The Valley Transit Zone proposal, originally conceived by City Councilman (now State Senator) Richard Alarcón in 1998, did little more than hinder MTA's Service Planning Department from improving service in the San Fernando Valley. MTA staff was unable, for nearly five years, to implement any restructuring of lines, other than around Metro Red Line service expansion, with a zone application pending (it was finally withdrawn at the end of 2002 after the MTA service sectors began operation). The San Fernando Valley Transit Restructuring Study, begun in 1995, was stalled by the zone proposal.
(It should be noted that there was talk of a "transportation zone" for the San Fernando Valley for over 15 years; the earliest mention of zones I have found was in a Los Angeles Times article published December 30, 1984 which reported on LADOT's assuming operations of RTD minibus service -- which became DASH -- in downtown L.A. and Westwood and the moves by then-County Supervisor Pete Schabarum toward the creation of Foothill Transit. A subsequent Times article on May 17, 1990 specifically referred to a proposed San Fernando Valley Transit Zone with no specific boundaries and reported that the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) -- MTA's predecessor -- was "pushing the switch to privately run buses on heavily subsidized urban commuter lines". That article quoted the late Earl Clark of the United Transportation Union as saying LACTC "pressured the RTD" into giving up routes "by threatening to withhold federal funds".)
An analysis of the SFV Zone Pre-Application was prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. and released to the Interim Joint Powers Authority board on January 22, 2002. The analysis concluded that:
- Both the recommended and "less positive" funding estimates (April, 2001) would fail to break even within ten years
- Using updated figures (November, 2001) the net annual deficit over 10 years would increase by at least $18.8 million, and possibly by as much as $49.5 million
- The new deficit figure "significantly exceeds the 5% contigency built into the zone draft financial plan"
- This "jeopardizes opportunities to improve service"
The July and November 2000 Zone Feasibility Study, prepared by the Interim Joint Powers Authority's consultants, made the following presumptions and conclusions:
- MTA would transfer Metro Rapid Line 750 and other regionally significant lines -- which MTA's zone guidelines require to remain with the agency -- to the zone
- Nearly 53,000 fewer service hours annually -- this is 145 fewer hours* of service per day, on average -- with postponement of service improvements to an unspecified date
- "An opportunity for economies" by downsizing maintenance
- A proposed operating cost per bus service hour higher than Foothill Transit, LADOT, Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus and Long Beach Transit (all of which have been touted as examples of how the zone would save money); acknowledged that the projected cost per hour is higher than the peer agencies listed above but called lowering that cost a "long-term goal" without any timetable for achievement; it also acknowledged that the hourly cost for operations and planning was higher than all peer agencies and MTA
- MTA would turn over all of the equipment and facilities at the two Valley Metro Bus divisions
- Acknowledged that the zone would be bound by MTA's consent decree with the Bus Riders Union, but had no contingency plan for required changes and presumed MTA would bear the costs of consent decree monitoring
- MTA would continue to provide customer telephone information at no charge to the zone
- Figured zone operating costs compared to MTA operating costs without using system-wide figures for the latter -- a difference of just over $16.00 per hour; when compared to the MTA system-wide figure, the zone was four cents per hour lower
- A high amount of potential zone savings was based on higher seniority employees choosing to transfer out of the Valley, which cannot be accurately calculated or relied upon; this was called the "biggest potential risk" factor
- Clearly stated, in the executive summary, that the study could not provide "a definitive, unqualified answer as to financial viability"
- Economies were based on downsizing scheduling operations
(* - How much service is 145 hours per day? Consider that Line 163 on Sherman Way, from the first trip in the morning to the last trip at night, operates 161 service hours on Saturdays and you will have a good idea ...)
The zone's lead consultant also admitted to the zone's technical advisory committee (according to the committee's recommendation and report to the zone's joint powers authority) that farebox revenue predictions were "less positive than originally estimated" and this affected the feasibility of the zone. (The November 2000 feasibility study presumed farebox revenue growth.) The committee directed the consultant to "focus on lowering operating costs ... to make the lower revenue numbers work." This directly goes against the consultant's conclusion on pg. 5-6 of the November feasibility study that the zone is not financially feasible under a lower farebox revenue assumption.
A MTA staff report (Adobe Reader required) on zone subsidies indicated the cost of Metro Bus service in the remaining system would increase if a zone was created:
- "If the Board approved both applications [San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys], the amount of bus service delivered by MTA Transit Operations would be reduced by approximately 28 percent ... a significant change and raises a number of associated policy issues, such as potential impacts on the remainder of the MTA service."
- "The removal of up to 28% of the bus service provided by MTA Transit Operations would result in an increase in the cost per hour of the remaining service ... because it is doubtful that the MTA support and overhead services will be able to reduce costs in direct proportion to the amount of service being transferred."
- "Based on bus security savings estimates provided by Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department ... the security savings would only be 12.5% of the total security contract."
- "Worker's compensation claims and the associated costs will stay with the MTA even if the employees transfer to a zone."
- "Only 2.8% of the total invoices processed could be attributed solely to the bus divisions in the San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley ... far less than a proportionate reduction of the Accounting cost allocation to the bus project for San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley Service."
- "Staff believes that updating the subregional governance alternatives would provide potential for a more proactive approach."
Nevertheless, David Fleming -- former chair of the California Transportation Commission and a member of the San Fernando Valley Interim Joint Powers Authority (later, a member of the Metro San Fernando Valley Service Sector Governance Council) -- was repeatedly quoted in the Daily News as saying zone proponents "are at a point where we feel we could operate the zone feasibly with the kind of revenue currently produced today and live under the contracts the MTA entered into with its drivers and mechanics."
A 2000 Metro Investment Report interview with Zev Yaroslavsky proved politics motivated the zone and a follow-up interview a year later further revealed his fixation on the zone (and also erroneously claimed that the zone had only been under discussion for six months).
The politicians said they would withdraw their application if Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1101 (which extends MTA collective bargaining to any transit zone in Los Angeles County) into law, but they were making a hollow threat. Davis signed SB 1101 on September 30, 2000; the zone proposal continued to move forward.
Even the Bus Riders Union opposed the proposed zone:
"We firmly believe that bus riders benefit most from a regionally coordinated transit system ... the savior is not a regional transit zone." (Rita Burgos, Los Angeles Times, October 24, 1999)
The Los Angeles City Council voted in February, 2001 to ask the Southern California Association of Governments to divert $100,000 budgeted from city transit programs to the zone's joint powers authority to complete the application for the zone. The City Council has the power to withdraw the transit zone application, but its members were lobbied by numerous business groups -- which know little about transit other than the buses they see on Valley streets -- to push the proposal forward. Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski especially didn't "get it" ... she took pride in the appointment of her field deputy to the Zone Joint Powers Authority.
My op-ed articles on zones:
The MTA staff report is formatted in PDF Format. To view them, your browser or system must be equipped with Adobe Reader. Click here to get Adobe Reader, free.
