Move L.A.'s Denny Zane Enlists Broad Support for Local Half-Cent Sales Tax for Congestion Relief

Move L.A. is essentially your creation. What's the focus and mission of this new regional environmental, labor, and business coalition?

We kicked it off with a meeting about a year ago, with 35 organizations representing business, labor, environmental, environmental justice, social justice, and communities talking about the complete lack of new money for transportation. All the existing money is tied up in existing services. How are we going to relieve our congestion, especially considering that, in 30 years, 3 million more people are going to live here?

We launched a conference in January, and had over 300 people attend. It was very well received, and it received a large amount of press attention. A number of key leaders in the county came and spoke-Maria Elena Durazo from the L.A. County Federation of Labor; Mayor Villaraigosa; several supervisors, including Zev Yaroslavsky; and Pam O'Connor, the chair of Metro. That began to move the discussion into focus with the sales tax, primarily because the sales tax would generate significant new money and is very well received by voters. Of all options, it still does better in meeting that goal than any other option.

After that, we started a series of briefings with each of these constituency groups, which helped Metro to crystallize its own thinking about what the best options were. They directed the preparation of the sales tax measure for the ballot, and last week, we had a major meeting-it might only be a modest exaggeration to call it historic-at the L.A. County Federation of Labor, hosted by Maria Elena Durazo. There were ten labor unions (building trades, operating engineers, laborers, Local 300 SEIU), a number of leading business organizations (L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce, L.A. Business Federation, Central City Association, Valley Industry and Commerce Association, and the American Auto Club), and a rafter of environmental organizations (the Sierra Club, Coalition for Clean Air, and Environment Now). Metro leaders briefed them about the status of the sales tax measure, and then gave each constituency leader the chance to speak their mind about it.

We found that people really understand the problem. The judgment for the sales tax ranged from strongly supportive to "We will support this if we like the final language." Nobody said anything discouraging. That was very good news, which really begins to create the foundation for an effective campaign if Metro goes forward and puts this on the ballot.

What approvals are needed from the Legislature and the Metro Board to place the sales tax measure on this November's ballot?

There is a bill in the Legislature, AB 2321, which would have the Legislature give authorization to L.A. County Metro to collect the half-cent sales tax over the current limit in state law. That measure includes some categories to which funding must go-for example, 25 percent to transit operations. It also includes a number of projects that must get funding. But that serves really as a floor, a minimum platform upon which Metro would then build when they consider the actual measure.

That measure has passed out of the Assembly and will be going to the Senate soon. It does not need a two-thirds vote. We originally thought it did, because we wanted the measure on the ballot in November '08. It turns out that the Legislature's role here is to authorize Metro to collect the tax; Metro has independent authority to put a measure on the ballot. The Legislature only needs a majority vote to authorize Metro to collect the half-cent sales tax, and then Metro needs to put it on the ballot. Metro is probably going to be favorably inclined. The difference between no sales tax and the sales tax is zero money versus $40 billion over 30 years-that could get a lot of transportation program built.

The polling looks good. The polling that Move L.A. did had 69 percent "yes" three weeks ago; more recent polling that Metro did in a larger sample had 73 percent "yes." Gas prices are encouraging people to consider new money for investment in transportation.

As you mentioned, the sales tax could raise almost $40 billion for transportation improvements over three decades by increasing L.A. County's sales tax rates from 8.25 to 8.75 percent. Given the current economy, is there enough public support for this measure?

Historically, governments have been reluctant to put funding measures on the ballot when the economy is down. But other factors at play include congestion, high gas prices, voters' perception of a need for investments in transit and transportation, and, frankly, the nature of the electorate. In November '08, the electorate is going to be much larger than normal, and it will have a higher likelihood of approving public investment measures.

The economy does not appear to be having a dampening effect on voter attitudes, but in terms of the real effect on the economy, there is no question that congestion takes a big toll on our economy-$12 billion a year in lost productivity because of people stalled on freeway. Not to mention that family time and opportunities for exercise and relaxation suffers, which affects overall productivity.

We cannot have a first-class economy and a third-class transportation system. This is a must-do situation, and it's really something that only the public sector can do. We can have private partners, but there is no scenario where the private sector can build this entire system out. They will only do it as partial partners with the public sector, and the public sector needs to have the resources to do it.

MIR published excerpts from Move L.A.'s January 2008 conference; one of which was Supervisor Yaroslavksy comments: "We need two things to pass a sales tax for transportation: a focus for the funding and political will." He recommended that the money raised should mirror the legislation passed in the Senate in 2003, which earmarked specific amounts of money to specific projects. Is that your expectation regarding the allocation of this proposed half-cent sales tax measure for the November Ballot?

