One of the most important transportation projects in California, aside from my beloved high speed rail project of course, is the Subway to the Sea. A long-planned effort to build passenger rail to Santa Monica via the Wilshire corridor, it has become a primary goal of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Few areas in North America are as congested as LA’s Westside, and a subway through this region would be a godsend, creating thousands of jobs and reducing dependence on oil while untangling the traffic mess.

But LA County also has several other passenger rail projects they’re considering, and with the passage of Measure R (a tax approved by 2/3rds of voters in the state’s most populous county last November) along with a transit-friendly White House, Metro can actually reasonably expect them to get built.

The question is what gets built and when – and with what federal funds. As with most other transportation projects around the country, Metro’s projects will need federal “new starts” funding. Villaraigosa wants Metro’s board to prioritize the Subway to the Sea and another related project, the “Downtown Connector” (finally linking the Blue and Gold lines, as originally intended).

Villaraigosa’s plans are getting some pushback from local members of Congress. 14 members of Congress, including Adam Schiff, Jane Harman, David Dreier, and Maxine Waters, wrote a letter telling the Metro board that if they follow Villaraigosa’s plan, they risk losing out on federal funding:

The 14 members of Congress who signed a letter released Tuesday said those two programs [Subway to the Sea and Downtown Connector] don’t have a good shot at immediate federal funding.

Further, they said the county risks not getting much from the federal New Starts program for several years unless it adds other regional transit proposals to the application, including the Gold Line extension east from Pasadena, a rail line down Crenshaw Boulevard and the Gold Line Eastside extension Phase 2 from East L.A. to South El Monte or Whittier.

“We are very concerned that Los Angeles County is not positioning itself well to receive its fair share of New Starts funding in the near- and long-term,” the delegation wrote.

The background is that there are three other projects that some Metro board members and legislators want funded: a light rail line down Crenshaw, connecting the Red and Purple lines to the Expo and Green lines; and two extensions of the Gold Line into the suburban San Gabriel Valley.

The battle reflects typical political debates in LA County, with the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector seen as benefiting the wealthy Westside at the expense of the less prosperous and more diverse South LA and San Gabriel Valley communities. And as the legislators’ letter makes clear, it’s inconceivable that Metro could get new starts funding for all 5 projects.

Yonah Freemark, who runs The Transport Politic, one of the best transportation blogs out there, points out that the other 3 projects would serve far fewer riders than the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector, and that from a transportation need perspective, those should be prioritized.

Of course, the US Congress isn’t a place where such sensible considerations rule the day. David Dreier, whose district includes the I-210 corridor along which one of the Gold Line extensions would run, has been particularly adamant about ensuring that project gets support from the Metro board. And South LA representatives understandably want to ensure that their communities get served by transit – as residents there have the greatest dependence on transit, their case is strong.

If it were up to me, I’d back the Subway to the Sea, the Downtown Connector, and the Crenshaw line and tell Dreier to shove it. As the LA Subway Blog notes, the Subway to the Sea will have enormous regional benefits. Just because it is located on the Westside doesn’t mean that’s the only place it will assist – just as the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach doesn’t just benefit people living in San Pedro and Wilmington.

But the real issue here isn’t picking which of the 5 worthy projects gets supported and which doesn’t. Metro would be in better shape if the state of California wasn’t in the process of abandoning its support for mass transit. The state ought to be able to help fund construction of one or two of these projects, leaving the feds more able to support the other three. For example, the state should be able to help start the Crenshaw line and one of the Gold Line extensions, enabling the feds to fund the Subway to the Sea, the Downtown Connector, and the other Gold Line extension.

Southern California was the poster child for the 20th century sprawlconomy, and is now suffering greatly for having clung to that model for too long. Voters there now recognize it is time to change, and have put their money behind the kind of mass transit solutions the region desperately needs. It’s up to the state and federal governments to deliver their share. We’ll see what happens at today’s Metro board meeting.

