Earlier this week, Metro asserted that Measure HLA does not apply to Metro projects. While there's some truth that HLA - an L.A. City law - does not apply directly to Metro - an L.A. County agency - the situation is not that simple.
Streetsblog has reviewed some of the documents at the crux of the matter and explains those below, then speculates on what comes next. But this is probably something a judge may need to decide at some point.
What is Measure HLA?
Last March, L.A. City voters approved Measure HLA - called the Healthy Streets Initiative. HLA requires that the city gradually implement bus, walk, and bike facilities already approved in 2015 via the city's Mobility Plan 2035. HLA mandates that many city street projects (mainly repaving 1/8 mile or more) trigger installation of planned bus/bike/walk facilities.
HLA became law in April 2024, then city departments - mainly the Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Services (Streets L.A.) - effectively put Measure HLA on hold, essentially ceasing to repave streets slated for bus/bike/walk improvements. Eleven months after the law took effect, HLA triggered upgrades on just ~400 feet of one street: Reseda Boulevard. [The city Transportation Department (LADOT) claims HLA triggered upgrades on three streets.]
This week, the L.A. City Council instructed city departments to report back on how they could work to save money by requiring Metro (and other third parties) to comply with Measure HLA. That prompted a strong Metro response asserting that "HLA... does not apply to Metro transit projects" and that the city "does not have the authority to require Metro to comply with the [HLA] Ordinance."
What Does Metro Claim?
In its letter, Metro lawyers claim that HLA doesn't apply to Metro, according to the approved Metro-L.A. City Master Cooperative Agreement:
Metro's authority is based on state statutes, and, as such, Metro is legally entitled to construct its projects in public streets without complying with the [Measure HLA] Ordinance. The Master Cooperative Agreement dated March 29 2024, ("MCA") between Metro and the City of Los Angeles (the "City") confirms this fact.
The MCA is a 198-page document, approved by Metro and L.A., which governs how they work together.
Metro enumerates its own authority to construct in the public right-of-way with state-authorized "virtual autonomy in self-governance."
Metros lawyers assert that HLA doesn't apply to Metro, because HLA "only applies to City projects":
The [HLA] Ordinance provides, in part, that "[w]henever the City makes Improvements to a segment of a City-owned Mobility Plan Street, the Mobility Plan streets enhancements... shall be installed..." [bold, italic, and underline all added by Metro]
[HLA] repeatedly mentions the word "City" and does not mention Metro...
Then Metro returns to the Master Cooperative Agreement (MCA), stating that:
...nothing in the [MCA] removes Metro's self-governance authority...
and
The MCA simply does not transform Metro projects into City projects.
Metro then goes on to state that if city insists Metro comply with HLA (in thick legalese: "If the City were to choose to perform any infrastructure improvements or street enhancements incidental to a Metro project") the city would have pay for added costs.
What Does the Actual Master Agreement Text Say?
Since 1991, some version of the MCA has ensured that Metro projects kept up with current L.A. City standards.
The MCA has not typically been used to freeze Metro project designs/scopes, but keep them up to date. For example, phase 1 of the Metro Expo Line (now the E Line) installed the old two-stripe city crosswalk standard (see 2011 street view). Then, after the city adopted a new continental crosswalk standard, Metro's Expo phase 2 installed the new "zebra" crosswalks (see 2016 street view).
In a couple of places, the MCA requires Metro to follow city standards and laws.
To explain this, start with some MCA definitions:
- The MCA (page 38) defines "City Standards" as "design standards and ordinances in effect and made publicly available and applicable to the [Metro project]."
- The MCA (page 36) defines "Applicable Law" as "any statute, law, code, regulation, ordinance, rule, common law, judgment, judicial or administrative order, decree, directive, or other requirement having the force of law or other governmental restriction..." Specifically applicable to Measure HLA, the MCA specifies "...including those resulting from the initiative or referendum process." Further, the MCA notes that law applies "whether taking effect before or after the date of this Agreement."
The MCA (page 19, page 22) requires that Metro project design and construction work "shall be performed in accordance with" (and "subject to") "all... Applicable Law [and] City Standards." There are a handful of caveats, including that the city won't adopt new standards just to affect a Metro project.
Overall, the MCA does not appear to provide Metro cover to opt out of HLA compliance. It appears to do the opposite.
Does HLA Apply Narrowly Only to L.A. City Projects?
Metro asserts that HLA "only applies to City projects."
(The L.A. City Attorney, no fan of HLA, has made a similar assertion. When Streets for All asserted that Metro's Vermont BRT/bus lane project would trigger HLA improvements, the City Attorney issued a terse three paragraph response that boils down to "Measure HLA... does not apply to Metro.")
There is some truth in this assertion. Measure HLA is city law. People can't bring lawsuits against Metro under HLA. It's up to the city to make HLA happen.
The question, and it doesn't appear to be a legal slam dunk (neither for Metro, nor the city, nor for advocates), is what constitutes an L.A. City project? What city work triggers HLA: planning, permitting, designing, contracting, building, inspecting, maintaining, etc.? If Metro (or another third party) pays city workers (staff or contracted) to get a project done - is that a city project? If city plans require Metro (or a third party) to construct a project - say, to widen a street - is that a city project?
The text of Measure HLA says that the law applies when “the City makes Improvements” and to “improvements undertaken by the City.” The city's draft HLA ordinance tries to narrow this (perhaps against the law) to projects “constructed by the city.”
Projects "undertaken by the City" implies that it's not just projects that L.A. City staff directly build, but also city work accomplished by others, like contractors, and probably including Metro project contractors.
What's at Stake for Metro? What's Next?
Metro is looking out for its bottom line. Metro wants to be able to build transportation projects as quickly and inexpensively as possible.
Cities routinely yank Metro around on this. Beverly Hills construction limitations (which Metro agreed to in settling that city's anti-subway lawsuit) resulted in delays costing Metro over $5 million. Gateway Cities along Metro/Caltrans 5 Freeway widening are now insisting Metro pay over $11 million for street repairs (and that's the third tranche of Metro-funded street work to meet those cities' demands). The cities of Burbank, Pasadena, and Los Angeles (in the North San Fernando Valley) have blocked planned Metro Bus Rapid Transit bus-only-lanes.
(Metro has not played the "state-authorized virtual autonomy in self-governance" card for those projects. Maybe it should.)
Metro expects these costs. Metro routinely negotiates providing city "betterments," like road-widening, street resurfacing, new traffic signals, etc. And Metro does a fairly good job at minimizing these betterments, keeping Metro costs down.
When the L.A. City Council instructed departments to figure out how to save money by working with Metro, it's not a surprise that Metro's opening salvo would be asserting that Metro is not going to pay for cost increases.
It's disappointing that Metro would come out so vehemently against bus, bike, and walk improvements - the very upgrades that Metro's own riders really need.
But if Metro insists it can't do any work triggered by HLA (and the city accepts this and continues to permit noncompliant Metro work), that would likely drive up the city's costs. The city gets to fend off lawsuits, many of which likely result in the city having to re-do streets that Metro just worked on. Where Metro builds non-compliant projects, the city won't be able to resurface streets without installing HLA improvements that could have been done more inexpensively during Metro work.
It's in Metro's and the city's best interests to roll up their sleeves and figure out how to work together (like the MCA says) to continue to make city streets safer and more multi-modal.