Absolutely. There is no way you will get voters to pass this unless there is a high degree of project specificity. The San Gabriel Valley needs to know the Gold Line will happen. The Westside needs to know the Subway to the Sea and the Expo Light Rail will happen. South L.A. needs to know the Crenshaw system will happen. The South Bay needs to know that the connector into LAX and the extension of the Green Line further into the South Bay will happen. The San Fernando Valley needs to know that the Orange Line will get feeder lines and that it may become a full-fledged light rail line. One of the ideas that we have begun planning is a system node from the Valley over the Sepulveda Pass to Westwood, the Westside, and maybe even onto LAX. We have to really get the Valley into the Westside and Central City without having to drive. Those kinds of projects have to be laid out with a high degree of specificity or people are not going to vote in the necessary numbers.

How successful have Move L.A.'s efforts been in generating the political will for this incrementally funded agenda to improve mobility in L.A.?

Political will requires convincing people that it's necessary, that it's possible, and that they have to work together. So far, convincing people it's necessary has been the easiest step of that process. Leadership of all constituencies-business, labor, environmental, social justice, and cities-know that congestion and rising gas prices are a formidable drain on our economy and a formidable barrier to progress for our community.

The possibility of success is a key thing. There is no question that Mayor Villaraigosa's strong articulation of support for new transit investments as a candidate and as mayor has been a key part of achieving this-it gave people hope that we could do this. It certainly helps to have polling results around 69 or 73 percent. You always think twice before you go into an election requiring two-thirds approval, whatever the need, because losing can really set you back.

Can constituencies work together and find a common cause? Everybody agrees that nobody is going to get 100 percent of what they want. They are going to get 75-80 percent of what they want-that's the principal we need to operate under. What I've seen so far in the multiple meetings that we've convened, the conference, and the last meeting at the L.A. County Federation of Labor, is that the willingness is there. People are willing to work together and compromise some share of their agenda so that the larger agenda can be achieved.

We have to get the MTA board to sign off. I think they're there. We have to get the Board of Supervisors to sign off; I think they are there, too. There will be some people who need a little more nudging because they aren't sure that their part of the county is going to get what it deserves or needs, so we have to address that.

Transportation planners suggest that even with $40 billion in new funding, exponentially more infrastructure investment is needed to fully address L.A.'s gridlock. What are the array of solutions and investments needed, even if the half-cent sales tax is successful?

The first step is expanded capacity for mobility. That is a transit objective. There are highway projects-for example, the 710 tunnel and carpool lanes-which could increase capacity. But I think people have come to realize that there are no new freeways in our future. There is just no land for it anymore. We must utilize existing light rail corridors and existing boulevards for light rail and bus rapid transit and go underground in the densest corridors. It's obvious that L.A. is too spread out for subways to serve anything but the densest corridors, but we have such corridors; Wilshire, for example, is one.

We should have our systems and our technologies maximize the opportunities in each corridor and also minimize the burdens. The great thing about a subway is, not only does it maximize the capacity that's so needed on the Wilshire Corridor, but it allows the Wilshire Corridor to remain a potentially pedestrian-oriented boulevard. That is enormous for its economic and cultural vitality.

We need land use policies that help make this work. I am not one to subscribe to high density everywhere. High density is appropriate in some parts, particularly around a subway system, but moderate density also works well. Santa Monica, for example, is a moderately dense community. When you measure the ridership for the proposed Expo Line, it gets among the highest in the nation, which is because the city is a moderately dense community with a lot of apartments. But it's a community that's not likely to support big, dense projects-and they're not needed. Those projects might be needed in some parts of the region, but moderate density is really the prescription on the transit corridors near the station sides. That is a very livable form. Santa Monica is one of the most livable communities I've ever visited or lived in. That level of density works very well in an urban environment.

One of the perversely positive outcomes in the rise in gas prices is the inborn congestion pricing. That will encourage people to look for alternatives, because it's just going to become too costly to drive a car.

In 2001, Metro did some computer modeling about what the transit ridership would be like if we were able to invest in a build-out of the strategic transit system, get land use policies aligned consistent with that system, and the cost of operating a car went up. Under that circumstance, there were dramatic increases in transit utilization. Where we now have 5 to 8 percent transit use at peak hour, those numbers could rise to 15 or 20 percent. That would be an enormous benefit for our entire community.

Frankly, all the pieces of that puzzle are coming together right now, buoyed by the voters' response, Metro's response, and the response of the leadership. I'm very optimistic.