: Ramping up, July 25

Some other impressions from yesterday's vote by the Metro board to move forward with a half-cent sales tax initiative:

Cyclists speak out

I liked the spunk of the several cyclists who, with a rare mix of clarity and humor, made their case to the Metro board that money in the sales tax plan should be set aside for bike improvements and pedestrians. "Bicycling is a solution; the more you integrate it into your mass transit plans ... the better service you will have," cyclist Ingrid Peterson told the board. She's got a point -- bikes are often the quickest way to bus and rail stops.

Fifteen percent of sales tax revenue ($4.5 billion to $6 billion if Metro's estimates are correct) would go back to cities and unincorporated areas and it would be up to them to spend the money as they see fit. The cyclists are worried that some cities may spend on cyclists and pedestrians while others may not. It's a legit worry. Damien Newton at Streetsblog Los Angeles is helping lead the campaign; lots more details at his blog.

The fare freeze

It's not surprising that the Bus Riders Union is against the sales tax increase because leaders say too much money would go to rail projects. The BRU has historically been averse to rail spending, wanting to see the bus system upgraded first to relieve crowding and long waits between some buses.

It was equally interesting, however, that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa tried to head off some of this criticism by proposing to use expected revenues to delay next year's fare increase and to freeze fares for seniors, the disabled, students and Medicare recipients for five years. 

The fare freeze mimics a move made by County Supervisor Kenny Hahn in 1980, when as part of that year's campaign for a sales tax increase he called for bus fares to be cut. Looking back, some transit advocates credit that with helping secure passage of the sales tax hike, while others say it cost the bus system dearly needed revenues.

The money for this fare freeze would presumably have to come from somewhere in the spending plan. Will a particular project take a hit to help pay for it? We'll see.

The fall campaign

A couple of supporters of the sales tax said privately that a fall campaign would probably cost $5 million to $8 million and involve substantial television time. Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the 800,000-member Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, indicated that her organization would likely spend some money. The business community has talked a lot about the need to improve transportation in the Southland, but are they willing to pony up some dollars, too?

Villaraigosa's office has also met with AAA to try to win the auto club's support, since the sales tax plan has several billion dollars of road projects in it. A AAA spokesperson told me Thursday that the organization is looking at the initiative, but hasn't taken a position yet.

The mayor will likely do some fundraising, as will other local pols. Another factor here is that this could be a ballot heavy on tax increases. The L.A. City Council is already asking for a parcel tax to pay for more anti-gang programs and Villaraigosa is also pushing an LAUSD school bond. The obvious question: When the economy is tough, how much can you realistically ask voters to pay?

The Gold Line

It will also be mighty interesting to see how San Gabriel Valley officials play this. To their credit, they used all their political leverage to get some extra money for the Gold Line extension into the spending plan but still pushed for more money -- and more assurances the Gold Line would be first in line for the money.

The problem they're up against now is this: If they oppose the sales tax and it doesn't pass, they're not likely to get the seed money from Metro to get the project going. That's just plain old political retribution. On the other hand, if they do support the sales tax, there is the very real chance it may not pass, or that it may pass but funds will be slow coming to the Gold Line. In short, they've got to decide whether the sales tax is their best shot at getting the line built.

It's a tough position, particularly when subway supporters can point to expected ridership that is many times what the Gold Line would have. On the other hand, I think the point overlooked about the Gold Line extension is that it's an effort to get mass transit in before it's too late traffic-wise.

The equity issue

To boil it down to its essence, a lot of the arguing about the sales tax spending plan over the past several weeks has been about how to best spread the money around. Some people argue it should be about need; others say it should be on a per capita basis.

The per capita basis argument is a way to lock in dollars for certain parts of L.A. County. Here's why that's important: There are likely to be projects on the spending plan that never come to pass. The best example, perhaps, is the 710 tunnel, a project that is controversial and very expensive. The plan has committed $780 million to the tunnel. If it doesn't happen, the Metro board will have to divert that money to something else.

If there was a per capita formula in place, that money could stay in the eastern half of the county. Without a formula, the Metro board could theoretically send that money anywhere. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- but it's the belief by the eastern half of the county that the money will go west to the city of Los Angeles that motivated all the arguing.

Hey, that's how political compromises work. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky may have summed it up best: "This is not a perfect proposal, but I can't remember the last tax proposal that I supported that was."

-- Steve Hymon

Photo: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Tony Fernandez]

johnny, with LA you have to count interagencies like Culver City, Big Blue Bus, Foothill Transit, OCTA, etc. Metro is only one part (albeit the largest part) of our entire bus system.

[johnny]

Tony, I thought NYC's buses still had higher ridership overall. Do you mean ridership per mile or some other stat?

[Moy]

The Bus Union should understand that traffic will have an impact on how efficiently people are able to move on surface streets.

