Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Jul 23, 2008 21:05:06 GMT -8
A half-cent, county-wide sales tax is going on the ballot this November. Here is the rundown of how the money would be split: (from the bottleneck blog) $7.9 billion for county-wide bus operations and expansion $6 billion to local cities for transportation needs on per capita basis $4 billion for a Westside subway extension $1.1 billion for Metrolink operations and expansion $1 billion for a mass transit project along the 405 freeway in Sepulveda Pass $971 million for Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or busway $925 million for completion of the Expo Line light rail to Santa Monica $735 million for the extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Claremont $906 million for interchange improvements on the 405, 110, 105 and 91 freeways in the South Bay $780 million for a 710 freeway tunnel under South Pasadena $590 million for 605 freeway interchange improvements $590 million for 710 freeway improvements in south L.A. County $400 million for Alameda Corridor East street crossing separations $250 million for countywide soundwall expansion Complete list here (page 25-27) (PDF)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 23, 2008 21:56:27 GMT -8
A half-cent, county-wide sales tax is going on the ballot this November. Here is the rundown of how the money would be split: (from the bottleneck blog) $7.9 billion for county-wide bus operations and expansion $6 billion to local cities for transportation needs on per capita basis $4 billion for a Westside subway extension $1.1 billion for Metrolink operations and expansion $1 billion for a mass transit project along the 405 freeway in Sepulveda Pass $971 million for Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or busway $925 million for completion of the Expo Line light rail to Santa Monica $735 million for the extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Claremont $906 million for interchange improvements on the 405, 110, 105 and 91 freeways in the South Bay $780 million for a 710 freeway tunnel under South Pasadena $590 million for 605 freeway interchange improvements $590 million for 710 freeway improvements in south L.A. County $400 million for Alameda Corridor East street crossing separations $250 million for countywide soundwall expansion Complete list here(page 25-27): www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/07_July/20080724RBMItem36Rev.pdf Still a long way to go to even get it on the ballot. The Board must approve it tomorrow, which seems likely. However, the State is a wild card. I wouldn't be surprised if they blew the whole thing. These SGV lawmakers won't seem to approve anything unless it is exactly how they wish, while all the rest of us compromise. Look at all they are getting now. The Alameda Corridor East corridor, the 710 extension, and the Gold Line all the way to Montclair not to mention benefits from the local cities match, increased Metrolink, increased bus operations. It still isn' enough for them though, because they want all their benefits first.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 24, 2008 10:15:25 GMT -8
Look at all they are getting now. The Alameda Corridor East corridor, the 710 extension, and the Gold Line all the way to Montclair not to mention benefits from the local cities match, increased Metrolink, increased bus operations. It still isn' enough for them though, because they want all their benefits first. alameda corridor was supposed to happen 15 years ago and its hard to argue that there getting local city matching and bus service, as everyplace in the county will be getting that aswell. the san gabriel valley is a massive place. and it feels its been getting the mta shaft. this region is just looking out for there future and its place on the mta list of projects. i dont agree with killing the measure outright. but as ive said before. mta county wide operation, not city of los angeles, not westside region
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 24, 2008 10:31:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 24, 2008 10:44:20 GMT -8
Despite the fact that ALL of the mass transit projects would benefit the SGV, since they already have 2 Metrolink lines, they want to kill this bill. What does the Westside have? Clogged freeways and not a single alternative - no rail, no Metrolink - nada. The amazing thing to me is that if the SGV kills this sales tax initiative, then the MTA will surely push their precious Golden line back to 2075.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 24, 2008 11:06:48 GMT -8
Despite the fact that ALL of the mass transit projects would benefit the SGV, since they already have 2 Metrolink lines, they want to kill this bill. What does the Westside have? Clogged freeways and not a single alternative - no rail, no Metrolink - nada. The amazing thing to me is that if the SGV kills this sales tax initiative, then the MTA will surely push their precious Golden line back to 2075. the westside killed there own chance at the subway and they can blame themselves for not pushing the political will to have metrolink or other modalities. all they've been doing is making the 405 ever wider
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Jul 24, 2008 12:54:14 GMT -8
Don't you guys think 7.9 Billion for our buses is a bit much? We already have a very extensive bus system and an expanding Metro rapid bus system.
