Local Opposition to MTA Plans Accelerates

As local opposition to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s painfully patched-together “recovery plan” gained unexpected momentum Friday, an aide to Mayor Richard Riordan said the furor may “jeopardize” continued federal support for the troubled agency.

Seven San Fernando Valley lawmakers are seeking to block city funding to the agency, a civil rights attorney is planning to seek judicial intervention to enforce court-ordered bus improvements and the chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee is vowing to oppose a state loan the MTA has been counting on.

The plan adopted by the MTA’s board Wednesday proposes delaying the construction of the long-promised Valley line from 2004 until 2007 and perhaps 2011. The proposal puts building of the downtown Los Angeles-to-Pasadena rail line back on track for completion in 2001--if the state approves a $54-million loan to the agency. The Clinton administration has demanded such a recovery plan to restore Washington’s confidence in the MTA’s management of its $6.1-billion subway building program. The federal government is paying for about half the project.

But at City Hall, the seven Valley members of the City Council, upset about delays of the rail line for their area, sought to withhold $200 million in city funds that the recovery plan needs.

In a motion that will come before the full council next week, the Valley lawmakers seek to deny the MTA city funds until the agency “ensures any delays necessitated by financial conditions be shared among the planned projects rather than unfairly targeting the Valley.”

Rep. Howard P. ‘Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) said he plans to take up the Valley’s plight with the influential chairman of the House transportation appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), whose panel will consider the MTA’s request for $100 million this year for subway construction.

But Rep. Julian Dixon (D-Los Angeles) warned that the new outbreak of intra-county squabbling could hurt the MTA’s fight for federal funds to extend the subway to North Hollywood.

“To have the seven members say they’re going to wreck the deal by not coming up with the city contribution is cutting off their nose to spite their face,” he said in a phone interview. “You’ve got to take care of first things first, and the first thing is to get continued federal funding at a reasonable level to finish what we have started.”

A spokeswoman for Mayor Richard Riordan worried that the move to freeze the $200 million could endanger the entire recovery package, which federal officials must approve in two weeks.

“Certainly, the word ‘jeopardize’ enters into the equation,” said Noelia Rodriguez, Riordan’s press aide.

But Councilman Michael Feuer, who represents part of the Valley, rejected suggestions that freezing the $200-million city contribution will imperil the entire MTA package. He said the funding proposal could be redrafted quickly to address Valley lawmakers’ concerns. “We could develop an amended recovery plan tomorrow,” he said.

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee, said he will oppose any state loan unless the MTA addresses the transit needs of the African American community west of the Harbor Freeway.

He complained that even the “crumb” offered to the black community--a subway extension from Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Pico and San Vicente boulevards--has been delayed in the recovery plan.

Constance L. Rice, Western regional counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, charged that the plan offers no safeguards against money needed for bus improvements being used to pay for rail projects. To settle the group’s federal suit on behalf of bus riders, the MTA entered into a consent decree with the plaintiffs, agreeing to improve service.

Rice, however, said she already has complained to Federal Transit Administrator Gordon Linton and plans to seek a review and--if necessary--intervention from the “special master” appointed by federal Judge Terry J. Hatter to oversee implementation of the court-ordered bus improvements.

“There is just nothing in this plan that concretely requires MTA to set aside anything for buses, not a dime,” Rice said in an interview. “The special master has to weigh in now. What I’m afraid of is that if we don’t bring this to the court’s attention, we will be five years down the road with this agency that is addicted to rail and overspending, and there will be insufficient amounts of money to implement the decree.”

Rice said she already has complained to special master Donald Bliss, a Washington, D.C., attorney, that MTA officials are “not in compliance, and they are not making a good-faith effort to comply” with the consent decree.

MTA officials insist that they have obeyed the court order. The agency’s acting chief executive officer, Linda Bohlinger, said Friday that the plan adopted earlier this weeks includes “firewalls” to make sure bus improvements are funded.

“I know they don’t believe us, and they’ll never believe, but that’s our commitment,” she said, adding that the agency has an even stronger commitment to the bus improvements than its promise. “It’s called a consent decree,” she said.

MTA board member and county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who voted against the plan and represents part of the Valley, said the board now should consider delaying the Pasadena line so all regions share the pain.

He said he hopes the Valley council members won’t be “bullied by threats that we’re not going to have a recovery plan. That fact is we don’t have a recovery plan. This recovery plan is a prescription for failure.”

Times staff writer Jeffrey L. Rabin contributed to this story.