Don’t Multiply Problem

A report issued last week by the state auditor appeared to confirm what many have long suspected: The San Fernando Valley would be better off without the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Even after taking over 20% of the elephantine agency’s massive debt, a Valley-based transportation authority could still end up with an annual surplus of nearly $40 million, according to the report. Yet as tempting as it may be, simply junking the MTA in favor of several independent local transit agencies remains a bad idea.

No doubt the MTA deserves its place as the laughingstock of Los Angeles County. Those laughing hardest are the contractors, politicians and bureaucrats who milk the agency of taxpayer money. No one who actually uses the services provided by the MTA laughs much, though. Even on the best routes, bus service stinks. On the worst routes, it’s intolerable--forcing a federal consent decree that requires the agency to improve service and security. Once-grand plans for a regional rail network will never be realized because existing lines went too far over budget.

Given that, the easiest road would seem to be the one that leads most quickly away from the MTA’s glittering downtown headquarters. But it’s an overly simplistic response--one that ignores both the past and the future. Southern California is one of the most congested, polluted urban areas in the country. Despite extensive freeways, rush-hour speeds routinely fall below 20 mph. And it won’t get better. As Los Angeles and neighboring cities grow as much as 25% over the next two decades, freeways and surface streets will strain to carry all that new traffic. In some parts of the Valley, transportation planners expect average speeds to drop below 10 mph.

These are regional transportation problems. Solving them requires a regional agency--albeit one that works better than the MTA in its current form. The MTA was created so that a single, coordinated agency could plan, design, build and operate a transportation network that recognizes how different parts of Southern California affect each other. There’s no hard evidence that a Valley-only transit authority could do that job.

Yes, the auditor’s report confirms the viability of such an agency and even holds out the promise of a surplus. But as with any forecast, the assumptions behind the numbers matter even more than the numbers themselves. Chief among the assumptions is that the state would have the legal authority to transfer MTA tax revenue to a new Valley agency. That’s not certain. Plus, nowhere in the auditor’s projections is there a model accounting for the kind of politicking and incompetence that so often torpedo the MTA.

Only the most naive believe that the directors of a Valley transit agency would agree completely on what to do, when and where in the Valley. Even the Valley’s four current representatives on the MTA board don’t agree on how best to proceed. Valley residents are understandably angry at the way MTA officials have squandered their money--as are residents in Hollywood, Pasadena and Boyle Heights. But isn’t one MTA enough?