Update: The Metro board approved of the half cent sales tax by 9-2. the "no" votes came from Mike Antonovich and John Fasana. --------------- BTW. I started this thread in the wrong section. Can someone move this discussion to the "Metro" section?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 24, 2008 13:04:01 GMT -8
BTW. I started this thread in the wrong section. Can someone move this discussion to the "Metro" section? ha! that you did, its kinda related to the orange line
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 24, 2008 13:18:34 GMT -8
Don't you guys think 7.9 Billion for our buses is a bit much? We already have a very extensive bus system and an expanding Metro rapid bus system. It does sound like a lot, and getting some bus-only lanes and more rapid lines sure wouldn't hurt. Buses are still the backbone of our transit system, and I think the tax allocation reflects that (even though the BRU says that's not enough ).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 24, 2008 14:21:54 GMT -8
Despite the fact that ALL of the mass transit projects would benefit the SGV, since they already have 2 Metrolink lines, they want to kill this bill. What does the Westside have? Clogged freeways and not a single alternative - no rail, no Metrolink - nada. The amazing thing to me is that if the SGV kills this sales tax initiative, then the MTA will surely push their precious Golden line back to 2075. the westside killed there own chance at the subway and they can blame themselves for not pushing the political will to have metrolink or other modalities. all they've been doing is making the 405 ever wider So if the SGV doesn't get something built like its Gold Line it is somehow the City of Los Angeles and its citizens' fault because the MTA has given it the shaft. However, if no rail lines get built on the Westside and in the City of LA it is their own fault as well but not the people of the SGV who have been given Metrolink and a poorly used Gold Line already??? Also, where do you see a right of way for Metrolink west of downtown? There is none as the area is far too urban and dense. If we want pure geographic equality, lets use job density as well and lets compare where Prop A and C money have gone. Rail is supposed to take people to their jobs and not recognizing that many SGV communities are mere bedroom communities that empty during the day is not picked up by just using population counts. Under the SGV politicians' mandate that the money go to where people live then there would be no service to a place like LAX, because no one lives there. This is just an attempt to get around the fact that the SGV has a pet project that has a very poor ridership projection and falls below the performance of other more worthy projects. Shouldn't we build a transportation system that people actually use? Shouldn't we build a transportation system to serve people to where they actually want to go? I'm not saying the Gold Line should never be built, but to say it has to be at the top of the list is simply not right. Projects should be based on their effectiveness not some politician's district boundary.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 24, 2008 14:37:08 GMT -8
the westside killed there own chance at the subway and they can blame themselves for not pushing the political will to have metrolink or other modalities. all they've been doing is making the 405 ever wider So if the SGV doesn't get something built like its Gold Line it is somehow the City of Los Angeles and its citizens' fault because the MTA has given it the shaft. However, if no rail lines get built on the Westside and in the City of LA it is their own fault as well but not the people of the SGV who have been given Metrolink and a poorly used Gold Line already??? Also, where do you see a right of way for Metrolink west of downtown? There is none as the area is far too urban and dense. If we want pure geographic equality, lets use job density as well and lets compare where Prop A and C money have gone. Rail is supposed to take people to their jobs and not recognizing that many SGV communities are mere bedroom communities that empty during the day is not picked up by just using population counts. Under the SGV politicians' mandate that the money go to where people live then there would be no service to a place like LAX, because no one lives there. This is just an attempt to get around the fact that the SGV has a pet project that has a very poor ridership projection and falls below the performance of other more worthy projects. Shouldn't we build a transportation system that people actually use? Shouldn't we build a transportation system to serve people to where they actually want to go? I'm not saying the Gold Line should never be built, but to say it has to be at the top of the list is simply not right. Projects should be based on their effectiveness not some politician's district boundary. whatev's the SGV has the mta by the balls now and there getting what they want out of the deal.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 24, 2008 16:50:12 GMT -8
So if the SGV doesn't get something built like its Gold Line it is somehow the City of Los Angeles and its citizens' fault because the MTA has given it the shaft. However, if no rail lines get built on the Westside and in the City of LA it is their own fault as well but not the people of the SGV who have been given Metrolink and a poorly used Gold Line already??? Also, where do you see a right of way for Metrolink west of downtown? There is none as the area is far too urban and dense. If we want pure geographic equality, lets use job density as well and lets compare where Prop A and C money have gone. Rail is supposed to take people to their jobs and not recognizing that many SGV communities are mere bedroom communities that empty during the day is not picked up by just using population counts. Under the SGV politicians' mandate that the money go to where people live then there would be no service to a place like LAX, because no one lives there. This is just an attempt to get around the fact that the SGV has a pet project that has a very poor ridership projection and falls below the performance of other more worthy projects. Shouldn't we build a transportation system that people actually use? Shouldn't we build a transportation system to serve people to where they actually want to go? I'm not saying the Gold Line should never be built, but to say it has to be at the top of the list is simply not right. Projects should be based on their effectiveness not some politician's district boundary. whatev's the SGV has the mta by the balls now and there getting what they want out of the deal. If that is the case why did they vote no today?
