L.A.’s Subway Has Dug a Hole for Itself in Congress

The troubles with Los Angeles’ subway project move today from the tunnels of the city to the halls of Congress as the county’s transit authority faces a grim funding vote that threatens to slow down rail construction.

Late this afternoon, House and Senate conferees are expected to give Metro Rail officials less than half the money President Clinton requested on their behalf. Their vote could delay extension of the subway to the San Fernando Valley, the Eastside and the midcity area, and end up costing local taxpayers millions of dollars.

And the consequences could reach much further, portending possible doom for county officials’ hopes to get the federal government to fulfill its promise of $1.4 billion for the latest phase of subway construction by 2002, according to congressional sources.

The reason: Competition for money is fiercer than ever, and Congress members’ memories for any star-crossed use of tax dollars are long.

Metro Rail fell from the top-funded transit project in the United States two years ago to third last year, and members of Congress in recent documents have expressed great distress over Los Angeles’ subway construction woes, which included the sinkage of sections of Hollywood Boulevard in 1994, a $67-million sinkhole in 1995, and this year, a stuck tunneling machine and allegations of engineering mismanagement and massive billing fraud.

“When a project has a hiccup, no matter how small, there’s a lot of pressure to divert money from that project to other projects,” said a top congressional staffer. “And it’s fair to say that the L.A. Metro Rail project over the years has had a lot more than just hiccups.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D--Calif.) said Tuesday that the West’s biggest public works project had made improvements recently under the leadership of new MTA chief Joseph E. Drew. But she added: “The adverse publicity in Los Angeles has been very harmful to getting more funding. Frankly, it’s rather miraculous that we’ve been able to sustain the funding every year.”

Two years ago, the Los Angeles subway received about $163 million--one-fourth of the federal dollars spent on new U.S. transit projects. Last year, the project received $85 million--12% of the available funding.

The fiscal 1997 funding fight is the toughest the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has faced since local officials won a commitment from the federal government a decade ago to pay for about half of the $5.9-billion subway.

The Clinton administration recommended that the Los Angeles subway receive $159 million, the full amount the agency requested and more than any new U.S. transit project. But the House slashed the amount to $90 million, and the Senate cut it to $55 million, even though it increased the overall pot of money for projects nationwide.

The matter now goes to a House-Senate conference committee, which in past years has split the difference. If that happens this year, the MTA would receive a check for $72.5 million, less than half what Clinton requested.

The MTA is spending $340,000 on five Washington lobbying firms to help make its case. Drew and MTA board chairman Larry Zarian also have traveled to Capitol Hill several times. And the agency’s staff lobbyist, Arthur Sohikian, flew to the Republican and Democratic national conventions in August, buttonholing members of Congress for a quick sales pitch on the subway’s value to the region and nation.

However, one MTA official mused: “Merit only takes you so far.”

In his spiel to Congress, Sohikian said he reminds members that Los Angeles taxpayers have put up half of the money for the project. He adds: “Now it’s time for the feds to meet their end of the bargain.”

Zarian said he has told senators that they should reconsider their spending targets because a check for less than $90 million would mean “devastating” construction delays and job losses.

MTA officials have often found themselves on the defensive.

In a House report on the 53 transit projects seeking funding this year, Los Angeles’ Metro Rail was the only one singled out for stinging criticism of construction mishaps, though BART officials in San Francisco were accused of exercising poor financial judgment.

On a recent lobbying trip, Sohikian said, he had barely opened his mouth before a congressional aide asked him about a critical story on the subway in USA Today.

In addition, Los Angeles officials on Tuesday were working furiously to mollify an influential Virginia congressman who reportedly has again threatened to hold up subway construction money until Mayor Richard Riordan pledges not to divert Los Angeles International Airport funds to the city treasury.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House transportation appropriations subcommittee, made a similar threat earlier this year and appeared satisfied after the City Council removed the airport money from the city budget.

On Tuesday, Wolf was said to be concerned that Riordan would make another stab at the money.

The subway also has fallen victim to old-fashioned pork-barrel politics.

A Portland, Ore., suburban commuter rail line jumped to No. 1 on the list of projects after Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) took over as chairman of the Senate appropriations committee. Los Angeles’ fortunes also declined after Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein lost her seat on the panel when Republicans took control of the Senate.

It hasn’t helped that some prominent Los Angeles officials--notably County Supervisor Mike Antonovich and state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles)--have urged Congress to pull the plug on the project. Councilman Nate Holden also wrote a letter critical of the MTA’s subway plans for the midcity area.

“You can’t afford in this climate to have any kind of Achilles’ heel,” said one congressional aide.

Metro Rail officials have declined to describe exactly how a funding cutback would affect the project’s completion.

But a bipartisan group of Los Angeles-area members of Congress outlined a scenario in a letter to the appropriations committees’ chairmen: If Congress provides only the $55 million recommended by the Senate, construction delays “could lead to cost increases of up to $300 million” to be paid by local and state taxpayers.

MTA Deputy Chief Executive Linda Bohlinger said in an interview that the agency has no contingency plan for receiving less than $90 million for 1997.

“It’s a waste of time for us to speculate,” she said.

Bohlinger’s confidence stems from the agency’s full-funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration. In the contract, she said, the U.S. government pledges to pay its roughly 50% share of subway construction by 2002 even if there are shortfalls in particular years along the way. Cost overruns--currently about $425 million--are the responsibility of local taxpayers.

“We expect the federal government to make good on it,” she said.

Two top congressional staffers this week scoffed at her optimism. They noted that Congress controls the nation’s purse strings, and pays off on promises by the executive branch only at its pleasure.

A spokesman for the Federal Transit Administration insisted Tuesday that full-funding agreements are a contract on which the government cannot renege.

Still, what if the money does not come through?

Les Porter, MTA’s treasurer, said the agency has issued 13 bonds since 1986 and has ample collateral in the form of two half-cent sales taxes to issue more.

But Tom Rubin, a transit consultant who was chief financial officer at one of the MTA’s predecessor agencies, believes it would be imprudent to issue more debt. He said that the “logical” course of action in the event of a funding shortfall would be to stop planning new rail construction, and slow down current construction.

Such steps might mean a halt to planning for rail across the San Fernando Valley, a slowdown in building the Pasadena Blue Line and possibly a temporary halt to the construction of subway stations in North Hollywood and Studio City.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Rail Funds Derby

Los Angeles requested $158 million from Congress for subway construction in 1997, but has fallen far short while the other top two U.S. rail projects fared better. Final amounts will be decided today.

*--*

CITY REQUESTED HOUSE OFFER SENATE OFFER (in millions) *Los Angeles $158.9 $90.0 $55.0 *Portland, Ore. $121.2 $90.0 $138.0 *Seacaucus, N.J. $105.5 $105.5 $105.5

*--*

SOURCE: House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee