Top

news

Stories

 

Do You Trust MTA With $40 billion?

Vast sums spent on West Coast mass transit haven't paid off. Now they want a tax

The other day, in a hip-looking building housing the architectural firm VTBS, former Santa Monica Mayor Denny Zane revved up a small crowd, including two state legislators, developers, and environmental and labor groups, asking them to urge voters to increase the county sales tax next November. The goal: $40 billion for mass transit over the next 30 years.

(Click to enlarge)

Pro-growth: Denny Zane embraces the hotly disputed projections that 3 million more people will jam L.A.

As supporters of the proposed tax munched on crackers laden with puffs of gourmet cheese, the affable Zane said that Los Angeles must prepare for another 3 million residents, and he is convinced that without dramatic investment in mass transportation, the area is in for “a world of hurt.”

“Chicago is coming to L.A. in the next 30 years,” he said, citing a not exactly universally embraced population projection. “We better be ready for it.”

But voters will be asking much harder questions than those lobbed at Zane a few days ago. The proposed transit projects, included on a wish list being peddled by the MTA, are not guaranteed — and they heavily emphasize rail projects, including the “subway to the sea” and the Expo Line to the Westside. Voters might question the scope when they learn that cities with extensive light-rail systems have been unable to take more than 1 to 2 percent of the cars off the road.

In fact, a recent study by Seattle’s Washington Policy Center, of the six West Coast cities that have invested in light rail since 1995 — L.A., Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Portland and Seattle — found it costs a princely $82,000 to $240,000 for each transit rider they have wooed on to their systems.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is slamming the tax, which would be the third half-cent “transit” charge piled atop the local sales tax, pushing it to 8.75 percent.

In 1980, politicians similarly promised that a half-cent tax would build a modern transit system. In 1991, L.A. leaders again claimed that an additional half-cent was needed. Those dual transit taxes, Proposition C and Proposition A, provide MTA with an annual $1.4 billion windfall, but the agency has delivered only a fraction of what was promised.

Even the darling of mass-transit advocates, the city of Portland — which has embraced “transit-oriented development” and so-called “smart growth” — is in the throes of massive congestion, and local critics say the dense urban-development projects that were supposed to reduce Portland’s traffic have had the opposite effect. A nonscientific 2005 survey of more than 400 Portland residents showed that they wanted tax dollars to be spent on better roads. “Transit” came in a distant fourth in Portland.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seemed to acknowledge that some of the thinking will have to focus on making things easier for cars, when he attempted to create a one-way plan for Olympic and Pico boulevards to move traffic between the disastrous Westside and downtown.

But he failed to do his homework, and without the public’s support, the plan blew up in his face — just like his abruptly abandoned idea to charge a toll on the 210 freeway’s commuter lane.

As first proposed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the one-way plan on Pico and Olympic would have stretched 14 miles, from the beach to downtown. But that plan was dramatically reduced to a seven-mile stretch, and then citizens filed a temporary restraining order. On May 5, Judge John Torribio ruled that an environmental-impact report was required.

Zane and other backers of the transit tax say they have done their homework to garner public support, and a recent poll showed that 73 percent of voters support the higher tax.

At the recent tax-increase launch event, state legislator Mike Feuer made its November passage — it must get 66 percent of the vote — sound like nothing less than a transformational moment. “We’re going to make a generational leap forward,” he said, “or consign the next generation to congestion that is unbelievable.”

But the experiences of several other cities do not bear Feuer out. The new transit systems consistently serve only a nominal percentage of workers, and several are awash in scandal. A June series in the Miami Herald has rattled the transit-advocacy movement, with its in-depth tales of rail lines never built.

Zane says his ace in the hole is the fact that liberal Los Angeles voters turning out for Barack Obama are going to be very pro-tax. But, he agrees, he still has “a lot of convincing to do.”

