With less than three weeks until the Los Angeles election, City Hall budget leaders say Measure HLA, a ballot proposal that would improve hundreds of miles of transportation, will cost the city at least $3.1 billion over the next 10 years. He said it would take a while.

City Administrator Matt Szabo said the projects required as part of the HLA measures proposed on the March 5 vote would create new financial obligations without providing additional transportation funding. He said it would be.

Szabo provided his analysis in a new 12-page written report, which served as an update to a previous lower estimate released last year. Szabo, who appeared before the City Council on Friday, said that if the bill passes, city leaders will have to decide whether to shelve some construction projects because they would require improved bike lanes and sidewalks. He said there is.

If the proposal passes, “we would be required to make offsetting decisions and, in some cases, withhold funding from other projects and priorities, in order to meet the obligations of this measure,” he said. Stated.

Szabo's report is based on the advocacy group that created Measure HLA, a proposal to force city leaders to complete transportation projects set out in the city's Mobility Plan, a planning document approved by the City Council in 2015. sparking an outraged response from the “Street for All”.

In a mass email, Streets for All called the report a “last-minute election ploy.” Michael Schneider, who runs the Yes on HLA campaign, also told the City Council that the city's budget analysts were “playing politics.”

“All we ask is that the CAO stop spending tax money on political activities before the election and let voters decide whether to implement plans to make our streets safer,” he said. Ta.

City Council member Eunice Hernandez, who supports the HLA, expressed his dissatisfaction with the analysis, saying the city has done little to address the rising number of traffic deaths. According to last year's statistics, these deaths now exceed the number of murders.

“This situation in particular is why I voted against the budget,” she said. “When you think about public safety, safe street infrastructure is public safety. But we're here analyzing everything in this report. did not analyze in detail [police] to raise. ”

HLA supporters have spent weeks criticizing Mr. Szabo's previous cost estimates for the response. In a financial impact report he prepared for voters last year, Szabo said HLA could cost more than $2.5 billion.

Supporters of the HLA measure strongly disputed that number, arguing that the ballot measure included more than $1 billion in unnecessary sidewalk repairs. They said Mr Szabo's other cost figures were inflated and said he relied on a “Rolls-Royce” version of the transport project rather than cheaper alternatives.

Szabo defended his office's numbers as “conservative estimates.” He said Friday that his latest report did not take into account rising construction costs that typically occur over time. Had they been included, the cost of transportation improvements would have been more than $4 billion, he said.

The HLA measure mandates the installation of transportation upgrades in corridors targeted for mobility planning improvements. When city crews make repairs on his one-eighth mile of these roads, the roadwork must incorporate mobility plan upgrades planned for that section.

Supporters of Major HLA said it would bring bus and bike lanes to Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley. On the east side, they said the city will add protected bike lanes at Soto Street and Whittier Boulevard. HLA supporters say unprotected bike lanes will be installed on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood.

In his report, Szabo estimated that the bicycle upgrades needed as part of the HLA response would cost about $1.1 billion, and the sidewalk upgrades would cost an additional $2 billion. In addition, community assistance could consume up to $80 million, the report said.

City Councilman Bob Blumenfield took aim at Szabo's findings, saying they incorrectly assumed that construction projects included in the mobility plan needed to be completed by 2035. Ta. He said the report “sets a completely artificial 10-year period and appears to be inflating the plan.” Fee. “

Szabo said the 10-year timetable was chosen because the mobility plan was to be implemented until 2035. If work takes more than 10 years, the total cost of these transportation projects will increase, he said.

Councilman Hugo Sotomartínez, who supports HLA, also criticized the report, calling the city's response to the issue “incredibly politicized.”

“I have a lot of questions, but I'm not going to ask them,” he said at Friday's meeting. “Because in my opinion, I think that would lead to a flawed approach.”

Richard Serrano, a city council candidate in the central San Fernando Valley, took a different view, telling council members that Pacoima already has too much traffic congestion.

“We don't have room for bike lanes where one person can cycle once a day,” he says. “We need mobility and we need cars.”