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Jul 24, 2008 17:16:47 GMT -8
The people the voted "no" were:
John Fasana: Duarte City Council member Mike Antonovich: L.A. county Supervisor ------------------------------------------------------ Gloria Molina originally was going to vote "no" stating that the list of projects were thrown together too quickly and that it wasn't equitable, but she changed her mind and gave a "no comment" -------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Please move this thread to the correct section.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 24, 2008 18:30:49 GMT -8
Gloria Molina originally was going to vote "no" stating that the list of projects were thrown together too quickly and that it wasn't equitable, but she changed her mind and gave a "yes" NO! Molina kept whining about how nobody showed her the list of projects and how she wished she could vote for this package. Maybe the surprisingly-persuasive arguments from Yaroslavsky are what caused her to ABSTAIN instead of voting "no". It was hard to tell if any of the directors were listening to the others at any point during the meeting, though.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 24, 2008 20:29:36 GMT -8
LA Weekly: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 War Over MTA's "Eternity" Tax The "temporary" sales tax would last 30 years. It's already set Eastside against Westside By MAX TAVES AND JILL STEWART LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISORS Gloria Molina and Mike Antonovich don’t often agree, separated by a natural gulf between a liberal Democratic woman and conservative Republican man. But as representatives of the inland reaches of the county, both are pushing hard for their share of a pot of money so vast that it has set off a bitter Eastside versus Westside war. The money that fueled this feud does not even exist yet. Voters would have to approve a new county sales tax on themselves in November to make it happen. But the mere thought of $40 billion — more money than some small nations spend annually — is causing a grab-fest among scores of bureaucrats and elected officials, all of whom have promised their campaign backers, constituents or customers that they’ll reduce congestion — but keep failing to deliver on it. If the new pot does materialize, it will make the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Los Angeles the richest transportation agency in an American city outside of New York and give the MTA’s bureaucrats and politically driven board of directors a new mandate to redesign Los Angeles itself, ushering in more rail lines, heavily concentrated new areas of apartment towers and massive long-term construction projects. Palpable drooling over all that potential money has resulted in a food fight among the adults, involving bitter legislative intrigue in Sacramento, public name-calling among L.A. civic figures and over-the-top hyperbole that could qualify the entire tax-for-transit enterprise as one of those national Boondoggle Awards. Molina is leading the charge in demanding more transit spending for the aging, working-class Eastside suburbs and so-called Gateway Cities she represents. Her demands are infuriating advocates who want rail lines to move commuters between the more monied downtown and Westside. Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, who wants priority given to the Expo Line, between downtown and Culver City, and the Crenshaw line — the “line to nowhere” roughly between El Segundo and the Crenshaw District — says scornfully of the scrappy, longtime Eastside pol, “She is ... a shrill, shrieking shrew, who’s very vindictive.” The truth is, despite the ugly geographic battle, nobody knows which projects would be funded — including voters. The plan is evolving, the fine print is expected to be filled with loopholes, and the MTA is purposefully keeping its cards close to the vest. But Tony Bell, spokesman for Antonovich, clearly does not trust the MTA board — whose president, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is presiding over one of the biggest city deficits in California history — to handle such remarkable sums of money. “If L.A. County is going to raise funds from every part of L.A.,” Bell says, then taxpayers who pay into it “should make sure that money is being spent” to improve their parts of town. That’s not what has happened, ever, in the history of the MTA. In practice, huge sums of transit funds are taken from one group and showered on another. When the MTA funneled billions of dollars out of San Fernando Valley taxpayers’ pockets during the 1990s to build its system on the “other side of the hill,” it left the Valley with just two subway stops. The resulting fury helped drive the Valley secession movement. Critics say the MTA still doesn’t care if one hard-working area of the Los Angeles Basin is squeezed to benefit another. Of