|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 3, 2011 9:25:57 GMT -8
Measure R is a sales tax increase approved by 2/3 of county voters in 2008 to provide both operating funds and funding for transportation projects throughout Los Angeles County over a 30-year span. The list of projects to be funded is defined within the law itself. (For details, see here.) 30/10 is an initiative that would accelerate all of these projects, so that they could be built in 10 years, rather than 30. It would do this by borrowing the funds from the federal government. (For details, see here.) This thread is for discussing the 30/10 initiative.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 3, 2011 9:33:06 GMT -8
Op-ed piece from Saturday's Los Angeles Times.  Optimism on Villaraigosa's 30/10 initiative
Despite the Democrats' losses in November, the mayor's proposal is to compress a 30-year public transportation expansion into 10 years has wide endorsement.
By Tim Rutten
January 1, 2011Looking to the year ahead, Los Angeles' civic agenda is likely to be dominated by continuing fiscal stress, but nothing City Hall can do for the local economy will have a greater impact than vigorously pushing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 30/10 initiative in the next Congress. The mayor's 30/10 proposal grows out of L.A. County voters' approval of Measure R, which assigns 30 years of revenue from an incremental sales tax increase to finance projects that will dramatically expand public transit, from the Westside to the San Gabriel Valley. Villaraigosa and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have proposed that those guaranteed funds be used to secure enough federal bridge financing to build the enumerated projects in one decade rather than three. The benefits to the economy, the environment and the county's livability are clear and convincing: Expanded transit provides growth while reducing gridlock. It creates good-paying jobs and enhances public health through pollution reduction. Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up » President Obama has referred to 30/10 as a model of local self-reliance and federal encouragement, "a template for the nation." That's why the initiative has been enthusiastically endorsed by his administration, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and key House Democrats with influence on transit funding. Still, there's been a tendency to assume that 30/10 has stalled since the president's party — and that of the mayor — lost its House majority in the next Congress and narrowed its advantage in the Senate. The elections make 30/10's road more difficult but not impossible. Though it's true that Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) lost his seat and the chairmanship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Oregon Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, another strong 30/10 enthusiast, will remain the ranking minority member. Equally important, the incoming Republican chairman, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) is a strong backer of precisely the sort of public-private partnership 30/10 represents. If ever there were a proposal ripe for the bipartisanship Obama says he hopes to cultivate in the next Congress, it is 30/10, which encourages local initiative and allows for further economic stimulus through growth that doesn't add to the federal deficit. Jeff Carr, Villaraigosa's chief of staff, told me this week that Los Angeles is building its renewed push for the initiative around those facts. "There's no question that we're operating in a different environment," he said, "but we're not letting up even slightly on the gas pedal. We're only changing our course." Carr points out that it's important to recall that 30/10 is not "an all-or-nothing proposition" and that already Measure R has generated more than half a billion dollars for the Crenshaw light-rail line and vital federal waivers that will significantly reduce the overall cost of the Wilshire subway extension. Since November, the emphasis has shifted from creation of a federal infrastructure bank to gaining bipartisan support for private sector bonds whose interest rates would be federally subsidized, with the principal to be repaid from Measure R tax revenue. It's a formula already in use for school construction. As MTA board member and mayoral transit advisor Richard Katz told me this week, "We're proposing to put 80% local money on the table and only asking Washington to put up 20% in the form of subsidies, which is a reversal of the usual formula" for transit projects. That alone, he said, "should keep this package in play." Moreover, Katz pointed out, with the new GOP majority at least rhetorically committed to moving away from funding local projects through earmarks, L.A. "is presenting a formula for funding transit projects that doesn't rely" on that unpopular mechanism. Two weeks ago, according to Katz, Mica's staff presented a briefing that laid out 10 things the incoming Transportation Committee chairman would like to see in any federal highway or transit bill. "Two of those," Katz said, "were our transit bond and TIFIA expansion proposals." (TIFIA, or the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, is a now-ubiquitous federal mechanism that provides low-cost financing for large-scale infrastructure projects.) "After the mayor recently testified before Sen. Boxer's committee," Katz added, "the ranking Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe, inserted expanded written remarks into the record supporting our TIFIA expansion concept." For those reasons, Katz said, "we think we still have a very good story to tell." The challenge is to make sure that the right people hear it. timothy.rutten@latimes.com[/size]
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 15, 2011 16:44:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 16, 2011 13:57:16 GMT -8
I love that map, because it shows how far Metro Rail has gotten since I was in high school. Also, because it shows how much further we can go and even, in the areas without blue or red lines, how much more we can do beyond that.