UPDATE by Robert: The Metro board voted today to recommend the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector for federal new starts funding. The board also passed an amendment by Mark Ridley-Thomas directing Metro to seek all other possible funding (aside from new starts) to build the Crenshaw and Gold Line extension LRT projects.

One of the newer entries into the California right-wing blogosphere is Fox and Hounds Daily, a project of the Small Business Action Committee and its head, Joel Fox. Fox was the longtime head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which helps explain Fox’s absurd anti-tax screed about various local taxes on the LA ballot.

Whenever right-wingers start expressing concern about how taxes will impact working people, those working Californians should immediately be skeptical. Since when have conservatives expressed genuine concern for the needs of the poor, or the shrinking middle class? Conservatives have long used taxes to attain populist credibility with working Californians but a close examination of Fox’s article shows that this is based on a lie. The right-wing anti-tax movement is directly responsible for the dire straits working Californians find themselves in today, and the proposals Fox criticizes would do much to help save them money.

This is the core point that Democrats and progressives need to be repeatedly hitting – taxes save you money. Take for example the proposed LA Metro sales tax that Fox uses as a prime target:

The MTA wants a ½-cent sales tax hike for thirty years to cover various transportation projects. When implemented (if passed), L.A.’s sales tax will be 8.75%. That assumes there will be no state sales tax increase that may come along in a state budget deal. If that happens, along with a successful MTA sales tax increase, Los Angeles residents will be looking at a sales tax over 9%.

Nowhere in the article does Fox mention what the tax would be used for. It’s a typical disinformation move – complain about higher taxes but fail to explain what it would provide. As gas prices soared, working Californians’ wallets were squeezed, perhaps nowhere moreso than in Los Angeles County, which has a growing mass transit system but remains overly reliant on automobiles for commuting.

The LACMTA proposal would address that by providing billions for desperately needed mass transit projects, whether it’s the Subway to the Sea, the Foothill Extension of the Gold Line, or some other project. Mass transit saves people money. Real money. That’s why ridership on the LACMTA’s rail lines soared this year. Southern Californians are desperate for mass transit options so that they can save money. Why does Fox want to deny them that option?

More over the flip…

Small businesses have an especially strong interest in mass transit. Many of their workers have been priced out of the LA city center and have to move to the suburbs. Rising gas prices hit them hard, and that makes it difficult for LA small businesses to retain workers. Of course, when people pay more at the pump, their retail spending drops. Big chains can weather that decline far better than small and medium businesses can.

Of course, Fox is merely advancing an ideological agenda under the cover of defending small business. Otherwise why would he oppose Antonio Villaraigosa’s plan to hire more cops? Small businesses can’t afford to hire their own security the way the big chains can. And small businesses need good schools to provide the trained workers that they need to survive.

It’s not just small businesses that ought to reject Fox’s concern trolling. Working Californians have seen widening inequality over the last 30 years – which just so happens to be the same length of time that anti-tax politics that have dominated our state. They’re suffering largely because they don’t have the same public services that produced the prosperous middle class in the 1950s and 1960s. Tax cuts have meant higher college fees, higher transportation costs, and higher health care costs for fewer services.

The legacy of tax cuts in California is a destructive one. But until Democrats and progressives start explaining that tax cuts actually cost more to small business and working Californians than higher taxes, conservative faux-populism will continue to dominate our state. Fox is overt about his strategy:

But turnout is unlikely to counterbalance the piling on effect taxpayers will feel from all these tax measures. Constant talk of tax increases will blur the different measures in taxpayers’ minds and some, if not all of the measures, could face a voter backlash.

The response, then, is to constantly talk about the savings that these public services will provide – and the costs of not approving these taxes. How much money will Southern Californians have to shell out at the pump over the next ten years without the LACMTA sales tax?

If we are to defeat folks like Fox, we need to provide the answers to those kind of questions.