the proposed tax, Bell says, “Those regions not in the city of Los Angeles need their voice.” But the problem “goes back to MTA structure, which is very L.A. city-centric” because several of its 13 board members are from Los Angeles and continually vote against the less powerful suburbs. BREWING JUST BELOW THE SURFACE of this war between widely separated areas of the county is a potentially bigger battle: Will L.A. voters agree to raise the sales tax from 8.25 percent to 8.75 percent, making it the highest in California? The measure, if it makes the November ballot, needs a 66 percent “yes” from voters. Opponents are asking why taxpayers should pour $40 billion into public transit systems that have broadly failed to woo people out of their cars and made only small inroads lately, even in the face of rising gas costs. One critic of the tax hike is USC professor of public policy Peter Gordon, who opposed a similar attempt to raise the sales tax in 2004. (It would have given the MTA the power to tax Angelenos an extra half-cent for six and a half years, but it never went before voters. The new effort would allow MTA to tax Angelenos for 30 years.) Gordon riles transit buffs and Los Angeles elected leaders when he points out that although billions of dollars have been spent on transit in big cities since 1990, aside from New York City, these modern systems usually have no effect on traffic congestion. “The fact is that about 1.5 percent of traffic is handled by transit systems,” Gordon says. “If you took New York out of that mix, the figure would plummet. We as a nation are currently below the level of ridership — below it — that was using transit during World War II. We are only now catching up to the ridership levels during that war, which [also] were very low.” He feels “it’s far more accurate to look at this for what it is: a construction-jobs program. Not a congestion-relief program. The $40 billion will not affect congestion. That’s a fact we have been measuring for many years.” He’s not alone in his view that big-city politicians peddle transit projects in large part to please rich developers and labor unions who pour money into politicians’ political fund-raising chests. Gordon’s views are disputed by almost every elected official in L.A. One eager proponent of the transit tax is former Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Feuer, now a state legislator, who agreed to author the law proposing to voters the 30-year sales tax hike. Feuer’s bill faces stiff hurdles in Sacramento, where it must make it through hearings and amendments this month, and is being pilloried by angry Eastside Democratic legislators who think their areas will get screwed, as well as fed-up fiscally conservative Republicans who say Southern Californians are being taxed to the limit. Feuer has begun lowering expectations about what the bill will accomplish. Asked about MTA’s consistent history of billion-dollar mistakes, and what might result if such a troubled agency controls another $40 billion, Feuer says, “I choose to look at the future with optimism, because we don’t have a choice.” He is already warning that many pet projects will not be completed, even with $40 billion. He says the Expo Line and Crenshaw Line will be completed. However, the big political enchilada, the long-fantasized “subway to the sea” from downtown, known as the Purple Line, would stop far short at Westwood because “only” $4 billion would be spent on it. In fact, none of the claims made by Feuer are entirely true. The language of Feuer’s bill, AB 2321, leaves plenty of vagueness that could tempt the MTA to divert funds into operating expenses, overhead, raises, consultants and other money pits — as has happened in nearly identical efforts in other cities. The promises being peddled by Feuer, Villaraigosa and others are eerily reminiscent of those made by politicians in Miami in 2002, when voters agreed to a stiff new tax. Six years later, the city has a disaster on its hands, with little rail line built, gross overspending and infighting. That doesn’t surprise L.A.’s Tom Rubin, who for years was chief financial officer for the Rapid Transit District, which was subsumed by the MTA. Rubin has analyzed MTA’s own data, and according to Rubin, the local sales tax boost here would clearly favor projects with the least effective track record. He found that the transportation agency spends 18 times more to attract a rail passenger than a bus passenger. Local politicians, driven in part by their own egos, insist on far sexier rail projects over bus projects — indeed, many pols in L.A. and nationally tout rail lines as necessary to create the feel of a “world class” city. But, Rubin says, the money should clearly go to new rapid and express bus routes. “This is already the most expensive light-rail project in history,” he says. “At some point, even MTA has to ask, ‘What the heck are we doing?’”