A mix of transit is what would best improve the quality of commute in the region.... buses are already well represented, Rail needs to grow. Its not either or...but both working cooperatively.

[Tony Fernandez]

BOB2, I have to defend Metro here. Look at our bus system: highest ridership in the nation. Many rapid lines and improved service (and raising rates only once in the past decade). Look at our many miles of rail in this county. I'm with you, I don't like that so much of this money is going to roads (only 20% is going directly to roads, the local return may also go mostly to roads, but it's too early to tell). However, with the state continuing to strip money away from transit agencies, we have to fund Metro ourselves. If we want to get ourselves out of gridlock, then we have to solve the problem. The state has no money and the federal government just doesn't seem to notice that California exists (comparatively).

[David in Tarzana]

BICYCLES

[BOB2]

The problem the MTA has is not a lack of real needs, but a lack of the leadership necessary to find a vision that makes transit work in Los Angeles County. The MTA Board is generally more interested in the where and who gets a contract for a project, than if the mix of services and projects makes sense. More resources committed to an unfocused and rudderless MTA will not solve that basic problem.

The Mayor who is current Chair of the MTA has transit union negotiations coming up and the possibility of a strike before his re-election, next year, and reacts like he just needs the cash to make that go away. Previous to this manic push for the sales tax, his attention at MTA span had been short and not very strategic, his staffing, and policy focus have been less than what it should be.

The MTA is an organization that is overly compartmentalized, not mission focused, over politicized, and has a poor track record for thing like basic cost control. The lack of clear leadership or a strategic vision results in frivolous contracts, poor service policies, and too little quality control over its own operations.

Almost 40% of this proposed sales tax goes for roads, mostly backfilling short falls in the construction, renovation, and maintenance of our state highways and freeways. This leads the MTA to be schizophrenic in defining its role. Does it program funds to build roads, or does it build and run an effective transit system?

Should the MTA even be funding State Highways while Sacramento impounds existing "voter protected" Transportation funds and diverts them to the General Fund? The state has already "borrowed" and not repaid enough funds to complete the entire "Subway to the Sea".

The need for the funds to build and operate more and better transit is very real, and this argues for supporting the sales tax, but the public has a hard time trusting the MTA to do the right thing, or to do it well.

[transit booster]

Joe,

The MTA and the related sales tax are county related so all of LA County is concerned not just LA City. Also, not sure how you surmise that the Sepulveda Pass project is for the Westside and not the Valley. The Sepulveda Pass is between the Westside and the Valley and the vast majority of travelers between the two regions are Valley residents (few Westside residents work in the Valley or go there for other reasons as evidenced by the traffic flow South in the morning and North in the evening)

[Dan W.]

"It's not surprising that the Bus Riders Union is against the sales tax increase because too much money would go to rail projects. The BRU has historically been averse to rail spending, wanting to see the bus system upgraded first to relieve crowding and long waits between some buses."

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

The sales tax increase would provide billions for new buses. It's the only way they will see "billions for buses" as they advertise on their yellow t-shirts.

It not surprising that the BRU opposes the sales tax, because they are more interested in railing against "the man" than actually having better transportation. There could be double the billions in this sales tax bill for buses and the BRU would still find a reason to feel victimized and campaign against it.

Fortunately, the silent majority of bus riders is no longer willing to let the BRU pretend to speak for us anymore.

[Tony Fernandez]

The SFV has been a hotbed of NIMBYism for years. Remember the mess of the Orange Line?

Kind of off topic, but very related to the SFV, I still think that the best place that we have for congestion pricing is the 101, since there are many options for commuters (Orange and Red Lines). But I guess that idea would make too much sense (or would be too hard to implement politically because we can't take away mixed-flow lanes to other purposes in this county).

[Ingrd Peterson]

Bicycles.

[Joe]

I am in support of the sales tax increase but, as someone that lives in the SFV, there is no money going to the valley at all.

Sure a few freeway upgrades, and Supulveda Pass (maybe someday), but thats really for the westside. There are no real valley project in that plan at all.

I might be wrong but isn't the SGV outside of "Los Angeles" Should money from a Los Angeles sales tax go back into "Los Angeles"

Have you tried to get from Van Nuys to Chatsworth anytime lately.

Am I wrong about any of this? Please let me know

[Donald Stanwood]

Your view of the BRU is charitable, Steve. The Union doesn't just prioritize bus over rail. Eric Mann & Co. charactertize each and every rail project as of benefit solely to white people. Then the race card is played in order to beat opponenets over the head. Trying to find common ground with these guys is like steers negotiating with meatpackers.

[Damien Newton]

cyclists...and pedestrians!

After all, every transit user is a pedestrian at the start and end of their trip. They deserve amenities to make their trip safe and comfortable. Under the current Local Return funding scheme, there is no guarantee that Metro will spend a penny on making their trips any better.