Snoble fires back at Dreier and Gold Line Foothill Extension

Metro's press office just e-mailed me this letter that agency CEO Roger Snoble recently dispatched to Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) about the proposed Gold Line extension to Azusa.

Dreier has been campaigning for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board to commit $80 million to the extension -- money needed so that he can pursue federal funding (click here to see Dreier being interviewed by his own press secretary about the Gold Line). The Foothill Extension Construction Authority has also argued that if the $80 million is secured, the remaining $320 million for the project will come from the Federal Transit Administration and construction can begin as early as next year.

Snoble, in his letter, says that there are few guarantees that the FTA will provide that money. The better chance, he says, is to support the half-cent sales tax increase proposal that Metro and area politicians are trying to get on the Nov. 4 ballot. The increase would, if approved, pay for $30- to $40-billion in mass transit improvements and provide $735 million for a Gold Line extension.

Here's the key graph from Snoble's letter:

It is likely to be many years at best before the Foothill project completes the lengthy and rigorous New Starts process, assuming the FTA allows the project to remain under consideration. Given the intense level of competition for limited federal resources among a large number of proposed projects nationwide, combined with uncertainty surrounding the future of the New Starts program, success is far from guaranteed and in fact may prove to be elusive. On the other hand, a successful outcome with the sales tax measure will mean the Foothill project will soon become a reality.

I'll post the whole letter as soon as I resolve some technical issues.

UPDATE, 12:17 p.m.: The entire letter is posted after the jump.

--Steve Hymon

August 21, 2008
Honorable David Dreier Member of Congress
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Dreier:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) regarding local funding for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension. While we share your goal of making the Foothill project a reality, we believe there is a more productive route for achieving this goal than the federal New Starts approach suggested in your letter.

Over the past few months, advocates of the Foothill project have attempted to make the case that a local financial commitment of $80 million for the Foothill extension will in turn trigger a $320 million federal funding commitment from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and lead to the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the first phase of the extension to Azusa. It has been further represented that these major federal actions are imminent and predicated only on an immediate funding commitment at the local level. However, we must respectfully suggest that the actual status of the project in the FTA New Starts process simply does not support these representations.

First, the project has been and continues to remain at the alternatives analysis level of the New Starts evaluation and ratings process. This is the beginning stage of what has become a long, difficult and time consuming journey for all potential projects seeking New Starts funding. To date, FTA has denied the project's entry into preliminary engineering, the next major phase of the evaluation process. As such, any suggestion that a federal commitment of $320 million will be immediately forthcoming is, regrettably, inconsistent with both FTA's actions to date and with the New Starts process. Furthermore, given the recent history of the New Starts program, it may be years before the project advances all the way to final design and construction, the last stop in the process prior to receiving an FFGA. Moreover, the execution of an FFGA would be achievable only if FTA were to ultimately determine that the Foothill project has met the highest standards of cost effectiveness and has satisfied other major milestones throughout the entire evaluation process.

Second, although there is an approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the first phase of the project as part of the state's CEQA process, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is required under the federal NEPA process, is still pending. This is a prerequisite for FTA to issue a Record of Decision (ROD), which in turn is required prior to any execution of an FFGA.

Third, FTA has declined requests by the Foothill Construction Authority to reconsider the "medium-low" overall financial rating given to the Foothill project in May 2007. A "medium" rating is required in order to advance the project to preliminary engineering. FTA's position was articulated in a December 21, 2007 letter from FTA Region IV Administrator Leslie Rogers to Foothill Construction Authority CEO Habib Balian.

Given these facts, Metro believes there is a much more promising path forward for the Foothill project. It is a path that will enable the project to commence construction in the near term without the need to contend with the uncertainty, complexities and difficulties that are an inherent part of the New Starts program.

As you know, the Metro Board has taken aggressive steps in recent weeks to place a half cent transportation sales tax measure on the November ballot that would raise $40 billion over 30 years for much needed infrastructure improvements. Last month, the Board adopted an expenditure plan for the sales tax measure that identifies specific transit and highway projects throughout Los Angeles County that will be financed with sales tax revenue. The Foothill project will be among the biggest beneficiaries of the sales tax measure. Should the measure qualify for the ballot and if approved by Los Angeles County voters, Foothill stands to gain $735 million for the construction of the first phase from Pasadena to Azusa. It is anticipated that sales tax revenue for this project will be available as early as 2010. This local investment would augment the $27 million in federal earmarks obtained for the Foothill project by you and your colleagues in recent years.

There are clear and compelling advantages for Foothill in financing the first phase of the project with sales tax revenue. Such an approach would allow the Foothill Construction Authority to withdraw the project from further consideration under the federal New Starts program, thereby bringing an end to the uncertainty, bureaucracy and delay that have prevented the project from moving forward in an expeditious manner. If the goal of the Foothill Construction Authority is to begin construction on the first phase as soon as possible, the proposed sales tax measure - pending the will of the voters - will accomplish this objective much sooner than simply continuing through the unpredictability of the New Starts program. The prospect of further delay and difficulty cannot be seen as a very appealing option.

As noted above, it is likely to be many years at best before the Foothill project completes the lengthy and rigorous New Starts process, assuming the FTA allows the project to remain under consideration. Given the intense level of competition for limited federal resources among a large number of proposed projects nationwide, combined with uncertainty surrounding the future of the New Starts program, success is far from guaranteed and in fact may prove to be elusive. On the other hand, a successful outcome with the sales tax measure will mean the Foothill project will soon become a reality.

