Zev, you have long championed a proposed Valley transit zone, and were recently elected Chair of its interim governing Authority. Let's start by asking you to give our readers a sense of why you've agreed to chair this new subregional transportation authority.

The Valley transit zone -- a collaborative effort between the County and various cities from Glendale to Agoura Hills -- has the potential to dramatically improve the quality and reliability of public transit in the San Fernando Valley.

The long-term goal is clear-to provide a transit system that serves the intra-valley needs as well as the inter-city needs of the region. In pursuit of this, our initial objective is to construct a mechanism that can deliver more efficient service to the Valley.

We're still early in the process and our future is unclear, but what is clear is that it must be financially feasible and flexible. Our current dispute with the bus drivers' union stems from this desire. Our goal is to find a middle ground where no one loses a job or takes a pay cut-but, where many of the inefficiencies with which the MTA is saddled are eliminated.

In January, the MTA voted to pay $140,000 for a comprehensive review of costs associated with Valley bus service. Irrespective of the findings, the transit zone's financing are complex -- with some funding allocated between the cities involved and some from the MTA. As the consensus financial guru of the Board of Supervisors and the MTA, give our readers a sense of how this financing structure will be met?

The question before us is "Can we structure the Valley Transit Zone to improve service quality and reliability to the San Fernando Valley for less than the MTA?" I believe we can -- but a lot will depend on whether the new Zone is saddled with the kinds of extremely high costs that currently exist at MTA. Not just wages and benefits -- that's the least of it -- but the variety of work rules and add-ons that make the MTA one of the most expensive public transit agencies in the U.S.

In this regard, what lessons do Big Blue and Foothill Transit operations offer for the Valley Transit Authority?

Foothill Transit offers one model for independent contracting; another option is that the Valley Zone employ their own personnel; and a third is that employees work for the Zone while management is contracted out. The Interim Transit Zone Board will ultimately decide which model it will adopt.

Let's turn to the Governor's proposed transportation plan. Do his proposals for use of State transportation funds in the San Fernando Valley meet with your approval? An article in the April 16 Valley edition of the Los Angeles Times says "It will take strong leadership from Yaroslavsky, Alarcon, Padilla, and other Valley leaders to win the battle for consensus at home, which is the first step towards winning the funds for either an east-west or a north-south bus transit line." How do you respond to that quote?

This is a very exciting time. The Governor's transportation plan offers us an opportunity to make significant advances in L.A. public transit -- not only in the Valley, but in Mid Cities and on the Eastside.

The Valley can have both east-west and north-south lines. The east-west line will link the Red Line terminus in North Hollywood with Warner Center along the Burbank-Chandler railroad right-of-way -- addressing the congestion problem along major east-west freeway corridors. The north-south line will go along Van Nuys Blvd., connecting Sherman Oaks with Pacoima and the Sylmar Metrolink station-addressing the needs of the most transit dependent communities in the Valley.

Because of the width of Van Nuys Blvd. and the railroad right-of-way, we can easily implement a Curitiba-style system-where high-speed buses have dedicated lanes in each direction. This would be a dramatic step for the Valley. I've discussed it with Assembly Speaker Hertzberg, Assemblyman Cardenas and Councilman Padilla-we're all excited and aware of the opportunity that exists to do something positive for our mutual constituents. Once we prove that this system can work and that the Curitiba model is applicable to L.A., every community will be clamoring for this transit option.

I just want to try it. If it works, it will advance the cause of public transit. If it doesn't, there's minimal expense -- buses can be moved and lanes can be repainted. The subway is not the answer -- not in our lifetime. The Curitiba model is the answer for our public transportation needs

Zev, let's ask one more question on transportation. Give our readers a status report on LAMTA; does the Agency now have its act together? How capable is it to support the projects that you have commented upon?

To be honest, the MTA's performance is uneven -- those who believe otherwise are oblivious to reality. My frustration is that it's not moving fast enough.

Julian Burke is a capable CEO -- the more I work with him, the more I appreciate his performance and wisdom. My impression is that his frustration stems from the inability to translate ideas into action. And that's because, the MTA's bureaucracy, much of which is slow and unresponsive, is still dominant in the organization.

