Hal Bernson

Two weeks ago, Mayor Richard Riordan named veteran City Councilman Hal Bernson to the powerful board of the countywide Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The appointment came after complaints from San Fernando Valley transit activists that the Valley had no representation on the board since Northridge real estate agent Mel Wilson stepped down earlier this year.

Bernson, 66, has been a longtime advocate of bringing mass transit to the Valley and also serves on the board of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), the agency that runs the Metrolink commuter trains.

* * *

Question: The mayor had been criticized for not having a San Fernando Valley-based appointee on the MTA board. Now, with your appointment, what do you think you can do as the lone Valley representative out of 13 board members?

Answer: Obviously I’m walking into a difficult position. And I hope that everybody doesn’t expect me to turn the MTA around by myself or immediately.

But I do have some very definite ideas on what needs to be done. The ultimate goal is to be able to provide affordable, decent transportation for the people of Los Angeles County. My particular interest is obviously the San Fernando Valley and to do things to make sure that we have mobility.

I come from a business background. I look at what’s available to do the things needed to reach your objectives, meaning finances and other resources, and to try to make your allocations and priorities accordingly. . . . We have to have a plan, a reasonable, realistic plan that can be achieved--not one that’s pie in the sky--if the Valley is to ever get anything.

*

Q. Given the MTA’s budget problems, what are the prospects that money will actually be set aside for the Valley and that the Valley won’t get pushed toward the bottom of the list of projects?

A: My feeling going in is that there are no sacred cows. You need to reevaluate everything that’s on the agenda and then come up with a new agenda. Or, if you stick with the existing agenda, you find out how to make it work in a reasonable and affordable manner.

*

Q. You’ve talked about seeing things regionally. Where does the Valley rank in terms of need for transit? Does its need outweigh other portions of the county?

A. In many ways, yes. We’ve gotten virtually none of the money. If it wasn’t for Metrolink, we wouldn’t have any rail transportation in the San Fernando Valley. Bus service is certainly not adequate and needs to be improved. I think the Smart Shuttle is something that’s going to assist, but we have to find ways to make mobility work.

I am concerned with regional [aspects], but I’m a Valley representative, and I want to make sure the Valley gets decent consideration. I don’t think we’ve gotten that in the past.

*

Q. The mayor is on the board and appointed you and two others from the city of Los Angeles. How much do you think the mayor himself and the other L.A. representatives are committed to the Valley?

A. The mayor has a commitment to the entire city, but if you look at where the votes came from, the mayor probably wouldn’t be mayor today if it weren’t for the San Fernando Valley and particularly my district.

Certainly the people from East Los Angeles are going to have their priorities, and I’m going to have mine. But we all have to be cognizant of each other’s needs and try to help each other. We do that on the [City] Council: We try to help each other accomplish the things that need to be done for our districts and the city as a whole.

I know that the mayor is concerned for the Valley, and we’re going to make our voice heard. There are 13 members of the board. I’m only one, the mayor [makes] two, but we’ve got a couple of [county] supervisors who represent the San Fernando Valley. One of the things I’m going to try to do is build some consensus with the people who represent all of the Valley or parts of the Valley in their district and [who] are friends we have good relations with on the board.

*

Q. How is your working relationship with the other members of the board who are from other cities in the county?

A. I’ve been the mayor’s alternate on the board for a couple years now. I’ve served with some of these other members on [boards of] other agencies. I have a good relationship with them.

Let’s face it, everybody needs some help sometime. That’s how it works in politics. You can’t alienate yourself. I’m not going to go in and turn everybody’s apple cart upside-down. That’s not the way to obtain consensus or get anything done for your area.

*

Q. How serious is your idea of making the Burbank-Chandler corridor another Metrolink route?

A. It’s very serious. It wasn’t necessarily for the same type of service that Metrolink provides now with heavy rail, but Metrolink is a very efficient operation, whereas the MTA has been an extremely inefficient and ineffective operation.

The type of rail that I envisioned would be along the adopted Burbank-Chandler route, using the existing right of ways--not a subway, but one that would probably be a light rail with some alternative fuel such as clean diesel. . . . Conceivably in areas where it goes through neighborhoods, it could be either deep-trenched, either open or covered. In areas where that was not possible or it became too costly, you could run sound-absorbent walls along the corridors near the homes.