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 25, 2008 6:07:25 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Friday, July 25, 2008MTA votes to seek sales tax hike to fund L.A. County transit, roadsThe board takes a major step toward a series of projects over the next three decades, including the long-awaited subway to the sea. The state Legislature must approve the ballot measure first, though.By Steve Hymon and Dan Weikel Los Angeles Times Staff Writers The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to seek a half-cent-on-the-dollar sales tax increase that could raise $30 billion to $40 billion for transit and highway projects, including the first link of a long-awaited subway to the sea. The 13-member board's action, approving a ballot measure for the Nov. 4 election, is a major step that could lead to construction of several dozen transportation projects in the county over the next three decades. Before the measure can be placed on the ballot, the Legislature must authorize it, which Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says he is confident will happen soon. A bill, AB 2321, by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) is pending in the Senate. "This is a historic moment," Feuer told the MTA board before the vote. "We know our residents are calling on us to seize this moment. This is an opportunity that won't come again, not for a generation." If approved by a required two-thirds majority, Measure R -- for relief, as in traffic relief -- would boost Los Angeles County's sales tax rate to 8.75%, tying it with Alameda County's for the highest in California. Currently, one cent of the county's existing sales tax of 8.25 cents on the dollar goes for transportation projects in perpetuity. Voters approved a half-cent transportation tax in 1980 and another in 1990. The money has helped pay for bus purchases, construction of the Red Line subway and some light rail lines. The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. estimates that the new tax would cost each county resident an average of about $25 a year. The half-cent increase would, for example, translate into an extra $125 in sales taxes on the purchase of a $25,000 car for residents of the county. MTA officials say the measure could raise $30 billion to $40 billion over its 30-year life span, depending on the state of the economy and consumer spending habits. About 65% of the revenue would be used to expand the county's bus and rail systems, while 35% would be earmarked for highways, streets and, potentially, bikeways and sidewalks. The county's rail system comprises Metrolink, the Red and Purple lines subway system and the Blue, Green and Gold light rail lines. The MTA also operates one of the largest public-transit bus systems in the nation. Thirteen mass transit projects and 16 road projects would split the money raised by the tax increase. There would also be about $6 billion to be shared by all the cities in the county for their own projects. "This has the potential to provide funding for much needed transportation projects," said Douglas Failing, director of California Department of Transportation operations in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. "It is a good mix of transit and road projects." Various elected officials, particularly those representing the San Gabriel Valley, have complained, however, that their regions might not get their fair share of projects from the sales tax increase, and they want assurances that a Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Claremont would be funded immediately. In particular, they want the board to give the Gold Line $80 million now so they can begin seeking more than $300 million in federal money. The board declined to do so Thursday. "We've never been a priority for the MTA," said Habib Balian, chief executive of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. Villaraigosa said that Gold Line proponents shouldn't worry and that the extension would be one of the first lines built, along with the Expo Line, which will run from downtown to USC to Culver City. The mayor was ebullient after the 9-2 vote in favor of the measure. "I worked very hard for those nine votes," he said. "I think it's indicative of the desperation that those who use our public transportation systems and highways feel." To head off potential opposition, Villaraigosa persuaded board members to use sales tax money to push back to 2010 an MTA fare increase scheduled for 2009. The deal would also freeze fares for seniors, students, the disabled and Medicare users for five years. Nevertheless, officials of the Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group, vowed to oppose the sales tax increase because they said it would funnel too much money to rail and not enough to buses, the backbone of the county's transit system. County Supervisor and MTA board member Gloria Molina said she could not support the sales tax because she believed the list of projects was thrown together quickly and was not fair to some parts of the county. "I think we are hurting ourselves in the long run," said Molina, who also complained that the Westside was getting a subway whereas the Eastside got a light rail line. On the final vote, she abstained, and Supervisor Mike Antonovich and Duarte City Councilman John Fasana voted "no." For more than two decades, the Los Angeles area has consistently ranked No. 1 in the country for the most time-consuming commutes. Today, studies show that the average motorist in the region is delayed 72 hours a year by traffic congestion -- about double what it was 25 years ago. If nothing is done, regional planners predict, the delay could grow by up to 80% in Los Angeles County by 2030, when the population, now 10 million, is expected to hit 12 million. Rising construction costs and a failure to raise state and federal fuel taxes since the mid-1990s have reduced the ability of state and local government to keep pace with the transportation demands of a growing population. The situation has become particularly acute since 2001. During the last seven years, Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with state legislators, have repeatedly diverted transportation money to help balance deficit-plagued budgets. About $5.8 billion channeled for other uses has yet to be repaid, according to the California Transportation Commission. Transportation "should be funded by the state and federal government -- they have fallen down on the job," said Kenneth Alpern, president of the Transit