Katz assesses why the MTA is such a mess.

Don't ask Richard Katz if he wants the job as head of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

He doesn't - at least not permanently. But at the same time, the former state assemblyman from the San Fernando Valley has most of the qualifications MTA board members have identified in their search for a successor to Joseph Drew, who resigned this month.

As former head of the Assembly Transportation Committee, Katz is familiar with the key issues in mass transit and has political connections in both Sacramento and Washington. Moreover, his standing as a political leader gives him a measure of independence and credibility that could help bring unity and focus to a disorganized board.

Katz, whose legislation merged the Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission into the MTA, spoke with the Business Journal last week about the current MTA woes - including its efforts to retain federal mass transit funding. The following excerpts are edited for clarity.

Q: How do you see rail playing a part in mass transit for the county?

A: What would make sense at this point would be to look at the minimum you can build with a subway and view it as a spine. I never liked the idea of a subway. It frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. So, we need to figure out what makes sense to complete - and my guess is probably through North Hollywood. Then, determine what can be built as feeder systems that feed into that spine.

Q: Would you be interested in heading the MTA?

A: I'd have to think long and hard about it. I think I know enough about the agency to know that I don't want the job. It's also something I don't want to have long term.

I think the MTA needs to look at a six-to-nine month period to take a deep breath and reassess where they are. They need to renegotiate the full funding agreement with Washington, settling some of their internal problems, scoring up some short-term victories, and putting it on a sound enough footing so that you can do a credible search for a CEO who will take it into the next century.

Q: Mayor Richard Riordan is the one person who could be a unifying influence. What is your take on the job he has done?

A: In terms of the MTA, the mayor does a good job when he focuses on it. Dick's style through life has been to go through A Problem to B Problem to C Problem - as opposed to creating an overall mission statement for the city's transportation. I think what he likes to do is solve one problem, and then move on to the next one.

That's where government is different than the private sector. In the private sector, you do your deal and move on to a new deal with new players. In government, they tend to all be overlapping with the same folks. I'd like to see Dick use the bully pulpit of the mayor to articulate more on behalf of the city.

That's difficult to do in a city that really has no center. I think he has a tremendous position that he can use there, and I'd like to see him be a more forceful advocate.

Q: How important is it for the MTA'S chief executive officer to understand how politics works in Los Angeles?

A: I'm not sure anybody gets politics in L.A. Part of the problem at the MTA is that the board specifically wants to bring in someone outside of L.A. to lead it. But, this person will ultimately fail in the job simply because they don't comprehend L.A. politics.

Joe Drew could play the inside game, but had no way to generate a public constituency for what he was trying to do. And, when he tried to step in those waters, he got eaten by the sharks. Joe was out of his league. He was a great inside guy, but didn't have the ability to play outside in the public.

If you are going to run that agency, it's got to be someone who understands working with the public...creating a public constituency that forces the board to do what they instinctively are not going to do.

Q: With the way L.A. operates politically, how do you develop a public constituency?

A: Part of the problem is that most of the stuff in this city is driven by personalities. In L.A., politicians can't compete with Michael Ovitz's $90 million firing. The folks who need that kind of personality can't get any traction here because they are lightweight compared to Hollywood. It's a huge problem.

Part of what you have to do is go back and look at today's constituents - who are bus riders - and find a way to do a better job for them. This will build public support for the agency.

There is a constituency you need to have on the side of the transit agency, and the only way to get them on your side is to give them service. This must be done, even if it means slowing down or re-evaluating rail. You need a series of short term victories to show the public that you are willing to work.

Q: How dysfunctional is the MTA board, and can it he salvaged?

A: One thing that is important to remember is what came before the MTA. The LACTC was a disaster, and the RTD was a disaster. There was massive competition with no coordination, which we all forget about when we look at the MTA today.

We keep thinking it can't be worse than it is now with the MTA, but it was pretty bad back then. There was a rivalry with the agencies that continues to a certain point even today. If you walk into that building today, people can tell you that the old RTD folks are on the first three floors and the LACTC people are on the upper floors. They can tell you by looking at the badge numbers who is from which agency. That was something that I never anticipated, and never realized it would go that deep.

Q: What were the first signs that the merger was having problems?

A: I knew we were in trouble after the merger when they wanted two headquarters. The way we designed it originally was with a 13- member policy board with three sub corporations - one for operations, one for construction, and one for planning. There would be a general manager in each one that reports to the CEO. At one point, at the very start of the MTA, the board tried to put a CEO in each one of those (sub-corporations) to report directly to the board bypassing the CEO we originally envisioned to be on top and running things. That's when I knew we were in trouble. We tried to put in a board that was more responsive and more accountable - and it obviously didn't work.

Q: What are federal transportation officials looking for in order to continue funding rail projects?

A: There is some interest and sympathy from Washington. We need to say this to them: 'We might not be able to build every subway that we said would be built when the funding agreement was put together, but we want to put together a plan that works.' What they are looking for is somebody to come up with a plan that makes sense.

I firmly believe that the message from the MTA's meeting with Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena is that they are creating a paper trail so that when the MTA is cut off, they can't say they didn't have their day in court. The Clinton Administration, which has been very generous, is creating a paper trail to justify pulling the plug.

Q: What needs to be done with the structure of the board itself?

A: That's the one thing we keep going back to. I try and separate out ownership from reality, because we looked at boards all around the nation when we put this thing together. There's no guarantee because you can't legislate the personalities of those who serve on the board. The answer might be some sort of a restructuring - maybe less representation from the Los Angeles County supervisors. The reality is that it's an incredibly sad commentary on elected officials in L.A. - none of them seem to have the ability to put their own parochial positions aside to create a regional transit plan.