Although, I always have to laugh when a mapmaker puts "Redondo Beach Station" on a Metro Rail line. There's a short little street there called "Redondo Beach Avenue" and that's about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 17, 2011 15:23:24 GMT -8
I always have to laugh when a mapmaker puts "Redondo Beach Station" on a Metro Rail line. There's a short little street there called "Redondo Beach Avenue" and that's about it. It's within the gerrymandered city limits of Redondo Beach, despite being closer to Hermosa Beach pier and a long way from the ocean: www.redondo.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2888(The station is the diagonal line in the map, just south of Marine Ave) |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 8, 2011 16:31:26 GMT -8
So, you guys still confident Congress still has some sanity left in them to approve an Infrastructure bank (and ultimately, 30/10 aka: America Fast Forward)?
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 8, 2011 16:39:58 GMT -8
So, you guys still confident Congress still has some sanity left in them to approve an Infrastructure bank (and ultimately, 30/10 aka: America Fast Forward)? It's in both the House and Senate versions of the Transportation Bill. Upon reconciliation, that'll most likely stay within the final product. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 22, 2011 8:46:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 23, 2011 8:20:57 GMT -8
The LA Weekly has not written a good article in 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 24, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -8
Saw on the local news last night that the Senate was going to introduce legislation to allocate $10 billion to a new "National Infrastructure Bank". This is the path to 30/10 if it actually comes about. The question is whether Senate Republicans will be onboard for this, or whether it goes down like the previous 2 jobs bills proposed.
I have heard that a bi-partisan transportation package might get through, and the Bank mentioned above is certainly along those lines. We should hear something in the next week or two. It wouldn't take a lot of that $10 billion to actually get the regional connector started.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 6, 2012 6:36:53 GMT -8
Can't believe that no one spotted this earlier. I caugth wind of this yesterday, and today it shows up in the LA Times: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-measure-r-20120106,0,3723908.story Looks like we may get a chance to vote on a 10-20 year extension of Measure R. Since congress doesn't seem inclined to provide low interest loans against the Measure R funds (or so called 10-30 plan), by extending the tax for another long period of time, Metro would be able to borrow against the future proceeds to speed up transit construction. Basically, another way to achieve the same goal. All things being equal, my preference would have been to kick up the current tax level a bit for a shorter period to achieve a well defined goal. But, reality being what it is right now, no one is going to buy off an a tax increase, even for say 3-5 years. Extending the current Measure R 0.5% tax could be all that is in the cards. It will be interesting to see if this winds it's way to the ballot box, and I'm sure that part of that will involve spelling out exactly what would be done with the anticipated funds, as well as when they would be built. I'm not surprised that the current trend is showing only $36 billion versus the $40 billion expected, given the recession and all. An improving economy could reverse that of course... RT |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 6, 2012 9:22:46 GMT -8
I think they should remove the sunset provision of Measure R and make it like Prop A & C.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 6, 2012 11:58:57 GMT -8
Can't believe that no one spotted this earlier. I caugth wind of this yesterday, and today it shows up in the LA Times: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-measure-r-20120106,0,3723908.story Looks like we may get a chance to vote on a 10-20 year extension of Measure R. Since congress doesn't seem inclined to provide low interest loans against the Measure R funds (or so called 10-30 plan), by extending the tax for another long period of time, Metro would be able to borrow against the future proceeds to speed up transit construction. Basically, another way to achieve the same goal. All things being equal, my preference would have been to kick up the current tax level a bit for a shorter period to achieve a well defined goal. But, reality being what it is right now, no one is going to buy off an a tax increase, even for say 3-5 years. Extending the current Measure R 0.5% tax could be all that is in the cards. It will be interesting to see if this winds it's way to the ballot box, and I'm sure that part of that will involve spelling out exactly what would be done with the anticipated funds, as well as when they would be built. I'm not surprised that the current trend is showing only $36 billion versus the $40 billion expected, given the recession and all. An improving economy could reverse that of course... RT The other issue about increasing the tax now is that it would likely depress consumer spending somewhat further in a deep recession. And sales taxes are regressive so it would take the biggest tole on those who can least afford it. Whereas if you extend it into the future, there's a good chance the economy will be in better shape than it is now.... Or we'll have run out of oil and be living in caves. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 6, 2012 14:16:19 GMT -8
Or global warming will have caused the polar caps to melt and we'll be rowing down Wilshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 6, 2012 14:40:48 GMT -8
