Valley Transit Zone Faces Tough Road Despite Davis’ Veto

Gov. Gray Davis kept hopes for a San Fernando Valley transit zone alive by vetoing a labor-backed bill two weeks ago, but supporters of local control of Valley buses still face a long road ahead.

The bill would have forced new operators of bus services to match the worker wages and benefits provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the regional agency that plans and funds public transportation in Los Angeles County.

Union supporters were shocked by the governor’s action, but Valley business interests voiced delight that their effort to create a separate Valley bus operator was no longer a Sacramento battle.

The proposed Valley transportation zone would be a coalition of 10 jurisdictions--Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando, La Canada Flintridge, Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village and Hidden Hills, plus Los Angeles County--that would run the Valley’s bus system. To win the required MTA approval, the zone must show that it could provide cheaper and more efficient service.

Privatizing bus service has boosted quality and cut costs on 26 lines in the San Gabriel Valley run by the Foothill Transit Zone, a breakaway bus agency established in 1987. But critics argue that Foothill’s bus drivers and other workers, who are paid far less than the MTA’s, bore the brunt of the reduced costs. The governor’s veto opened the door for the Foothill zone, which now includes 21 cities, to expand service to nine more cities in the western San Gabriel Valley. Foothill Executive Board President Robert Bartlett applauded Davis’ move, which he said put power “back into the hands of local government to handle its own transportation issues.”

By MTA estimates, the Valley zone would be the second largest in the county after its own agency, operating 420 buses on about 26 1/2 routes and carrying 52 million riders a year.

Two groups of city, county and transit representatives have been quietly toiling for months on the proposal. One is a policy committee made up of leaders from the affected cities and the other a technical advisory group of city staffers and representatives from the county.

“The Senate bill was a stumbling block that’s now out of the way,” said Glendale City Councilman Sheldon Baker, who chairs one of the committees. Now it’s time, he said, to assess “if everybody is still on board.”

At the moment, however, the city of Los Angeles, the biggest member by sheer geographical size and political clout, is not quite ready to climb aboard. The sticking point? It boils down to a debate over just how much it will cost to run the new agency--and Los Angeles wants to make sure it won’t get stuck holding the bag if the amount allocated by the MTA falls short of actual operating costs.

An MTA analysis showed the hourly cost of running a bus would be $69 for the new Valley agency, but the city’s Department of Transportation, which is helping to prepare the application for the transit zone, estimated the cost at $80.

“We’ve hit a snag,” said Philip Aker, a DOT supervising transit planner. The city plans to meet with MTA officials “to review their estimate of transit operating funds available,” he said. If the MTA allocates only $69 an hour, city transportation officials say, the fledgling Valley bus agency would have to turn to the City Council for financial aid.

“With $69, the city of L.A. would have to cough up $10 [million] to $15 million a year to break even. That makes us uncomfortable,” said James Okazaki, the DOT’s assistant general manager.

For its part, the MTA has to keep a wary eye on its wallet. As the state-appointed clearinghouse for local, state and federal transportation money, the agency funds roughly two-thirds of the budget for 17 municipal operators. It must dole out cash for these agencies and any new transit zones--without hurting its own massive operations.

It is ultimately up to the MTA board--as mandated by state statute--to approve new transportation zones in the county.

Whether it’s gamesmanship or a true stalemate, the Valley transit secession effort will likely be a lengthy process.

A vocal advocate of a separate Valley transit agency, Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson said he questions the cost estimates of both the DOT and MTA.

“You don’t know who’s telling the truth,” Bernson said.

The hourly cost of running a bus in the Valley might be somewhere between $69 and $80, said former Assemblyman Richard Katz, who chairs the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn.’s transportation committee. Perhaps those numbers are negotiating positions, he said.

In any case, he added, “We can’t do this without the city of L.A.” The city’s delay, he said, may also reflect a secession-weary mood, since “anything that smacks of self-reliance tends to get a cold shoulder from downtown.”

Creating a new transit zone takes about 12 to 18 months, but the Senate bill may have slowed that timetable, said Jim McLaughlin, MTA director of transit planning. The MTA estimates the first-year expenses for a Valley bus agency would be about $84 million, rising to $88.6 million in the third year.

Once an application is complete, it could take three months before the MTA board votes on it. The board has 13 members, with eight votes needed to establish a local transit zone.

If a new agency is approved, an MTA priority is to preserve the key regional bus lines that travel beyond the Valley. For bus riders who need to reach jobs downtown, Mid-Wilshire and beyond, keeping those regional lines intact is critical.

But bus-rider advocates angrily oppose a new transit firm, warning that it’s no guarantee of better service and could jeopardize the consent decree that forces the MTA to improve service and keep fares affordable.

“We firmly believe that bus riders benefit most from a regionally coordinated transit system,” said Rita Burgos, an organizer with the Bus Riders Union, a nonprofit group working to improve local mass transit.

“But the savior is not a regional transit zone. What’s going to challenge the MTA is not a new zone but the challenge to get money back to bus riders.”

Baker, who strongly disputes that view, said the proposed agency’s “avowed goals” are to improve service Valleywide, giving an equitable voice and vote to each community, whether it is a small city or the many towns within Los Angeles’ borders.

“The consent decree is still there,” said the Glendale councilman. “The members of the zone have never viewed this as a way to bypass that.”

*

Kondo is a Times staff writer; Fox is a correspondent.