30/10 will gut the bus system, the backbone of public transit in LA

30/10 focuses on rail expansion despite its failed results

30/10 will drown the agency with debt

Below are some of the BRU's concerns around LACMTA's proposed 30/10 Initiative.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 5, 2010
U.S. Representative Grace Napolitano
c/o Joe Sheehy
11627 Telegraph Rd #100
Santa Fe Springs CA 90670-6810

Dear Grace Napolitano,

We are writing to request a meeting with you to discuss the Bus Riders Union's opposition to the "30/10" Initiative sought by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and adopted as policy by Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). Through the 30/10 Initiative, LACMTA is asking to borrow $8.8 billion from the federal government to accelerate 12 mass transit projects outlined in California's AB 2321 and the ½ cent county sales tax Measure R (both passed in 2008) and LACMTA's own 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan.

As you may know, the Bus Riders Union Title VI consent decree with LACMTA (1996-2006)
redressed a pattern of civil rights harms to Los Angeles County bus riders -- who are 80% of the total LACMTA rider ship and 90% people of color - caused by LACMTA's overspending on rail construction and severe under-resourcing of the bus system. We believe the 30/10 initiatives threatens to repeat the very same civil rights harms from our previous lawsuit by front-loading billions of dollars worth of rail construction through debt-financing at the expense of the bus system.

We urge the federal government to reject LACMTA's request for billions of dollars in loans to
accelerate this set of projects for the following reasons:

• 30/10 will gut the bus system, the backbone of public transit in LA: With
80% of MTA's total boardings, the bus system is the backbone of the transit system.
Yet 30/10 promises no concrete improvements to bus riders. This year, MTA has
already implemented the second 20% fare increase in three years and plans to
eliminate 388,000 hours of bus service -- amounting to an attack on bus riders whose
average annual household income is $12,000. MTA's 2009 Long Range Transportation
Plan calls for continued bus service cuts and 14 fare increases over the next 30 years,
supposedly necessitated by ongoing deficits in the their bus operations budget. How
can an agency claim it is consistently running deficits that require draconian
fare hikes and bus service cuts while simultaneously claiming that its credit is
so strong that it qualifies for a 30-year, $8.8 billion loan?

• 30/10 focuses on rail expansion despite its failed results. A recent Los Angeles
Times story ("Metro Rail to mark its 20th anniversary", July 23, 2010) cites two transit
policy experts' opinion that MTA's $8 billion investment in rail construction since
1985 has come at the expense of the bus system and driven down ridership, costing
the agency at least 1.5 billion boardings in the period from 1985-2006. According to
figures from the Federal Transit Administration, the MTA has fewer passengers in
2009-after $8 billion spent to build 79 miles of rail - than it had before rail
construction began in 1986 even though LA County's population increased 20% in
this time period. Rail construction in LA County is quite simply bad policy and a
major borrowing scheme to continue it should be stopped in its tracks.

• 30/10 will drown the agency with debt, exacerbating the already existing operations
budget crisis. LACMTA already spends millions each year on paying off debt from
past rail construction, money that could otherwise be spent on operating the bus
system. What will happen when the MTA squanders 30 years of sales tax revenue into
10 years, and does nothing for the bus system in that period? Then when people come
back in the 11th year, the 15th year, the 25th year, a new MTA board will say, "Whoever
spent 30 years revenue in 10 years bankrupted the agency. We have no funds for
operations, no funds to reduce fares, no funds to increase service, we are in a
permanent spiral of service cuts and fare increases"-- until the MTA goes bankrupt
altogether. We support deficit spending for hospitals, schools, and mental health
clinics but not to reward boondoggle rail projects at the expense of the MTA's
ridership.

• Expanding mass transit funds, especially earmarked transit operations and bus
capital funds, is an alternative. We support a dramatic re-prioritization of funds
from the federal surface transportation bill from highway to public transit-80% to
transit and 20% to highways would be a perfect flip of the current formula. We also
support a 50/50 split between bus and rail in the federal expenditures, and a 50/50
split between capital projects (construction) and operations-drivers, mechanics,
service increases, fare decreases. If the MTA would share the existing Measure R sales
tax funds as they have pledged--giving at least 20% of those funds to bus capital and
operations--and work with us to get 50% for rail and 50% in bus funding from
Congress, we would be supportive of some of their plans. And in this case, MTA
would not have to borrow from the federal government because additional federal
funds would be available through the re-authorization of the surface transportation
bill.

• LACMTA cannot be trusted with this money-their track record demonstrates
they WILL starve the bus system. We know well from our 10-year civil rights court
battle that even under federal supervision, LACMTA aggressively fought, delayed
and/or fell short in virtually every aspect of bus expansion ordered by the courts.
Given this long track record of disregard for the rights of mostly Black, Latino,
Asian/Pacific Islander and "profoundly poor" (in MTA's own words) bus riders and
the striking similarities between today's conditions and those that sparked our lawsuit,
we can only assume that accelerating the Long Range Transportation Plan through
such a loan will accelerate MTA's attacks on those same bus riders.

• LACMTA's adversarial relationship with 500,000 bus riders. Contrary to what the
MTA may say, the BRU does not have an inherently adversarial relationship with the
MTA. We reach out to them all the time with poor results. Sadly, it is the agency that
has an adversarial relationship with 500,000 bus riders. This spring, bus riders testified
they wanted a public hearing on the fare increase. The MTA flatly and repeatedly
denied this basic request. People testify that they cannot afford - on a household
income of $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 for a family of 4 or 5 or 6 -- one or two bus
passes with a monthly increased of $13 or $26. In response, the MTA Board and staff
sit cold and heartless and say they have a budget shortfall after asking the same lowincome
people to pay ½ cent more in sales tax - now totaling 1 ½ cents on every
dollar -- to the MTA. We ask the MTA to slow down some rail projects so they can
build some rail and also expand the bus system. They refuse. It is in this context of
contempt for their own customers that people see the MTA as a rail construction
agency rather than a public transportation agency and why this request to the federal
government for a loan on future revenues is at once cruel, bizarre, and fiscally
irresponsible.

In closing, we urge you to:

• Vote NO on any proposals by the MTA to borrow federal funds against projected sales tax revenues;

• Pressure MTA to invest a significant portion of its new-found sales tax revenue to
reverse the 2009 fare increase and invest in the expansion of bus service, particularly night and weekend service. The MTA should also invest in at least 500 new buses to expand the bus fleet, improve service over all, and reduce overcrowding.

• Insist that MTA pays as it goes for its expansion projects by slowing down its rail
obsession. Insist moreover that the agency find a balance between its existing revenue
and its plans, between its bus and rail customers, which is in line with civil rights and
environmental justice principles.

We will be happy to provide further factual documentation and to testify before any
congressional hearings and look forward to meeting with you very soon to further discuss this
matter.

Sincerely,

Esperanza Martinez                                                               Francisca Porchas
Lead Organizer                                                                     National Coordinator
Bus Riders Union                                                                  Transit Riders for Public Transportation