Coalition, a local mass transit advocacy group. "Despite the morality of who should pay for it, L.A. County must rely on itself and the best thing is it allows us to have control over where money is spent."Others said the spending plan for the sales tax revenue was ill-advised and would not help relieve traffic problems. Ryan Snyder, a transportation planner in Los Angeles, said far more money should be spent on the bus system, which, in a sprawling city, has the flexibility to move a lot more people than fixed rail lines. Brian D. Taylor, a transportation expert at UCLA, said the proposed sales tax increase raises equity questions because the burden would fall disproportionately on the poor and low-wage earners. "By almost any measure of efficiency and equity, sales taxes do poorly compared to other options, such as tolling, raising fuel taxes or floating bonds," Taylor said. "But sales taxes have been proven politically around California and the nation as the most effective way to raise money. Voters always go along with them." "There's no end to their gall when it comes to reaching for taxpayers' wallets," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. He objected to any increase in the sales tax. "We are already the second highest in the state when it comes to county sales taxes. . . . The problem here is that it is terribly regressive and it hits the poor people much harder than the wealthy." The MTA proposal is similar to measures that have been adopted in the last 25 years by surrounding counties. Those counties include Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino, which sought the tax revenue to offset declines in state transportation funding. Orange County's Measure M, which also required a two-thirds majority, was placed on the ballot several times in the late 1980s and early '90s before voters approved it. The tax was renewed by voters last year and is expected to generate $12 billion from 2011 through 2041. dan.weikel@latimes.com and steve.hymon@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 25, 2008 7:54:46 GMT -8
interesting bit in the pdf mentioned earlier
"No California state statute that requires Metro to provide funding from revenues derived from the Sales Tax imposed pursuant to this Ordinance for any projects or programs other than those listed in this Section or provide a level of funding greater than described in this Section, is adopted by the California Legislature in the 2007-2008 legislative session"
did previous measures have this?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 25, 2008 8:56:18 GMT -8
Various elected officials, particularly those representing the San Gabriel Valley, have complained, however, that their regions might not get their fair share of projects from the sales tax increase, and they want assurances that a Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Claremont would be funded immediately. In particular, they want the board to give the Gold Line $80 million now so they can begin seeking more than $300 million in federal money. The board declined to do so Thursday. "We've never been a priority for the MTA," said Habib Balian, chief executive of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. Villaraigosa said that Gold Line proponents shouldn't worry and that the extension would be one of the first lines built, along with the Expo Line, which will run from downtown to USC to Culver City. The mayor was ebullient after the 9-2 vote in favor of the measure. Point: If the board really wanted the tax measure to pass they should have given money to the Gold Line Construction Authority. This would have made the SGV people happy. Not unless the mayor can broker a back room deal! But there should be no back room deals! Everything needs to be in the open! Brian D. Taylor, a transportation expert at UCLA, said the proposed sales tax increase raises equity questions because the burden would fall disproportionately on the poor and low-wage earners. "By almost any measure of efficiency and equity, sales taxes do poorly compared to other options, such as tolling, raising fuel taxes or floating bonds," Taylor said. "But sales taxes have been proven politically around California and the nation as the most effective way to raise money. Voters always go along with them." Point: Where did this moron come from? EVERYBODY in L.A. County pays sales tax from the rich to the poor! So to say that it will fall upon the backs of the poor is just ludicrous!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 25, 2008 10:22:19 GMT -8
$7.9 billion for county-wide bus operations and expansion $6 billion to local cities for transportation needs on per capita basis $4 billion for a Westside subway extension $1.1 billion for Metrolink operations and expansion $1 billion for a mass transit project along the 405 freeway in Sepulveda Pass $971 million for Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or busway $925 million for completion of the Expo Line light rail to Santa Monica $735 million for the extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Claremont $906 million for interchange improvements on the 405, 110, 105 and 91 freeways in the South Bay $780 million for a 710 freeway tunnel under South Pasadena $590 million for 605 freeway interchange improvements $590 million for 710 freeway improvements in south L.A. County $400 million for Alameda Corridor East street crossing separations $250 million for countywide soundwall expansion Complete list here (page 25-27) (PDF) sorry for the lateness on this. but why is the already under construction expo line getting 925 million? for six miles of mostly at grade light rail we are paying 1/4 the cost of a of the westside subway?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 25, 2008 11:55:11 GMT -8
Any money left over goes to the Downtown Connector, and there up to five potential grade separations that are out there to be determined for the second phase of Expo.
What's not included in this equation is the money that was already devoted for Expo Phase I prior to passage of Prop. 1B. When it passed, that money was pulled away and then Prop. 1B money was used for Phase I (it should have gone either for the second phase or for the Gold Line to Azusa!).
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jul 25, 2008 13:32:59 GMT -8
Gotta disagree with Ken on this one.
There is nothing wrong with the citizens of Los Angeles paying for a subway if they want a subway. What was immoral was the citizens of Los Angeles paying for tunnels in Boston.
