THE STATE : TRANSPORTATION : The Subway Sinkhole: Policy Is Lost Amid the Quagmire of Construction

Like its counterpart on Hollywood Boulevard, the political sinkhole at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority seems to be growing larger by the hour.

Congress and the Clinton Administration are pondering whether the latest construction defects are so embarrassing that the financial plug should be pulled on the Red Line subway project--a move supported even by MTA’s own board chairman, L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich. State lawmakers, rushed into session by Gov. Pete Wilson to discuss county budget problems, are considering if they can transfer sales-tax funds from transit to general county government. A proposal to create an elected MTA board is also being floated.

Clearly, something is rotten at the MTA. The growing sinkhole in East Hollywood may or may not have been caused by subway construction. (The MTA says it was a broken water main.) But other problems surfaced last week--thin subway walls along Vermont Avenue, for example--that raise serious questions about the MTA’s ability to manage construction of the Red Line.

So the sinkhole appears as a metaphor for the MTA itself--an agency so awash with problems it can’t possibly retain enough political support to finish the subway.

But before we pour concrete down the sinkhole in Hollywood Boulevard and drive away forever, let’s take a second look at the situation. There’s no question that MTA’s performance in constructing the subway has been comically inept. But we shouldn’t confuse construction management with politics--or policy.

The Red Line is at the center of a delicate political deal over the future of transportation in Los Angeles County. This deal encompasses the extra penny in sales tax in L.A. County, construction of a light-rail system, continued bus service and distribution of funds to cities for other transportation purposes. The agreement was put together after 50 years of intramural hassling and has resulted in the actual construction of a rail system in Los Angeles--something proposed since the ‘20s but never achieved. It would be a mistake to use construction incompetence as an excuse to unravel this carefully constructed political compromise.

Yet that is what many leading local politicians--including some MTA board members--seem to want. The reason is that the MTA is so powerful and high-profile that its board members can’t resist using it to further their own political agendas. Since these board members are elected to other jobs--including county supervisor, mayor and city council member--it’s not surprising that these agendas have little to do with transportation.

For example, when Pete Schabarum was board president, he used his leverage to further his goal of busting unions and contracting out public service--to the point of canceling an order for conventional rail cars in order to swap them for driverless (i.e. non-union) vehicles. The decision didn’t make sense in transportation terms, but that didn’t matter--it furthered Schabarum’s political agenda.

The same thing is going on now. The sinkhole appeared at the same time that Los Angeles County is facing an enormous budget deficit. Sacramento has been papering over county budget problems for years--even stealing county property tax money some years to balance the state’s budget. Now that the state and county have to face the music on the budget, it’s easy to make the MTA the scapegoat. “Why are we paying billions for a subway no one will use when County-USC Hospital is going to be shut down?” makes a great sound bite.

Given this sort of attack, it’s not surprising that the MTA hasn’t done well. No public agency can perform well when it is constantly whipsawed to serve the political needs of the moment--especially when the attackers are often members of its own board. But while hammering the MTA plays well today, it’s probably not in anyone’s long-term interest.

Dropping the MTA’s money down the sinkhole of the county’s general government bureaucracy might balance the budget this year--but would be a transparent move. Political support for rail transit may be weak, but voters did approve the sales tax increases. Transferring the money would surely be viewed by voters as a political betrayal.

The MTA will never “work” as an organization until the directors stop seeing it as a political forum. An elected board might solve this problem--in part because board members would be focused on transportation. But the BART experience suggests direct elections will simply put the board deeper in the pocket of construction contractors and labor unions--the two groups interested in giving money to candidates. It’s probably better for the current board to take a step back and allow Franklin White, the chief executive officer, to gain firmer hold of the organization without having to put out political fires that board members themselves ignite.

It’s probably also a good idea for the MTA to cut the cord to Washington. The Red Line has been financed largely by the federal government’s “free money.” But federalizing the Red Line has also politicized it. Whenever local constituents don’t like what the MTA is doing, they can call their congressman. Witness Rep. Henry A. Waxman’s influential opposition to an otherwise logical Wilshire route. The Washington money will disappear soon anyway, but the sooner we stop relying on it, the sooner we can cut back the political underbrush at the MTA.

It’s not easy to get politicians to be less political about transit in Los Angeles. But the alternative might be worse. The consensus for rail in L.A. County is built on a vision of how to balance transportation demands--not how to bust the unions, how to balance the county budget or how to lobby your congressman. Backing out on this longstanding political deal won’t solve any problems. Instead, it will just pull everyone in Los Angeles deeper into a political sinkhole that voters don’t want to pay for.*