Thank you for your vigorous advocacy of Los Angeles County's transportation needs. We look forward to working closely with you.

Sincerely,

Roger Snoble
Chief Executive Officer

Comments

[Ray]

You guys are doomed. It's saddening to see this provincial in-fighting: transit advocates squaring off; local officials not supporting the MTA; a Congressional delegation dis-unified. It all sends a great signal to Washington!

Facts are plain: LA's transportation problems are so much bigger than the capacity of your little pet projects. There's nothing bold in any of these plans or in the stances you take to support them. Streetcars? How quaint. Is that all you got?

Keep arguing while Rome burns.

[lsm]

Ken Alpern wrote clearly about the goal from which several of our County Supervisors fall woefully short. We must unite across LA County to build the regional transportation system we desperately need to survive--let alone to thrive--in the 21st Century. Clawing each other over who got less of the pie or seducing us with illusions of gushing Federal spigots will only guarantee we will fall ever more hopelessly behind with the feeblest effort to maintain LA County's economic, environmental and lifestyle viability. Not only must we pass Measure R this November, we must also consider how much longer we will abide County Supervisors who eagerly sell out our long-term County-wide futures for their short-term District political gains.

[Ken Alpern]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument (since NO ONE can predict the future), that John McCain won the Presidency this fall. John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, both decried the "bridge to nowhere" and the latter even turned down the project despite it being in her state.

I cannot speak for Ms. Palin, but Mr. McCain (hardly a transit advocate) would probably NOT prioritize the Gold Line to Azusa because of its FTA rating and would equally be concerned about the expensive Subway to the Sea.

Being that the Expo Line is the less expensive Downtown-to-the-Beach alternative than the Subway, and with a far higher rating than the Gold Line to Azusa with respect to ridership, would a putative McCain/Palin Presidency be all that sanguine about a prioritized Gold Line to Azusa that could only be pursued through pork barrel/backroom politicking?

Let me clarify, however, that I remain a Gold Line advocate to Azusa and beyond...but that a rude gesture by the San Gabriel Valley and Eastside towards the Expo Line (not just the Wilshire Subway) and the Westside/Mid-City regions it would serve cannot help anyone.

It is my contention that the Gold Line will enjoy excellent overall ridership over the next few decades, and especially so after the Downtown Light Rail Connector (prioritized BEFORE the Wilshire Subway, as I suspect the Gold Line to Azusa will be if the sales tax hike passes). It must be part of a greater network, however.

I recommend some one please grab the loud rattle from the hands of Supervisor Antonovich and give him a pacifier. Let him relax and think for awhile about the greater county that he needs to serve, the one that is reaching out to him and guaranteeing a Gold Line to Claremont in ways that the FTA never could, and possibly never will.

Let's not perpetuate any more Hobson's choices between the Gold Line to Azusa and the Expo Line to the beach. Let's get the San Gabriel Valley and Eastside freeways and the Alameda Corridor built sooner, and not later, and let's respect each region's priorities as if they were our own.

[Dana Gabbard]

I love the ingratitude and insinuations of the proponents. My god, it can't be because projected ridership is so low the notion that it will capture hundreds of millions of federal funds because "Dreier can rub palms with a few of his Washington buddies before they are unelected.." is at a level of fantasy that boggles the mind. We are offering to fund fully the first segment to Azusa out of the new sales tax, which would be a boon for construction since that would avoid the onerous strings that come with federal funding. Somehow that isn't good enough? Wake up, grab the deal and help pass the tax! That federal funding fantasy Dreier, Schiff etc. are touting is an illusion!

[tiptip]

Hey Bottleneck Blog, you are giving Snoble and crew the Maney treatment. Here are some tough questions for Mr. Snoble: Is this a promise that the extension will be fuly funded in 2010: "It is anticipated that sales tax revenue for this project will be available as early as 2010"? How much revenue will flow in 2010 and when the project be fully funded? Will Snoble put the guarantee in writing? Why should anyone beleive the guy if his staff won't even consider the extension for inclusion in the long range trans plan? And lastly why did Mr. Snoble attack the only Republican who appeared on the video? There's bipartisan support for the extension, you know.

[J in Pasadena]

Snoble, please give us a break! The Expo and 'Deathway' to the Sea are way behind the Gold Line in terms of readiness. Yet somehow those MTA pet projects rise to the top of your list. This letter amounts to a rationalization of personal preference and -- I must say -- a totally transparent attempt to justify MTA's slight-of-hand. If Dreier can rub palms with a few of his Washington buddies before they are unelected, why not give him the tools to do so? Answer: MTA's wanton arrogance, pure and simple. The MTA is NOT working for the best interests of the public it promises to serve. The Times would do the community a great service by looking deeper into this bureacracy, the people who run it and the ties that bind them.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Thank you, Roger Snoble, for clearly stating what the region's public transportation advocates have known (and stated publicly) ever since Rep. Dreier started making statements "guaranteeing" federal funds for the Gold Line Foothill extension.

Dreier has obviously painted a rosy picture to look good in his district, and unfortunately the local politicos in the San Gabriel Valley bought every word he said. Now, perhaps, they will realize the Congressman has been using "smoke and mirrors" and support Measure R, which is indeed the best possible source of funding for their project.