On another note, when we pass this sales tax increase (and I am hopeful), how do we know the Legislature won't just take an equivalent amount from somewhere else to meet their own priorities ?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 25, 2008 14:31:09 GMT -8
if I had the time and the money, I would hand out little blue and grey hats and musket rifles to all of the westsiders AND eastsiders who are whining, complaining, bitching and moaning (pick a verb) about not getting enough money or the other side getting too much money.
guys, the enemy is not the San Gabriel Valley and it's not all about the subway or the Gold Line
while we're busy fighting each other, the Bus Riders Union, the Howard Jarvis nitwits, the Reason Foundation, all of the bruised and battered road warriors and the libertarian government haters are sharpening their knives and preparing to kill this sales tax measure! they are the enemy!
as far as I can tell, the money looks to be fairly well evenly divided. yeah, a lot of money is going towards buses — well guess what, there's a lot of buses out there. a lot of money is going toward freeway projects and again — those freeway users deserve something.
if you've been paying attention to the state budget battle (and you should) it is clearly obvious that we shouldn't be expecting any gifts from Sacramento any time soon. in fact, we'll be lucky if we don't lose some of what's been promised to us.
so... do we want to bitch about not getting enough money, or do we want to fight for what money we can get?!!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2008 14:33:23 GMT -8
The legislature can't take away this sales tax money if we pass it, because it is local money, although they can take away state allocated resources for transit, which they will likely continue to do.
Anyone know how much Prop 1B money is left? Also, there was to be at least some Prop A and C money allocated over the next 10-15 years to build Expo and Crenshaw (it wasn't a lot, but there was some).
The key to the sales tax and making it useful is getting large federal funding matches for these projects. Hopefully, this one match every 5 year business can end and the feds actually step up and fund transit appropriately.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Jul 25, 2008 16:46:29 GMT -8
Everybody needs to be ready for the libertarian/anti-tax avalanche against this.
That LA Weekly article is only the beginning. Peter Gordon, from USC, is the classic go-to quote guy for claiming everything Metro does is wrong.
Essentially, what the libertarians want, is no public transit system, but they know that won't fly, so they oppose everything and if you push them, they say that the bus system should be privatized (how do you privatize something that's not profitable? Easy, you just make it disappear).
This money is desperately needed and the entire region will benefit. The fact that LA Weekly is claiming to be the voice of the down-trodden SGV is really ridiculous. Especially to, in the same article, bitch about the lack of SGV funding AND then accuse Metro of supporting inefficient projects. There is probably no project less efficient from a ridership perspective than the Gold Line, given its huge length, but you know, that's fine. Not every project is going to be the subway to the sea and carry millions of people right off the bat, some are going to start small and be valuable infrastructure investments for the future that serve specific communities. It's also ridiculous for LA Weekly to claim that metro ridership hasn't increased noticeably during the recent gas crisis.
I agree with the above poster, the SGV is not the enemy, the west side is not the enemy, I live in neither, in fact, where I live would not get a single light rail improvement, but I'm passionately in support of this bill because the city and county need it. It'll improve all our lives and make this city a better place to live, and most importantly, I think the status quo is going to be disastrous.
I'm confident that if there weren't that 2/3rds barrier, we could pass this tax easily. With the barrier though ... I'm not optimistic, but hopefully we'll find a way.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 25, 2008 16:58:58 GMT -8
has anyone here said they wont vote yes on it?
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Jul 25, 2008 17:12:48 GMT -8
Update: SGV ain't happy
"Four Congress members say sales tax, toll lanes are an insult
Four members of the House of Representatives, all representing parts of the San Gabriel Valley, have just issued a press release saying the sales tax hike that Metro wants to take to voters is inequitable. All four -- David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Gary Miller and Hilda Solis -- also say the Gold Line Foothill Extension should receive more money in the sales tax spending plan:
"The Federal government has stood up and done its part to demonstrate support –- our local Congressional delegation has already delivered $27.1 million. If Metro would commit its share, we could fight for an additional $320 million in federal funds. Rather than join us, Metro said no to the San Gabriel Valley."
They also say it's insulting that Metro and Caltrans are going ahead with a plan to convert the El Monte Busway into a toll lane without giving Congress time to learn more details of the program and that the agency has shared too few details of it with the public.
The sales tax spending plan calls for $735 million in revenues to go to the Gold Line Foothill Extension, although more than $200 million of that would be for a rail maintenance facility. Overall, proponents of the sales tax say it could raise $30 billion to $40 billion over the next three decades.
I just spoke with Don Lyster, Solis' chief of staff, and he said that Solis "is exploring actively campaigning against" the sales tax effort.
Of course, it's not actually on the ballot yet, but things just keep getting more interesting.
The whole release is after the jump.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Representatives Hilda L. Solis (CA-32), David Dreier (CA-26), Grace F. Napolitano (CA-38), and Gary G. Miller (CA-42) issued the following statement on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority’s decision yesterday to shortchange the San Gabriel Valley on transportation projects and to implement toll roads on the I-10 and I-110.
“Yesterday was a three strikes kind of day for the San Gabriel Valley at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (Metro) board meeting.