 
  • James 02/09/2009 5:24:00 AM

    It's amazing to see how opposing positions on density and mass transit are labeled "pro-growth" or "anti-growth". Equally amazing is the number of people who cry "Manhattanization" whenever an old dingbat apartment house gets replaced with a four story building that can house several times as many people. Because there used to be single family houses in Palms, and teachers, secretaries, and office managers could afford to buy them, doesn't mean we can bring that back, just as none of us can expect to own a house on Oceant Front Walk barring inheritance, astonishing business success, or a lottery jackpot. We have to make decisions in light of what things are like now, not fifty years ago. The question isn't whether there will be growth, but how well we will deal with the growth that comes. Transit infrastructure is an essential part of that planning.

  • James 02/09/2009 5:23:00 AM

    It's amazing to see how opposing positions on density and mass transit are labeled "pro-growth" or "anti-growth". Equally amazing is the number of people who cry "Manhattanization" whenever an old dingbat apartment house gets replaced with a four story building that can house several times as many people. Because there used to be single family houses in Palms, and teachers, secretaries, and office managers could afford to buy them, doesn't mean we can bring that back, just as none of us can expect to own a house on Oceant Front Walk barring inheritance, astonishing business success, or a lottery jackpot. We have to make decisions in light of what things are like now, not fifty years ago. The question isn't whether there will be growth, but how well we will deal with the growth that comes. Transit infrastructure is an essential part of that planning.

  • David Somers 07/19/2008 10:35:00 PM

    I have been disappointed by the myopic slant the LA Weekly has taken in covering the local planning landscape. First was the "City's Density Hawks" where it was clear the writer was letting Zev Yarovslasky have his NIMBY soap box as he rages against the City's implementation of a State Ordinance to give density increases in exchange in offering affordable housing. The LAWeekly uncritically let Mr. Yarovslasky get his rage on against faceless bureaucrats while the real issue for Mr. Yarovslasky is that poor people have access to housing in neighborhoods that were designed to exclude them. Then last weeks article "Do You Trust MTA with $40 Billion?" LAWeekly again joins the chorus of no growth reactionaries to include the anti-rail dogmatists. The authors' over selective presentation of transit surveys and data is dubious. Why would residents in Portland want to spend more money on transit when it already has a robust service for a City its size? This strikes in contrast to the transit system in Los Angeles, America's megacity, which pales in comparison. More people will make the shift away from cars when they see a viable choice - a transit system that has extensive coverage and offers frequent service. And please refrain from lazily adopting the BRU's mantra that only elites ride trains, while the real working poor ride busses. As if it wouldn't help the working poor to be able to get to low wage service jobs on the west side in a 20 minute subway commute instead of the one hour bus ride each way. With the opportunities the residents of this City have to change course and live more responsibly, we deserve better reporting. David Somers Bus Rider

  • Eric T 07/17/2008 12:06:00 AM

    THis article is absurd sensationalism and the usual MTA bashing. With more excellent stories like this one, the nearly impossible 2/3 votes will not happen. San Francisco only voted 51% for BART - but the threshold was only 50% in the 1970's. Is BART a failure too? Maybe we should shut it down and all get back in our cars. I do trust the MTA with $40 Billion dollars, and actually it should be more like $80 billion.

  • Jerard Wright 07/13/2008 3:25:00 AM

    Do you trust a writer from a Libertarian Think Tank to write an accurate article on Public Transit? I guess Ms. Stewart hasn't seen in the last 20 years, the extra choices provide to LA County public in terms of transit. By 2010 there will 5 light rail lines (Blue, Green, Gold, ELA and Expo), an existing subway that carries over 150,000 people a day, Bus transitways and improved Rapid Buses. They seem to have done some good, these lines are full and there are a lot of users who have a CHOICE and are happy they don't have the stress to deal with other egotistical drivers who always believe that they are the best driver and everyone else don't know squat. The usual tired claims that it's better to give everyone a new car than to spend money transit is the most misleading of all, because when you add the fuel, maintainence, taxes, fees, registration to that one car, over a 10 year period over the construction and operation of transit, Transit always wins because it moves more people on a smaller infrastructure footprint. That smaller footprint means more choices and liberties for the General public other than having the almost Communist like demand that you have no choice but to own a car to get around. Funny, giving the General public the liberty to make a choice on how to move around. You would think Libertarians would be for expanding more of those choices in the form of more bus, light rail, subways in dense urban areas and commuter rail on existing railroads.