The Governor's plan, at least as it relates to L.A., is largely fashioned out of input given from Julian and the MTA. It's a golden opportunity to jumpstart much needed transportation projects in our region. I'm confident that the east-west and the north-south Valley lines will happen.

You said in a November interview with MIR that "the current State-local fiscal relationship results in local government not being adequately prepared for the long term, especially for critically needed capital improvements." The Speaker's Commission on State-Local Government Finance's final recommendations are before a Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly and there's rumblings in Sacramento of creating a Commission on Regions to look at metropolitan governance in the 21st Century. As a Supervisor, an MTA Board Member, Chair of the Valley Transit Authority, and Chair of SCAG, what kinds of structural and constitutional reforms do you think local government needs in order to be a vital, proactive governance unit for the region?

It's important to restructure the State-local fiscal relationship in order to give predictability and stability to local government finance. Local government has principally been victimized by huge and sudden changes in the fiscal rules and relationships that exist between them and state government -- changes which were too great for any jurisdiction to absorb. If we had been left alone, we could have survived the recession much more easily.

So whatever the relationship is-rearrangement of the sales tax, the property tax, whatever-the main goal has to be to stick to the plan and not have it overturned on a Governor or a Legislature's whim because they're facing a bad year.

We're all in this together -- and recessions affect cities, counties and the State in very similar ways. But when the State can rip off the treasury of local government in order to balance its own budget, that creates an unlevel playing field from which it's difficult to recover.

I'm not optimistic that much will happen, but my hope is that whatever the Legislature and the Governor decide is fair, thoughtful and -- Constitutionally or otherwise -- permanent.

One last comment on the fiscal health of the County. A recent PPIC report looking at County government, and L.A. County fiscal health suggested that the County's fiscal situation is still very vulnerable on the health side. What happens if the federal government doesn't give a waiver extension to L.A. County? Could you assess for our readers what the fiscal health of the County's budget going forward is?

PPIC hit the nail on the head as far as our County's health system is concerned. The County system is very vulnerable and will continue to be vulnerable as long as 2.7 million uninsured people live in L.A. County and rely on us for service.

President Clinton understood that in 1995 when he ordered the federal government to partner with L.A. County to save our public health system. Since then, we've restructured quite a bit. We committed to a reduction of the number of hospital beds by 1/3, and we've practically reached that goal. And we've finally turned the corner on ambulatory care -- which was difficult because the County wasn't equipped for the competition it is now facing.

"This is a very exciting time. The Governor's transportation plan offers us an opportunity to significantly advance the public transit field -- not only in the Valley, but in Mid Cities and on the Eastside. I think the Valley can have both east-west and north-south lines."

So we've had to readjust to a competitive world. In a way, we're like DWP in the City -- we grew up in an era when we were the only game in town. We didn't have to worry about customer satisfaction or the quality of our care. Now, we've been forced to improve the quality, accessibility and reliability of our service in order to adequately meet the needs of our clients. As difficult as this has been, it has been a good development.

We've expanded our ambulatory/outpatient care program by partnering with nonprofit agencies who share our mission. The number of clinics where L.A. residents can now be treated has more then doubled in the last several years. But, we need to keep that momentum going and in order to do that, we need a continued partnership with the federal government. We simply can't operate on $200 to $250 million deficit-which is what we could face annually over the next five years without federal help.

We're still hopeful that the Administration will deliver for us. If they don't, the only people who will suffer are the poor and working poor who rely on us for health care.

Zev, with your leadership role on the County Board of Supervisors, your chairing of SCAG, working on the Valley Transit and MTA Board, are you evolving into a regionalist and therefore less interested in being Mayor of Los Angeles?

I've always been a regionalist -- regional problems need regional solutions. When it comes to transportation, it's clear that unless we deparochialize the decision-making process, we'll be gridlocked for another generation. The Governor's initiative is sitting there like a ripe apple ready to be picked -- we can't afford to squander this opportunity.

So our approach to transportation -- as well as many environmental and infrastructure problems -- needs to be regional in nature. But regional government is a quantum leap from where we are, and there's a limit to how much power and authority people are willing to concentrate in one person or one agency. I'm not sure one could or should create a super agency that would deal with every issue.