It would basically travel from the North Hollywood station, extend west to Warner Center, and pick up a shuttle or a line between the Chatsworth [Metrolink] station and Warner Center. We also have the right of ways for that. I think these [goals] can be attained a lot more pragmatically with the dollars that are going to be available in the years to come.

*

Q. The SCRRA’s history is heavy rail, the Metrolink commuter train system. What experience have they with light rail?

A. Well, why not [try]? SCRRA is a management organization. It’s an efficient management organization, and what we need is management. That’s what’s wrong with the MTA. We haven’t had any responsible management. . . .

Julian Burke [the interim MTA chief] was brought in for a reason. He’s a hard-nosed businessman, and I think you’re going to see some people go flying out of there, and they should.

The problem with the MTA is nobody knows what the hell they’re doing over there. They don’t know what they’ve got, they don’t know what they’re spending, they don’t know how to award contracts, they don’t know how to make sure the contracts are followed out appropriately. If this took place in the business world, do you know what would happen? I can’t tell you.

*

Q. But this is the very organization whose board you’re now joining.

A. Yes, now I’m part of the problem, right?

*

Q. How will you keep from being part of the problem?

A. I thought about not taking it, to be very honest with you. But it’s a challenge, and the Valley needs a voice. I’ve always been one who tries to find solutions to things that need to be done.

I can’t give any written guarantees, but I’m going to give it my best shot. I’m not going to be afraid to speak up. I’m going to be independent, my own person.

*

Q. Although the mayor appointed you?

A. The mayor knows that I’m independent. Most of the time the mayor and I see eye-to-eye on things, but occasionally we don’t, and we respect each other for it. If he wants somebody who’s going to carry out everything that he demands, he’s picked the wrong guy. We’ll very soon come to a parting of ways, and I’ll leave, and he can appoint somebody else to do that.

I don’t think our goals and aims are that far apart. I’ve agreed with virtually most things he’s done since he’s been in office. We’ve become allies and friends.

But I do intend to speak out and float some of my own ideas, just as I did with the Metrolink proposal.

*

Q. Do you see a conflict of interest in serving on both the SCRRA and MTA boards?

A. No. We have a couple of other MTA board members on the [SCRRA] board. Larry Zarian, who’s a past chairman of the [MTA] board, is a member of the [SCRRA] board.

*

Q. People have talked about forming a separate Valley transit authority. Do you agree with that?

A. I don’t know. I’m willing to listen to it. I’m not willing to throw out anything else, because we’re part of the region, part of the city. If transportation stopped at Mulholland, it would be a different story.

If we’re talking about an additional or auxiliary transportation system within the Valley to augment what we have, I’d be willing to look at it.

*

Q. When would you tell your constituents that the Valley could realistically expect a cross-Valley system of whatever stripe?

A. That’s an impossible question to answer. The only thing I can say is that I will give my best effort to achieve that. To tell them when, how I can do that and be honest about it?

*

Q. The MTA itself certainly gave deadlines for, say, a subway across the Valley.

A. But I’m not the MTA. I may be part of the MTA now, but I don’t give promises lightly.

*

Q. Do you have a ranking of options in your mind for what you’d like to see across the Valley floor?

A. I have some ideas, but I’m going to reserve final judgment. I’m going to try to achieve some consensus with the Valley leadership so that we don’t have this argument all the time and get set back on our funding situations and so forth.

*

Q. Consensus around a Burbank-Chandler alignment?

A. I would think so. That seems to be one that everyone has agreed to, except that the supervisor [Mike Antonovich] still holds out the hope for the [Ventura] freeway median. But I don’t think that’s realistic. I plan to put together a small group of advisors in the Valley who have experience in rail transportation and other transportation matters and meet with them on a regular basis. We have some people who have been doing this a long time.

*

Q. But there’s already a Valley-Wide Transportation Council, isn’t there?

A. I understand, but that’s another entity. I’m talking about something personal. I have no objection to working with them also and listening to what they have to say.