  • John Crandell 07/11/2008 11:00:00 AM

    The matter of a subway to the sea is not at most a matter of operating subsidies. Instead, it is the matter of the value of efficiency, the relative ease of citizens transiting the densest portions of the metropolitan core areas as compared to surface street transportation, be it clogged by bus, taxi, van or automobile. The value provided by the efficiency of a Wilshire Corridor subway has long since become worth the public subsidy. After all, aren't the bus lines of the west side operating on a subsidy? During the long recession/depression of the Nineties in L.A., the construction of the Redline from Downtown to Hollywood provided an acutely needed economic boost to the city. But Ms. Stewart wouldn't understand that; she then was ensconced at the Times. How many sets of tires has she gone through since then?

  • Jeremy R 07/11/2008 2:21:00 AM

    The MTA's 2001 and 2008 long range plan is online as is their current budget. If you want to evaluate their credibility, do your homework. MTA has done a lot of stuff over the last 25 years. The population has grown by 3 million people. They added tons of carpool lanes, reworked the bus system, built a rail network from scratch since 1980, etc. They have done all of this despite horrible opposition from Angelenos and little transit funding (per capita at least).

  • susan 07/10/2008 11:49:00 PM

    Irony: Bill Rosendahl encouraged the group suing over Pico-Olympic to do so, in essence, by undercutting the arguments of the Mayor and City that HE HIMSELF had publicly endorsed in an earlier photo-op. At a Transportation Committee Meeting where he and Wendy Greuel (whose district wasn't part of this so she didn't oppose him) were the only two members there for the vote, he jumped up excistedly as is his want, to yell that he'd never thought of the issues there were raising (hard to believe, since there were 14 community meetings Weiss's office and the city conducted over a long time, and he and his staff should have been aware), and so changed his mind 180 on a dime. Sure, the people at the meeting loved that, but it's not how you steer a steady keel in government. -- Jim Bursch, who like Rosendahl and writes for WLA Online, described him as always going with what the public wants at the moment in order to be popular, consequences be damned, and questioned how solid a philosophy that is. Indeed. -- Especially as these same people who are opposing easing gridlock in the streets (while screaming about it) also either totally oppose Expo II going through their area, or insist that all intersections be below-ground or build overpasses, which are very expensive and based on the same sort of speculations that they AND Jill Stewart raises here: that mass transit won't cut or will even add traffic by encouraging new riders, and that making traffic flow faster along Pico-Olympic will increase the amount of traffic. Makes as much sense as when a judge in the 70's opposed car pool lanes for -- you guessed it -- slowing traffic. -- By the way: Bill Rosendahl is all FOR the subway and Expo raillines, and his only dispute with Zane is that 1/2c isn't enough of a tax, he's pushing for a full cent increase. -- Yet he's popular with constituents because he seems to give them what they want AT THE MOMENT without regard for the big picture, which is how voters seem to think, too. It's those pols who are trying to save the city money and get things done (including the Mayor in this case and Weiss) who they lambast for not doing so. Utterly illogical.

  • Robert 07/10/2008 10:06:00 PM

    How does building a system of light rail line that will cut off traffic at major intersections 40-50% of the time, with streets already at gridlock even pass for a transportation improvement? Is MTA's goal with light rail to make the city's traffic so bad that people will actually use their system?

  • Dana Gabbard 07/10/2008 8:24:00 PM

    Good to know Jill Stewart hasn't changed and still promotes the views of dubious right-wing think tanks along with the Howard Jarvis Association (which brought us the wonderfully deceitful Prop 98 in the last election). With foes like this the measure may actually pass!

  • Matthew 07/10/2008 8:21:00 PM

    The idea that transit will make traffic significantly better is a fallacy, what it does do is keep it from getting as bad, and give an alternative. Traffic is going to get worse regardless of what you do, you free up traffic capacity, more people will use it. More people will use it even if you don't free up capacity, so it just gets worse. Transit reduces how much worse it gets.

