A first-ever released “ratings sheet” from the state transportation agency explained why two major Los Angeles County rail projects were completely shut out of funding, a decision that leaves these projects, which promised to reduce traffic and air pollution, in jeopardy.
The Gold Line (now L Line) 3.2-mile extension from Pomona into Montclair, budgeted at $798 million, and the misnamed West Santa Ana Branch line (WSAB), budgeted at $500 million, being planned from Artesia to downtown Los Angeles. lost out because the agency wanted to space out projects.
With the Gold Line its No. 2 priority and WSAB No. 3, they were part of a three-project application from L.A. Metro that apparently was too much to fund. If the agency had granted funding just to Metro’s first and second priority projects, that would’ve awarded Metro too much of the available rail construction pie that would’ve denied funding for projects in other counties, according to a document called the Internal Decision Framework.
Instead, the California State Transportation Agency funded two projects that “geographically balance” out county funding — but only one was from L.A. Metro, while the other was from Inglewood.
Listed by L.A. Metro as its first priority, the state awarded $600 million toward building the East San Fernando Valley light-rail. The second project funded was not from Metro. CalSTA granted the full, $407 million request for a people mover in Inglewood that would connect to football and basketball stadiums, as well as to Metro’s K Line light-rail, providing a no-car option to trek to L.A. Rams and L.A. Chargers football games and other events at SoFi Stadium.
“Funding both of L.A. Metro’s top two priorities (ESFV line and Gold Line extension) would have consumed, and surpassed, the entire stated maximum SoCal investment capacity of $1.35 billion. This would have necessitated reducing the funding for new projects significantly, or necessitated the deletion of every other award recommendation, including the Inglewood Transit Connector Project and award recommendations in every other county in Southern California,” according to the internal document.
The document, which contains comments for those projects awarded state dollars and those denied, was part of a public records act request made by this newspaper on Feb. 14, 2023. An initial batch of documents did not contain pertinent information; this document was received on March 16 in a second release.
The agency awarded $2.5 billion to 16 transit projects in the state. Draft guidelines for how to prepare applications and project characteristics the agency was looking for were workshopped at public meetings last fall, said Marty Greenstein, CalSTA spokesman.
The ratings sheet also names other reasons why two of the three L.A. Metro projects were denied funding from this cycle of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP).
A major funding factor was whether a project needed state funds to ensure promised federal funding, sometimes called matching funds. This was true for both the ESFV line and the Inglewood project. The state document said there was an urgency to rush state dollars to these two in order to keep the projects from losing Federal Transit Administration dollars.
In short, the state agency was working hand-in-glove with the FTA. The implication to some was that the state-valued dollars promised by the feds over money pored into project budgets by county taxpayers. In L.A. County, 2% of all sales tax goes to L.A. Metro for construction of rail and rapid bus transit in an effort to get cars off crowded freeways.
With the Gold Line, the internal document placed less value on the $1.23 billion raised from local tax sources. “The proportion of TIRCP dollars being used to leverage other funding is not as competitive,” read the document.
“It is wrong to punish a local population for spending a billion dollars of local funds to accelerate the beginning of a project and then say there are not enough local funds to justify the TIRCP investments to complete the project,” wrote Habib Balian, CEO of the Metro Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority, in response to the document.
Montclair Mayor John Dutrey said the city adjusted its general plan to accommodate high-density housing near the Montclair TransCenter, where the L Line Station would be built. The Claremont and Montclair stations would add 8,000 daily boardings or about half of the line’s total ridership, the Authority reported.
Completion of the line to Montclair would take about 15,000 car trips off the roads each day and reduce 26.7 million vehicle miles travelled annually, studies show. Transportation planners, as well as San Gabriel Valley cities had hoped the project would be funded, so use of the light-rail train would lessen the traffic on the 210, 10 and 60 Freeways in Los Angeles County.
A comment from the ratings document said the project benefits San Bernardino County and that CalSTA awarded money to two other projects in San Bernardino County, to convert diesel train vehicles to zero-emission hydrogen-powered train vehicles on the Redlands Passenger Rail Project and build a 19-mile bus rapid transit project that connects Rancho Cucamonga with Ontario, Montclair, Pomona and the Ontario International Airport.
Dutrey said on Monday, March 20, that a light-rail line from L.A. into San Bernardino County benefits both counties by taking riders to the Claremont Colleges and downtown Claremont and commuters to Pasadena and L.A. It also will help with the state housing shortage. He said Montclair is doing its part but not being rewarded.
“I feel Sacramento doesn’t understand this,” he said.
Dutrey said the Authority and Metro’s failed multiple requests for gap funding will push the completion into the next decade or beyond: “Instead of going forward,” he sad, “we’re going backward.”
He blamed L.A. Metro for not making the what would be the first LA Metro project to reach into San Bernardino County a top priority. On Thursday, the Metro Board will consider making it a No. 1 priority so it would be in a stronger position for funding next year, he said.
Janice Hahn, Fourth District L.A. County Supervisor, chair of the Board and a member of the LA Metro Board, slammed Metro’s staff and its lobbyists in Sacramento. She was angry over the state skipping WSAB funding, a project that is still far from the $7.1 billion needed for the first phase.
“I am giving everybody an F grade on the West Santa Ana Branch. That is how I feel about your consultants,” she told the Metro staff in charge of pushing for TIRCP grants during the Executive Committee meeting of the Board on March 16.
Metro is working on other sources of funding for both Gold Line and WSAB. The staff is working with the governor’s office and key legislators to try to try to increase the funds available for transportation projects in the upcoming state budget.
Metro has prohibited the Gold Line Authority from preparing a federal project and for seeking federal dollars, something Montclair has pushed for, as has Rep. Norma Torres, D-Pomona. CalSTA favored projects with federal funding, and noted that the Gold Line extension application “included minimal discussion on ‘federalizing’ the project and pros/cons of this potential strategy.”
“If this project was federalized, it would’ve been awarded state fund in this cycle,” Dutrey said.
The document said the agency awarded the Inglewood people mover because it “showed geographic equity (that) benefits within Los Angeles County.” In its first two reasons, the document said it needed funding immediately. “Additional delays would have seriously impacted the ability to deliver the project before 2028 Olympics.”
But Inglewood Mayor James Butts, also a LA Metro board member, said he didn’t think the coming L.A.Olympic games that would include events at the Inglewood stadiums was a factor. Rather he emphasized connectivity to the K Line, which in a few years will connect to an automated train into LAX.
Butts said he and his consultants were not given further documentation on why the Inglewood project was chosen for funding. “Our consultant team was top notch. The city has developed a reputation for credibility and for bringing projects to fruition,” he said during an interview.
Dutrey had not seen the ratings document until it was shared with him by SCNG for comment. He said both CalSTA and L.A. Metro lacked transparency. “This was very political,” Dutrey said.
Greenstein said the process was open and feedback was given by transit agencies, which resulted in changes to the draft guidelines for project funding and posting of final guidelines on the CalSTA website.
“I think it was pretty transparent,” Greenstein said on Monday, March 20.