Can't believe that no one spotted this earlier. I caugth wind of this yesterday, and today it shows up in the LA Times: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-measure-r-20120106,0,3723908.story Looks like we may get a chance to vote on a 10-20 year extension of Measure R. Since congress doesn't seem inclined to provide low interest loans against the Measure R funds (or so called 10-30 plan), by extending the tax for another long period of time, Metro would be able to borrow against the future proceeds to speed up transit construction. Basically, another way to achieve the same goal. All things being equal, my preference would have been to kick up the current tax level a bit for a shorter period to achieve a well defined goal. But, reality being what it is right now, no one is going to buy off an a tax increase, even for say 3-5 years. Extending the current Measure R 0.5% tax could be all that is in the cards. It will be interesting to see if this winds it's way to the ballot box, and I'm sure that part of that will involve spelling out exactly what would be done with the anticipated funds, as well as when they would be built. I'm not surprised that the current trend is showing only $36 billion versus the $40 billion expected, given the recession and all. An improving economy could reverse that of course... RT The other issue about increasing the tax now is that it would likely depress consumer spending somewhat further in a deep recession. And sales taxes are regressive so it would take the biggest tole on those who can least afford it. Whereas if you extend it into the future, there's a good chance the economy will be in better shape than it is now.... Or we'll have run out of oil and be living in caves. Keep in mind that there will also be a state proposal to raise income and sales taxes on the November ballot. If passed the sales tax will go up by 0.5% because of this. With so many tax proposals on the table, even an extension is going to be hard to pass. I wish Congress would get on board with 30/10 and we can talk about a Measure R extension 15-20 years down the road when we will have a better idea as to what we really need to fund. I am not too optomistic about what is going to be in the cards on this extension. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 14, 2012 13:46:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 15, 2012 6:46:46 GMT -8
You got that right, this is beyond huge. Here is the LA Times story today: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-transportation-bill-20120315,0,3064171.story It looks like the federal loan program will be greatly expanded, with up to $20 billion in loans available over the next 2 years. LA obviously gets highest priority for the loans because of Measure R, others will be playing catchup WRT getting local taxes in place to cover the loans. They say $3 billion is what the MTA is shooting for. The timeline looks to be as follows: 1. Bill passed by 03-31-12, when the current one expires. 2. A few months for the loan program to be finalized. 3. A few more for the application process by local transit agencies 4. The feds then decide which projects get the loans If this all pans out, it will be a mini 30/10, and around the fall we should have a very clear idea which projects will be expedited. The other upside to all the planning that we have been doing is that we have all the environmental documents behind us, or almost behind us, for the Crenshaw Line, the Subway extension, and the DTC. These are all shovel ready, and there is a very good chance that about one year from now, funding will be in place and all 3 of those projects will have construction timelines laid out with the Crenshaw Line under construction, and the Subway and DC both about to break ground. Now we need Metro and LAWA to step up to the plate and grab some of that money for the LAX people mover. Get that up and running co-incident with the Crenshaw Line as a bonus! RT |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 15, 2012 7:47:26 GMT -8
You got that right, this is beyond huge. Here is the LA Times story today: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-transportation-bill-20120315,0,3064171.story It looks like the federal loan program will be greatly expanded, with up to $20 billion in loans available over the next 2 years. LA obviously gets highest priority for the loans because of Measure R, others will be playing catchup WRT getting local taxes in place to cover the loans. They say $3 billion is what the MTA is shooting for. The timeline looks to be as follows: 1. Bill passed by 03-31-12, when the current one expires. 2. A few months for the loan program to be finalized. 3. A few more for the application process by local transit agencies 4. The feds then decide which projects get the loans If this all pans out, it will be a mini 30/10, and around the fall we should have a very clear idea which projects will be expedited. The other upside to all the planning that we have been doing is that we have all the environmental documents behind us, or almost behind us, for the Crenshaw Line, the Subway extension, and the DTC. These are all shovel ready, and there is a very good chance that about one year from now, funding will be in place and all 3 of those projects will have construction timelines laid out with the Crenshaw Line under construction, and the Subway and DC both about to break ground. Now we need Metro and LAWA to step up to the plate and grab some of that money for the LAX people mover. Get that up and running co-incident with the Crenshaw Line as a bonus! RT Hold your horses peeps. I would love to celebrate too, but the key points are that this was only passed by the Senate. Now the House has to come up with their version and then reconcile with the Senate's. Then, the White House has to pass it. Until all that stuff happens, don't break out the champagne. There's many things we'd love to celebrate, but let's make sure it's 100% until we do. By the way, this is again another reason Antonio Villairaigosa has been one of the greatest mayors in history, especially for Los Angeles. Any other mayor who's changed a federal funding program that benefited cities like this? At a mayor level? I hope Antonio can still serve Los Angeles through a possible Senate or Transportation Secretary position (rumor has it he may replace LaHood next year). Antonio terms out of his mayorship in 2013 and during his tenure he got the federal ban on subway tunneling overturned via the methane gas commission, cicLAvia and environmental studies started for all these projects (anybody remember the "crazy vote" for $10 million that kick-started environmental studies for all these projects and people thought Antonio was crazy back then?). |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 15, 2012 8:18:21 GMT -8
Yeah, I wouldn't get too excited about the Senate transport bill. Word is that it is doubtful that the House will pass any kind of bill other than an extension. We'll see, but remember the House just considered a bill that would have eliminated transit and bike/ped funding from the Highway Trust Fund, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 15, 2012 8:30:22 GMT -8
Antonio as transportation secretary would be the best possible scenario...
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 15, 2012 13:56:47 GMT -8
I think that the House will be forced into passing the Senate version of the bill. A "No" vote will look very bad politically, as will the House passing their own transportation bill. The House loses no matter what they do, but we could win. We shall see.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 15, 2012 17:08:33 GMT -8
I think that the House will be forced into passing the Senate version of the bill. A "No" vote will look very bad politically, as will the House passing their own transportation bill. The House loses no matter what they do, but we could win. We shall see. I hope you are right, but cooperation hasn't been the rule, especially in the House of late. They will have a lot of defectors on the Republican side if they try to go for the Senate bill and that makes the Speaker unpopular with his troops. The last several years, there has been little appetite to go for votes where the vote is mixed between the sides and the Senate bill would have more Dem support than Republican support. Basically, it would require the Speaker to surrender. It would take a lot of public pressure to make that happen and I just don't see that as likely. Hopefully, I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 15, 2012 19:52:24 GMT -8
Hopefully. The way I see it is that the current bill expires on 03-31, about 2 weeks. The bill had bi-partisan support in the Senate because there were no earmarks, it also funds the highway system, and the extra transit money was loans that get paid back. There is not much there to argue with, even for Republicans, as the money spent is necessary and creates jobs. Given that, I think they will go along with the Senate version. The only objection that I can think of is whether the gas taxes being collected pay for the entire package. I don't know the answer to that. If they don't, then I can see why some oppose it on the grounds of being fiscally responsible. If thats the bar though, then you are going to be cutting a lot more than just transportation. Channeling my inner Ron Paul here...  RT |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 16, 2012 8:38:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 26, 2012 17:05:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 26, 2012 17:24:20 GMT -8
We cannot stand for another extension, it is simply absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 27, 2012 10:36:59 GMT -8
It's 11:35am right now, the House is debating a 60-day extension of the transportation bill. It looks like each side will get 20 minutes, with a vote to follow. On C-SPAN TV right now, you can watch it on the web.
HR-4239
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 27, 2012 14:55:58 GMT -8
LOL, they pulled it again right before the vote, and after the 45 minutes of speeches. We are definitely getting closer to the "train wreck". If something doesn't get passed by Saturday, everyone in the country will get a 18.4 cent per gallon cut in the price of gas. We won't need transit anymore then, everyone will shift back to driving cause gas will be so cheap RT |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 27, 2012 15:15:15 GMT -8
A classroom of 3rd graders could do a better job than the House at getting something done.  |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 29, 2012 6:59:30 GMT -8
Well, they are at it once again. The House is now debating the Transportation bill again, with a vote possibly at 8:30am PST. I believe that they now only need 218 votes, and the vote would be for a short term extension. Watching it on C-Span right now. The story I read said that no Democrats were going to vote for the short term extension, and that there was some question whether the Republicans could get the 218 votes needed. If they vote the short term extension, then they need to reconcile the different version with the Senate. I believe the House is supposed to be on holiday starting tomorrow.
I have watched several of the members speeches, and have to say that it is quite interesting/entertaining. Doesn't make me want to get into politiocs though...
RT
P.S. I'll post the results when they have the vote.
|
|