  • 07/10/2008 7:18:00 PM

    Oh, yeah, much better to be stuck on Olympic at 5:30 for an hour rather than offer any solution. Transit habits are hard to break, but can be. Why no mention of the fact that ridership on transit is increasing? I can only assume it would have knocked down your main thesis and you would not be able to maintain your righteous pose. I'm no transit expert, but I'm guessing if you increase ridership by 10% your polluting commuting time would be much shorter. I don't know if the paper article is labeled as an opinion, but the web article is not and should be and readers' time would not be wasted.

  • Donald Stanwood 07/10/2008 6:18:00 PM

    Aren't you the same publication that has lauded the Subway to the Sea? Also criticized the loony left pretentions of the Bus Rider's Union? So now you're throwing up your hands and saying that all public transportation is useless? Back on your meds, guys, before you turn into Republicans.

  • Annette in WLA 07/10/2008 5:54:00 PM

    Do NYC, Paris, and London still have congestion even with great transit? Of course they do. But the systems offer people reliable alternatives so they can get around in spite of gridlock. That is the real point. I'm a westsider who is literally trapped here in the evenings. The eastbound traffic is so bad it can take two hours to make the 15mile trip downtown. A subway would take exactly the same short amount of time at any hour. The LA light rail and subway systems carry hundreds of thousands of people daily. We have some of the highest ridership lines in the nation. Without building more transit now big areas of LA will become unworkable. It is already late.

  • Skeptical Taxpayer 07/10/2008 7:39:00 AM

    I think Zane is absolutely right about the need for both the subway "to the sea" and ExpoII lines, because until our mass transit network is extensive enough to connect downtown/the valley (via Universal now and ultimately, a N/S corridor along the 405/Sepulveda is contemplated by MTA)/ the westside/ Santa Monica, going through or near dense West Hollywood at the Grove/ Beverly Center, people won't take the legs that do exist of the Red/Purple Line. So to quote figures here about cost/ rider on lines built so far are irrelevant. Many middle class people and those who've moved here from cities with long-established subway/mass transit are more than willing tot take them IF they can get to where they're going with just a couple of blocks or so of walking. To argue all the negatives is why these weren't built before, when they would have been much cheaper and the feds were awash with money relative to now -- instead, Zev/Waxman were persuaded by their constituents to use methane as an excuse to say 'no thanks." (East L A politics also had a lot to do with it -- I recall studies showing that a downtown to sea line along Wilshire or Pico would have the greatest ridership, but it was argued that "poor people" needed mass transit more than "the rich," so the line ended at Highland to head north -- of course, this dovetailed with the westside HOA's wanting to keep "those people" away, so here we are.) -- As the MTA reps have said at scoping meetings, there's a lot of public support for these projects now, as people have moved here from cities where rail mass transit was never absent, and as gas prices are going way up, streets gridlocked. (The people who opposed the Pico-Olympic Plan and are suing are largely the same ones who have opposed, and continue to oppose, Expo II and the subway west, so they're opposing BOTH rail and surface solutions -- no wonder the city decided they'd obstructed the plan long enough, after 1 1/2 years of hearings where they came up with endless nitty-gritty objections designed to forestall the plan forever. So it's not true the city didn't "do its homework," as you state here. And have you actually attended an MTA meeting on trying to find a solution to getting the Expo II line built? Try that, and then tell me it wouldn't be easier for MTA to just go a few rounds with Oscar de la Hoya.) -- BUT I disagree with Zane's conclusion that L A is so pro-Obama liberal that they're "pro-tax." That's the WORST argument the city can use to try to get support for these projects, since many homeowners are complaining loudly about the recent tax hikes hitting them up exclusively for cops and the proposed one for gangs, and everyone's feeling the pinch of higher prices for everything. And what about the State saying it will raise our sales taxes if we don't approve their alternative? Zane has to understand that the liberal views of Santa Monica are anathema to many -- including these elderly, feisty Homeowner Assn's that have been fighting mass transit all along anyway. People are also NOT sympathetic to paying more so we can invite another Chicago to town (read, largely the high birthrate of illegal immigrants already here, since other net immigration is negative right now, with more people leaving. Blogs are full of fears of dense projects mushrooming along transit corridors.) -- The City's strategy has to be to convince with promises of improved quality of life for those who are already here.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy