March 3, 2005 - From the February, 05 issue

MTA's Snoble, Always Optimistic, Challenged by Fed/State Funding Deficits

Public frustration with gridlock on streets and highways has increased even as state and federal monies for local and regional transportation dry up. No one may understand the resultion tensions better than Roger Snoble, who, as Cheif Executive officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angeles County, is in charge of the daily operaton of the third largest public transportatoin agency in the United States. MIR is pleased to present this interview with Mr. Snoble in which he discusses the future of transportation in the County, in light of the current funding crises.


Roger Snoble

Roger, I don't think the transportation funding challenges have changed much since I last interviewed you. In light of this, could you give us an update on MTA's efforts meet the transportation needs of the region?

Well, I think I disagree. Things just continue to get worse from the state and federal perspectives. The state, of course, is not passing through any money, neither Proposition 42 nor gas tax funds. It's affecting both Caltrans and the MTA very significantly. The bad news keeps coming – the governor's plan is to suspend Proposition 42 not only for this year, but maybe next year as well. As a result, it is really becoming very difficult to put together any projects for major improvements. At the same time, there are more and more people moving here, more and more cars being sold, and more and more people wanting to travel on the same amount of pavement. Travel speeds are slowing down and accidents are increasing. Slower speeds mean more air pollution. It is quite a challenge.

We have previously reported on the creative ways the MTA has sought to keep its high-priority projects moving. Which of these projects is in direct jeopardy due to the funding situation?

We borrowed money to keep six or seven highway projects going. Those are now being affected because of the cutbacks at Caltrans. Even with our ability to borrow money, we are still finding that our expenses on these projects are going to exceed funding. This means that there are projects at the end of the list that are in jeopardy of actually not being completed. It's highly unlikely that lower priority projects will be completed without additional state funding.

Are rail projects such as the Metro Gold Line and Orange Line in jeopardy?

I think both of those are in good shape. The Metro Orange Line is about 60 percent complete and on budget. We have all of the funding for it. It may be slightly delayed because of the rain we are having and should be open shortly after the projected August date.

On the East Side, things are progressing very, very well. We are seven months down the road and I would say it is one of the best starts I have seen on a major project. I am very pleased with how that is progressing. So, neither of those are in jeopardy. At the same time, we are working very hard to see if we can advance the Exposition light rail project. That is a huge challenge. We don't have the funding to build it by ourselves. It is going to require some real creativity. I went to Washington to talk to the FTA, the Transportation Infrastructure Committee and others about ways to finance it locally but still use federal funding. We continue to work on it.

We interviewed David Yale some months ago, and he mentioned that nearly 100 transportation projects funded in your agency's biennial Call for Projects had been deferred. What is the status of the Call for Projects today?

Last September the MTA Board approved a financing strategy to lift the deferment and put these projects back on track, but it's unclear which transportation projects we'll be able to afford in the months and years ahead. We don't know when we will have money for cities and the county. Much of the money tends to come from the state, and the state just isn't providing any money now. I just don't think we can have a Call for Projects in the foreseeable future.

TPR has conducted a number of interviews over the years with Earl Blumenauer and others about transportation reauthorization at the federal level. What is the status of this?

I think we will probably have some kind of an authorization bill this year, but I don't think it is going to be a bill that is terribly encouraging for transportation, but least it will give us a plan to go forward and a dollar amount that we can work with. I think the transportation bill has a lot of momentum behind it and should be introduced soon. There is still conflict over the total dollar amount. As soon as this is addressed, I think the House is ready to move fairly quickly. I'm not sure of the Senate timeline. I think they need to get all of their committee chairs in place before they will really be able to focus on it. There have been a lot of false starts over the years, so it is difficult to be too optimistic.

Roger, polls around the country show that transportation is of concern to citizens. This is particularly true in Los Angeles. Why is it that we don't seem to get any traction at the federal and state level to support the plans and aspirations of the MTA and Mobility 21?

Advertisement

That is really a good question because surveys tell us that people are very concerned about transportation, and not just about major improvements, but about simply maintaining what we have. The problem is that at the state and federal levels there are more urgent issues to deal with. The pressure is really on education, healthcare, and similar issues, as well as simply running the state and federal bureaucracies. You just don't see automobile drivers marching in Sacramento or Washington.

Let me make the question local. There were debates recently in LA County and in the City of LA about usin a one-half-cent sales tax to fund more police. No one mentioned that the tradeoff might be improved transportation. Why do you think there was no discussion about this?

I think our real problem there is that we, as travelers, pay taxes that are supposed to be going to transportation. We pay gas taxes. We pay sales taxes. Those monies are supposed to go toward improving our transportation system, but much of the money is being diverted for other purposes at the state and federal levels. So, to come back to the people who are paying those taxes, if they agree to another increase in tax for transportation, what guarantee is there that it will be used to improve transportation? I think there is a significant level of distrust about whether an increase would really be used for transportation.

In an interview last month with Councilmember Tom LaBonge, he discussed proposals to extend the Metro Red Line to the ocean. Some mayoral candidates are talking about major capital investments in rail. What ought to be on the agenda in the mayoral debate about transportation?

I think all the candidates understand the situation, and I say this because I have worked with all of them. The city does a good job using what money it has; it is a leader in traffic signal systems. However, the city itself doesn't have the wherewithal to build big transportation systems like subways or rail lines. It needs MTA, state and federal assistance, but the state and federal money for transportation just isn't going where it should.

We also recently carried an excerpt from the most recent report of the Reason Foundation encouraging public-private partnerships and toll roads as a solution. What is the reaction of the MTA to this report?

A number of states are turning in this direction as they discover that other funds aren't enough to pay for transportation. To be realistic, I think there will have to be more emphasis on this in the future. The user is going to have to pay more. At least if you are paying a toll, you know exactly where it is going. It is going to pay for that facility.

When we interviewed David Yale he suggested that two transportation commissions be created in California, one for the 13 counties in Southern California and one for the 45 northern counties, in order to manage state and federal transportation funds.

I don't really have an opinion at the moment as to whether this is the right approach or not. We do need to find a way to equitably allocate state funds for transportation. It is an interesting question right now, because neither the north nor south is getting any money. In the future, however, there could be some need to look at the different kinds of arrangements, such as a mechanical split between north and south, a proportional split between the two, or, as David mentioned, commissions that would focus on areas. California is large and difficult to manage. I think the California Transportation Commission has done a really great job in light of the resources that they have had. I know that they are as frustrated as the rest of us, and they would like to have some money to distribute again, but that is not the case.

In closing, what is the strategy today?

We are working with Mobility 21 to get more money, but as we discussed, there is not much available. We are also trying to get people to be smarter about the way they drive. People can cause a lot of congestion by some of the things they do when they drive. If we could keep them from doing those things, we could keep everybody else moving in a better way. Smarter land-use and development will also help.

Advertisement

© 2024 The Planning Report | David Abel, Publisher, ABL, Inc.