MTA’s Four-Step Dance

Denial. Anger. Confusion. Acceptance. It’s the four-step process that most must go through when confronted with the cold, incontrovertible facts of a very bad situation. That’s exactly the exercise that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board engaged in last week as it discussed its budget.

The hard reality that the board had to deal with was uncovered by a three-month Times investigation. Among the findings: The agency has accumulated $7 billion in debt and borrowed so heavily against future county sales tax funds that it has lost the flexibility to respond quickly and decisively. In taking on all this debt it’s produced only dubious results: an opulent headquarters tower and a stunted, inordinately expensive and very lightly used subway system--all built to the detriment of a dilapidated, unreliable and overcrowded bus system that, as bad as it is, provides transit for 91% of the MTA’s riders.

This debacle calls for owning up and taking emergency measures, perhaps even desperate ones. Instead, the MTA board went into denial last week, spending an entire day on piddling budget matters and parochial questions over why certain pots of money were going to help the constituents of some board members but not others. This useless exercise continued with all manner of weak rationalizations and pooh-poohing the consequences of the massive debt.

Then came step two: anger over the embarrassing disclosure of the debt at this time, when the Congress is about to decide on more MTA funding. The public, the board implied, was being misled by questionable information.

Step three, confusion, came next. Did the agency really need to buy more rail cars that probably won’t be used, board members asked. If the MTA does buy them, could it sell them to another transit agency if necessary?

Finally, step four: acceptance. The debt problem is so huge, the board said, that the authority’s chief executive should draft a policy on a debt ceiling. The board also decided that it would publicly review and decide on any transfer of borrowed money from one purpose to another. That led Julian Burke, the MTA’s chief executive, to express something he’d probably been wanting to say for some time: “There is no single place where there is a clear, crisp debt policy . . . and I mean to correct that situation.”

But the board has approved a new budget that includes nearly half a billion dollars more in new borrowing. And the MTA has been left poorly positioned against three looming issues. One is a move in Sacramento to create a separate authority to build the Pasadena Blue Line to downtown Los Angeles. Another is a ballot initiative that would forever prohibit the use of county sales tax money on subways. The third is an inevitable courtroom move by affronted bus riders seeking to require the MTA to buy many more buses.

In the meantime, it’s hoped that those in charge of other ongoing, pending or proposed mega-construction projects in the region are paying close attention. Among these is the $2-billion Alameda Corridor, a dedicated cargo rail line from the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports. Then there’s the hotly contested Los Angeles International Airport expansion proposal, which would involve $8 billion to $12 billion.

Fortunately for the LAX and corridor projects, there are key differences between them and the MTA. A far-flung mass transit system is more likely to be subjected to widespread parochial infighting. Only the MTA has had a much-abused spigot of county sales taxes that have been borrowed against endlessly.

By contrast, the corridor is confined to a relatively small space. The mostly tax-exempt bonds it will issue will be supported by fees paid by rail companies. And its seven-member board includes only three elected officials, with the remainder actually knowing something about the business at hand, running ports and moving cargo.

Here’s the lesson that the MTA has failed to learn and that officials in other endeavors must master: You stay out of trouble by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. You close off situations that could lead to trouble. There are no acceptable gray areas when billions upon billions of dollars are involved.