Transportation
By Tony Butka
(The Glassell Park Neighborhood Council hosted a Measure R Forum (½ Cent Sales Tax for MTA designated projects for 30 years) which requires state enabling legislation. This is a report on that August 28 forum.)
Due to a serious lack of information regarding the upcoming MTA Measure R our Neighborhood Council decided to conduct a forum on the issue.
Many stakeholders believe that the proposed tax would go into a general fund (not true), or that the new tax would continue forever (not true, depending on how you want to characterize a 30 year termination date), or that the tax is regressive (true).
The Glassell Park Neighborhood Council's new ad hoc Legislative Committee hosted a community forum on this proposed November ballot Measure R, which would provide an additional ½ cent sales tax specifically for the MTA, with a 30 year sunset clause. It is estimated that the ½ cent increase would generate approximately $30 to $40 billion in revenues over the thirty year life of the tax.
The NC Forum was moderated by our own James Heubach, and we were fortunate to have three articulate, knowledgeable, and lively speakers for the event:
Ann Kerman, Community Relations Manager, Metro (LA County MTA)
Gerry Hertzberg, Policy & Political Director, Supervisor Gloria Molina
Manuel Criollo, a Senior Organizer from the Bus Riders Union
The MTA's Analysis (Ann Kerman)
The proposed ½ cent sales tax will help fund the MTA's draft long range transportation plan for traffic for Los Angeles County, which extends out to the year 2030. This plan, includes funding for $154 billion dollars in a variety of intermodal transportation projects. But with increased construction costs and the uncertainty of federal and state funding, it will require the additional tax to include additional projects that constituents have asked for. In all, the ½ cent sales tax would provide an additional $40 billion dollars over the next 30 years, and would cost the average resident $25/year.
The plan has five key components (Metro's Five-Point Plan):
- Rail Expansion
- Local Street Improvements
- Traffic Reduction
- Better Public Transportation
- Quality of Life
Measure R includes a specific list of projects and calls for ongoing monitoring and an independent taxpayer oversight committee. In addition, local cities will be allocated 15% of the revenue for their specific transportation needs.
The main thrust behind the proposal is to provide local control (through the 13 member MTA Board) and to provide a guaranteed revenue stream that cannot be diverted , as the State has done in the past with the gasoline tax. It should be pointed out that approximately 19 cents of every gallon of gas in Los Angeles goes to gasoline taxes.
Supervisor Molina's Perspective (Gerry Hertzberg)
To put the Supervisor's position in perspective, it should be noted that she has previously supported the two ½ cent MTA sales tax increases which resulted in the current 1 cent of our 8.25 cent total local sales tax in Los Angeles, and is not an opponent of paying for adequate transportation needs. However, the Measure R carries with it some substantial hidden defects:
While the proposal speaks to local control, for the first time there are specific enumerated projects in the measure, which will take precedence over any other expenditures. For example, the subway to Westwood is listed as a priority project, and there are absolutely no preconditions or limitations over how much the project will cost. So, if there are significant cost overruns, delays, or unanticipated cost increases, this project will still have to be completed before other projects are eligible for funding.
In this context, the Supervisor believes that the majority of enumerated projects benefit the west side of Los Angeles, with little if any guarantees for projects to benefit Northeast Los Angeles.
The supervisors spokesperson also pointed out that the MTA's long term plan, which is the bedrock of the analysis leading to the proposed tax increase, has never been adopted by the MTA Board itself. Thus it is still subject to modification, amendment, or delay. Additionally, the full proposal for Measure R was only given to the full MTA Board some two days prior to their voting on the issue, and thus provided little time to really work through the details of the proposal. As usual, the devil is of course in the details.
Under the heading of 'devil in the details', to modify the enumerated projects in the measure, it would take a 2/3 affirmative vote of the entire MTA Board of Directors, which is highly unlikely, given the composition of that 13 member body, and the fact that the Mayor controls the largest single voting block of members.
The Bus Riders Union Perspective (Manuel Criollo)
The emphasis of the MTA has always been in favor of very expensive rail projects, at the cost of providing a better, less expensive, and more reliable, on time bus network, which can get people out of cars and to and from work on time.
They point out as evidence of this bias the necessity of the Bus Riders Union filing a lawsuit some years ago over funding these rail projects by increasing bus fares without providing any better bus service to stakeholders (usually the reverse) – and even after all this time and consent decrees, the matter is before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Their fear is that, as in times past, the funds promised to improve bus service can and will be diverted to rail projects, since the funding contained in the Measure will not be sufficient to build and run those projects.
The plan also calls for fare increases every other year for bus service, and history indicates that fare increases result in decreased ridership, containing the seeds of higher costs, less service, and less ridership at a time when we need more people in buses, not less.
In terms of concept, the Bus Riders Union has a different vision than that of the MTA Board of Directors. In their v iew, it is significantly more cost effective to spend money on a beefed up, reliable and on time fleet of bus service to the Los Angeles community than it is to spend huge sums of money on capital projects with their checkered history of very high costs and limited return on investment. Until there is a reliable network of bus service that connects working Angelinos to their jobs, people will keep their cars because the have to be at work on time.
Therefore the priority should be the bus service portion of the plan as opposed to rail projects, which seem to result in the elimination of lines instead of the linking of lines and their expansion.
Finally the Bus Riders Union is concerned that this sales tax is regressive – it affects less affluent stakeholders more than those who make more money. (Tony Butka is the President of the Glassell Park Neighborhood Council.) For further information, see the following links on the MTA Website: #1 and #2). ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 74
Pub: Sept 12, 2008
|