“First, Metro turned its back on the residents of the San Gabriel Valley by refusing to support greater equity in the half cent sales tax proposal. The result? If the sales tax makes it onto the ballot in November and voters choose to support it, they’ll be paying almost $61 more per year and likely getting far less than 50% of their money back in transit and transportation projects.
“Adding insult to inequity, Metro voted a second time to implement toll roads on the I-10 corridor, in conjunction with implementation of toll roads on the I-110. There’s a clear reason why we and several other Members of Congress urged Metro to delay yesterday’s vote on this matter. Many critical details about how this proposal, which will cost more than $130 million to implement, are still missing – such as pricing plans, efforts to mitigate costs on low and moderate income consumers and small businesses, and impacts of congestion transfer. In fact, the document that Metro voted today to execute wasn’t even available for public review before the vote was taken. Yesterday’s vote made it clear – Metro’s just chasing the money at the expense of our residents and commuters.
“If inequity and insult aren’t enough, Metro Board Members said no to a commitment of less than one half of one percent of its capital budget for the only project ready to be built in LA County – the Gold Line Foothill Extension. This project could save our residents money – households that use public transit save an average of $6,251 every year. It could create jobs - every $1 spent on infrastructure results in a gain of $6 in jobs. Construction alone could create at least 2,000 new jobs. It could deliver needed economic development – more than $40 billion by 2030.
“The Federal government has stood up and done its part to demonstrate support – our local Congressional delegation has already delivered $27.19 million. If Metro would commit its share, we could fight for an additional $320 million in Federal funds. Rather than join us, Metro said no to the San Gabriel Valley.
“Residents of the San Gabriel Valley deserve better than what Metro delivered yesterday. It’s time to say no to inequity, no to insult, and yes to economic development in the San Gabriel Valley. It’s time to say no to Metro.”" -----------------------
We really need to make peace, if we can't be on agreement on who gets how much money, then the half-cent sales tax won't get threw.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 25, 2008 19:03:55 GMT -8
has anyone here said they wont vote yes on it? I don't recall anyone saying they won't vote for the sales tax, but when any of us complain about where the money's going, it's like we're doing the anti-tax crowd's job for them. I'm not certain that the project list for the sales tax is perfect, and I'm sure that the MTA could have done more to sooth the hurt feelings of the SGV politicians, but what's important now is making sure this thing gets approved!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 25, 2008 20:23:46 GMT -8
A half-cent, county-wide sales tax is going on the ballot this November. Here is the rundown of how the money would be split: (from the bottleneck blog) ... $735 million for the extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Claremont Am i missing something here? Or did the SGV, in fact, get money for the Gold Line? What more did they want?
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Jul 25, 2008 23:20:52 GMT -8
Essentially, they wanted three things: More Money (despite saying they can get federal money for the Gold Line, they want the entire line paid for by the sales tax). They want the money faster (they want a guarantee that they're first in line because the sales tax money will trickle in over years). And they want a guarantee that if a project disappears or money opens up, that a flat percentage of it equivalent to population goes back to their own projects.
Here's my problem with their approach: They stamped their feet up and down and got a huge money increase for the gold line. Yes, it's not guaranteed first in line, but nothing else is either, and if they really can get federal matching money, then this should be plenty to get the extension started . But more importantly, they're now talking about actively campaigning against the sales tax. That's crazy to me. If the sales tax fails, then they get nothing. If it passes, there's more than half a billion dollars for the gold line, not to mention all that local return and bus money.
Campaigning against it would be the height of irresponsibility for themselves and the region. I sincerely hope they're bluffing and trying to get some sort of last minute compromise. Frankly, if they campaign against it and the bill fails, they can kiss the gold line goodbye. Why on earth would anyone fund such an inefficient line given the coming MTA budget shortfalls and given the SGV's apparent lack of interest in paying for it.
This tax is going to be very, very hard to pass, and I plan as the election gets closer to see if there's anyway I can volunteer my time and money to support it, but every politician in the region needs to recognize that it's this or nothing, and nothing will be a catastrophe.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 26, 2008 3:40:25 GMT -8
Everybody needs to be ready for the libertarian/anti-tax avalanche against this. That LA Weekly article is only the beginning. Peter Gordon, from USC, is the classic go-to quote guy for claiming everything Metro does is wrong. Simon, don't mistake the appearance of a movement with a real movement. The libertarians have no real political constituency. Almost all of their political energy is expended in the Right Wing Information Apparatus (think tanks). That's not to say the sales tax is a sure bet. It's not. However, the opposition is about a meter wide and a centimeter deep.
|
|