[Editor’s Note” Second of three parts. See “Cunningham, the Optimist on How and Why Metro Board Got the
Vote Right,” Dec. 4.]
Seeking to deflect credit that has been sprayed on him by appreciative colleagues since last Thursday’s Metro Board vote on funding for an elevated light rail station, Culver City Transportation Director Steve Cunningham said this week the bouquets should be shared.
“This vote became an opportunity for the Metro Board to show they could get something right,” he said.
“A lot of people, through very many levels, whether it was the Expo Construction Authority staff or Metro staff, saw this was something that really did make sense to get done. People from a lot of different angles pulled this together.”
[img]44|left|Steve Cunningham||no_popup[/img]Q. What reversed the tide against funding an aerial light rail station in the 100 days between a Culver City meeting with Metro CEO Roger Snoble when he said “no” to funding and last week’s vote?
“I could not point my finger to any particular person,” he said. “I am not going to sit here and say ‘I deserve credit.’”
Q. But you have done a great deal of lobbying.
“I have certainly had a lot of conversations. I know Rick Thorpe (head of the Expo Construction Authority) believed the right thing to do was to build the aerial station as part of Phase I of the Expo light rail line. I know people in the Metro staff — it’s a very large staff — who came to believe the aerial station was the right thing to do.
“Roger also knew it was the right thing to do. He was just kind of frustrated.
“As you can imagine, he heads an organization that has a lot of responsibility and is a tremendous pull for whatever dollars come into this region toward projects from one end of L.A. County to the other. He has to balance one need vs. that much broader need. He has to figure out where in the funding flow to put those dollars. The fact that Prop. 1B (multi-billion dollar source of the funding) was voted in, the fact those funds are coming and the fact those funds only can be used for capital projects, for building things, for buying things, that helped us.
“The plan was aligned at the right time and right place. We had the right opportunity. They really only had one chance to finish this off.”
Q. Would it be accurate to say cumulative lobbying finally overwhelmed the Metro Board’s sense of right and wrong?
“Cumulative lobbying was the backbone to where we are today,” Mr. Cunningham said. “A significant amount of Board members probably wanted to see this get done, too. We are talking $50 million. We tend to get insulated inside the significance of dollars. L.A. County deals in billions of dollars. Fifty million may not sound like much. But $50 million is a heckuva lot of money. We had to do a lot of convincing, and the Metro Board had to be able to politically support the fact this was the best place spend it.
“And so cumulative lobbying, over many years by many people, our City Council, the staffs, all deserve credit. We have said from the beginning that this was our priority.”
Q. If you had one moment before the Metro Board to persuade them, what would you say?
“First, we have a responsibility to build projects that are attractive to the public, and that work for the public. If we build projects that are not convenient and easy for the people to use — this is Los Angeles — they will not use them. Incorporating an aerial station into a place where parking will be close-by and convenient, at the same time reducing the impact on traffic, is simply the right decision.”
Q. When you heard the news a few weeks ago that Metro was unable to fund the last lap of the light rail line into Culver City, much less an aerial station, did you read it as a delay or a tiny wrinkle?
“The latter,” he said. “My inclination was always that they would find a way to get it built to Culver City. There may have been reason to despair because those are big numbers. They could have stopped the project at La Cienega or La Brea until more money was available. That was a real concern.
“But then you have got another one of those projects to nowhere.
“Keep in mind, the real goal is to get this line built to Santa Monica. There will be a heavy lobbying push on the federal level to pay for that. It makes it awfully difficult to go to the feds and say ‘We want money to build the line to Santa Monica’ when they can’t even get it built to Culver City as part of Phase I.
“There was a lot of underlying pressure to make sure it came together.”
Q. The Expo line is scheduled to reach Santa Monica by 2015. Are you betting it will happen?
“I learned long ago not to bet. I think it will happen. A lot will depend on the new federal Transportation Authorization bill that is due in 2009, and how that bill is funded. Many projects across the United States are competing for dollars. When the project does get funds, the question is, will it be enough? We are looking at about $1 billion to get from Culver City to Santa Monica. The region would look for $500 million or $600 million of that to be federally funded.”
Q. Does the fact that Santa Monica is one of the most attractive and influential communities in the state enhance its chances?
“The cachet of Santa Monica is not what will get it built. I think it is the parallel of I 10, from literally downtown Los Angeles to the coast, that will get it built.
“The dynamics of this corridor, the heavy job-laden commute of this corridor, will get it built. It just so happens Santa Monica is the end point.”
To be continued
