No Deal in Sight in MTA Feud

MTA officials have rejected a proposed settlement of a dispute between the transit agency and the city of Los Angeles over a long-delayed San Fernando Valley subway line, and both sides appeared to remain far apart on a compromise Thursday.

The dispute began when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority adopted a transit recovery plan three weeks ago that delayed construction of the Valley line until 2011.

The Los Angeles City Council--led by angry Valley lawmakers--responded a week later by voting to withhold $200 million in payments to the MTA pending a move by the MTA to begin construction of the Valley line by 2007.

Since then, MTA and city officials have been scrambling to reach an accord before the MTA’s transit plan goes to a congressional transportation panel on Tuesday for funding.

“I remain hopeful that we can get there, but so far the MTA has not made any progress,” said Councilman Mike Feuer, who led the charge to withhold the $200 million.

On Wednesday, MTA’s acting chief, Linda Bohlinger, tried to resolve the dispute with a plan that guarantees that construction of a Valley rail line begins by 2007. Under her proposal, the city would turn over $58 million of the $200 million to the MTA. If the MTA balks at building the line as scheduled, the MTA would have to return the $58 million.

But a four-member ad hoc panel of the MTA board rejected Bohlinger’s plan, saying the promise to start building the Valley line in 2007 could jeopardize the timetable for other projects, such as a light-rail line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena.

Bohlinger said the panel members believed they could not guarantee the Valley line construction schedule because funding for all the projects depends on unpredictable transit taxes. They also worry that cost overruns on other projects could alter the schedule.

The ad hoc panel included County Supervisors Gloria Molina and Don Knabe, Duarte Councilman John Fasana and Michael Bohlke, a senior deputy to County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

Fasana and Burke said they were opposed to the proposal to return the $58 million if the MTA failed to begin construction of the Valley line in 2007.

“I’m totally uncomfortable with the loan idea because we can’t issue bonds for other projects on a loan,” Fasana said.

Burke said she is still unclear what exactly will appease the city. She said she thought the council only cared about getting the Valley line built earlier, but she said she has heard that the city is also concerned about other issues in the transit recovery plan.

The rejection of the settlement offer prompted angry reactions by Valley lawmakers, who thought Bohlinger’s plan had merit.

“What the MTA panel did was a continuation of the in-your-face attitude toward the city in general, and the Valley in particular, and it’s a road to nowhere,” said County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a member of the MTA board.

Yaroslavsky accused members of the ad hoc panel of rejecting the proposed settlement for fear it will jeopardize projects in their communities.

“To continually ignore the interest of the Valley while the Valley pays its transit taxes is a prescription for disaster,” he added.

Feuer agreed, saying: “The MTA is saying to the city as a whole that we are not taking your priorities seriously, and I’m very troubled by that.”

The person stuck in the middle of the dispute, Bohlinger, said she has not given up hope that it can be resolved by next week.

Despite the rejection, she said the MTA ad hoc panel is willing to give the city guarantees on a Valley construction schedule so long as new funding or cost savings are identified to pay for the new construction timetable.

The head negotiator for the city is its legislative analyst, Ron Deaton. He said there is not much movement on either side toward resolving the dispute. But he still believes a settlement can be reached by next week.

“We have had some good conversations with the MTA,” he said. “They understand our position a little better now.”

In a related development, MTA board member and County Supervisor Mike Antonovich responded to the city’s decision to withhold $200 million in transit funding by suggesting the MTA hold back the city’s share of transit tax funds that the MTA owes the city.

But MTA officials and others say Antonovich’s proposal is not likely to get support by the full MTA board.