The New Spin? All Aboard for Metro Rail

WASHINGTON — Here, when talk turns to the trouble bedeviling the Metro Rail subway project back home, Los Angeles congressmen and their aides share a little tale about Georgetown.

The tony home of Washington’s elite fiercely objected when it learned of plans for a subway station that would link the enclave to the region’s mass transit system. Georgetowners, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Panorama City) says with a grin, worried that “the hoi polloi” would come and make a mess of things.

Georgetown won that battle. But now that Washington’s gleaming Metro system is considered a smashing success, Georgetown feels left out. The moral: Be careful what you wish for.

Washington may be a lousy place from which to view the transportation needs of sprawling Los Angeles. But Georgetown’s experience may help explain why such vivid, noisy controversies in L.A.--evacuated buildings, a massive lawsuit, a sinkhole to hell--do little more than inspire sympathetic nods here.

So, contrary to what you may have recently read in this space, my new spin is that Metro Rail really doesn’t stand much risk of getting stopped in its tracks--at least not quite yet.

No matter how quickly Los Angeles County goes into bankruptcy, no matter how mad Metro Rail has made folks in Hollywood, no matter how many people come to the conclusion that it’s a world-class boondoggle, L.A’s subway should indeed reach North Hollywood, the Eastside and the Mid-City district. This Republican-led Congress, so keen on cutting spending, still seems perfectly willing to pony up for a public works project that seemed questionable from the start.

Berman sat in his office, monitoring a State Department appropriations debate on C-SPAN, while patiently explaining why I’d been reading the political map sideways. He pointed out that the House Appropriations Committee, which is taking cleavers to housing, welfare, education, legal services, you name it, had just approved $125 million more in funding for Metro Rail. The full House won’t consider the matter for a few days but, Berman said, this is one project that seems safe from the budget slashers--at least until the current phase of construction is complete.

Stupid, naive me. When County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, until recently the chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), sent that letter to House Speaker Newt Gingrich urging a temporary halt in Metro Rail funding, I thought it might have an impact. And the angry pageant of Hollywood merchants at a gathering sponsored by state Sen. Tom Hayden had me sensing that grass-roots opposition was growing.

Gingrich, I figured, might want to hold up Metro Rail as an example of waste. Besides, Los Angeles isn’t exactly a popular place these days. A headline like, say, “Newt to L.A.: Drop Dead,” might play well in an America that disapproves of our riots, our movies, our immigrants and, of course, our strange jurisprudence.

My reasoning may have also been influenced by wishful thinking. I grew up not far from Disneyland and was always told that someday we’d be zipping along in sleek elevated monorails. A college summer spent traveling in the subways and elevators of Manhattan convinced me that what made sense there made little sense back home where only the very poor get by without wheels.

A few colleagues, more well-versed in the vagaries of Metro Rail, warned me that I was overstating the political jeopardy. In Washington, it’s just background noise. Congress isn’t inclined to stop funding at the midpoint of the construction phase known as “MOS-3.”

Why? One colleague in Washington pointed out a basic fact: The subway project in Los Angeles can and has fattened the campaign funds of politicians in such far-off states as Pennsylvania if they happen to serve on the key committees. So while a program like Head Start might be gutted, Metro Rail is much more secure.

When I mentioned this to Berman, he grinned and shook his head.

“Oh, that’s the cynical journalistic interpretation,” Berman said. “It’s a factor, but not the factor. I don’t think it’s a key factor . . . but it’s a pretty effective tactic for getting someone’s attention.”

In any case, Berman, whose district includes the North Hollywood destination of MOS-3, has long been ambivalent about Metro Rail. Back in 1986, he pointed out, he voted with two other members of L.A.’s congressional delegation, liberal Henry Waxman and conservative Bobbi Fiedler, in putting a temporary halt to funding. This was after Waxman succeeded in steering the subway construction north from Wilshire, citing fears of methane gas and potential cost. Fiedler never favored the subway concept.

But, with the economy booming and L.A. still feeling the optimistic glow of the ’84 Olympics, the opposition was overwhelmed. First, Berman said, L.A. had a legitimate case to make that it had been shortchanged over the years. Moreover, he added, “Tom Bradley was in the heyday of his popularity,” and Reps. Julian Dixon and Jerry Lewis skillfully gathered the votes.

At this stage of the game, Berman explained, the arguments of Antonovich, who’d rather see money go to build an elevated line above the Ventura Freeway, and Hayden, who’d rather use the money to subsidize bus transit for the poor, don’t make much sense in Washington, where regions compete for money. “If you say, ‘I want it for buses,’ they’ll say, ‘So do I.’ ”

So Berman figures now isn’t the time for backtracking. At some later date, he suggests, we may wish to reconsider Mayor Riordan’s dream of digging west across the Valley, from the NoHo Station to Warner Center. But, he says, we should see Metro Rail through to the Eastside, to the Mid-City area, to the Valley.

We might not have any public hospitals. We might not be able to afford to keep criminals in jail. But Georgetown will be jealous.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays.