|
Post by andert on Nov 23, 2013 11:27:30 GMT -8
thesource.metro.net/2013/11/18/metro-staff-report-looks-at-issues-involving-potential-ballot-measure-to-accelerate-and-fund-transportation-projects/Most of you have probably seen the news that Metro wants to float a new ballot initiative to either extend Measure R a la Measure J or propose an entirely new sales tax a la Measure R. I think it would be interesting to discuss what new projects we think should make the cut if it's a new tax, and what, regardless of what we would like, we think are likely to make the cut. Operating under the assumption that the first thing a new tax would do is fully fund the partially-funded Measure R projects (such as full ideal Sepulveda line build-out) on an accelerated schedule, what else will be on the list? Two of the most asked-for projects will indubitably be the Purple Line west to the sea and Crenshaw north to Hollywood, along with the Green Line up Lincoln. The San Gabriel Valley will lobby heavily for the Gold all the way to Ontario, south LA will lobby for a line down vermont, and Glendale and Burbank will want something headed up their way. It's possible the Harbor Subdivision could finally be utilized and connect downtown directly to LAX, and that the Orange line could get extended to Pasadena. (It could also be converted to light rail like many valley residents want, which I know just based from these forums will spark some furious debate). Awhile ago I made a best-case-scenario map of a 2040 LA system based mostly on current LRTP/Measure R concepts. Obviously, all this isn't going to happen, but I think a few of these concepts might be in the new tax if they go that route. Of course, if funding out and accelerating all the measure r projects is part of this possible new tax, then we're not likely to get nearly as many new projects as measure R is giving us, so it could be only a tiny handful, like the purple west, crenshaw north, and vermont, for example. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by skater on Dec 2, 2013 10:37:45 GMT -8
the best case scenario would be to have the tax increased instead of extended, so that the revenue will come in directly instead of having to be borrowed. I think most of the money would got to accelerating current projects, but perhaps someone else on here can clarify this.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 2, 2013 13:02:16 GMT -8
Here's the thing. IF Measure R2/J is put on the ballot next year, it would only be months after Metro will (finally)choose which route the GLEE Phase 2 will take: The 60 Freeway or Washington Blvd. Naturally, i'm sounding like a broken record, but the latter alignment was NEVER a good idea because it doesn't run down the true main artery in the area... Whittier Blvd.
The only sensible option to me is to either choose the 60 Freeway alternative, or choose No-Build.
In either case, rest-assured that Whittier residents who support the Washington blvd alignment would not be happy, and such a decision by Metro might leave a bitter taste in their mouths for a new initiative to increase tax revenue for transit proposed only months later. To me, the only long-term solution to such concerns is to include the Purple Line extension to the Arts District and beyond in the new ballot initiative.
Again, this obviously is all assuming Metro decides to go for next year for the new Measure.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 2, 2013 13:23:24 GMT -8
Metro should put a tax proposal on the 2016 ballot, not 2014. They should also advertise the sales tax measure, similar to Measure R in 2008. There was little to no publication of Measure J; and I think the Metro board took an official "non-advertising" stance in 2012, if I'm not mistaken.
Metro should either put in another .50 sales tax measure or remove the 30 year-term limit of Measure R.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 2, 2013 14:37:51 GMT -8
Metro should put a tax proposal on the 2016 ballot, not 2014. They should also advertise the sales tax measure, similar to Measure R in 2008. There was little to no publication of Measure J; and I think the Metro board took an official "non-advertising" stance in 2012, if I'm not mistaken. Metro should either put in another .50 sales tax measure or remove the 30 year-term limit of Measure R. I think the consensus is for this to go for 2016 not 2014, which makes a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. Both Move LA and Metro staff want 2016 and it seems most politicians do too. 2014 is not good timing for 3 main reasons. One, it would be rushed and I think we need to do a full LRTP to get the proper projects. Two, it has been too soon since the Measure J defeat. Three, a presidential election gives this much more of a chance of success with more younger voters going to the polls. The main reason to go with 2014 is that a fare raise can be avoided before then. By 2016, we'll have to have some sort of fare raise in all likelihood and that is never popular. Also, there is a risk of a transit strike like BART had. While raising another 50 cents on the sales tax immediately would be great for transit, it would make a 2% transportation tax with Measure R and Props A and C. That is a lot to swallow. Also, this would push some cities over 10% in total sales tax including Culver City, Inglewood and Santa Monica to name a few. That is a tough barrier to overcome. I believe an extension is the only way to go, although I wish the extension would eliminate the highway portion of Measure R which is 20% and allocate that for further transit projects. Either way, getting 2/3 is a tough sell. Metro needs some good news like getting Foothill 2 and Expo 2 opened and some improved operations.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 3, 2013 17:56:44 GMT -8
Metro should put a tax proposal on the 2016 ballot, not 2014. They should also advertise the sales tax measure, similar to Measure R in 2008. There was little to no publication of Measure J; and I think the Metro board took an official "non-advertising" stance in 2012, if I'm not mistaken. Metro should either put in another .50 sales tax measure or remove the 30 year-term limit of Measure R. I think the consensus is for this to go for 2016 not 2014, which makes a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. Both Move LA and Metro staff want 2016 and it seems most politicians do too. 2014 is not good timing for 3 main reasons. One, it would be rushed and I think we need to do a full LRTP to get the proper projects. Two, it has been too soon since the Measure J defeat. Three, a presidential election gives this much more of a chance of success with more younger voters going to the polls. The main reason to go with 2014 is that a fare raise can be avoided before then. By 2016, we'll have to have some sort of fare raise in all likelihood and that is never popular. Also, there is a risk of a transit strike like BART had. While raising another 50 cents on the sales tax immediately would be great for transit, it would make a 2% transportation tax with Measure R and Props A and C. That is a lot to swallow. Also, this would push some cities over 10% in total sales tax including Culver City, Inglewood and Santa Monica to name a few. That is a tough barrier to overcome. I believe an extension is the only way to go, although I wish the extension would eliminate the highway portion of Measure R which is 20% and allocate that for further transit projects. Either way, getting 2/3 is a tough sell. Metro needs some good news like getting Foothill 2 and Expo 2 opened and some improved operations. Expo Phase 2 and Foothill Gold Line are two of the biggest reasons for me why 2016 is a better year. You have the easiest "promises made, promise kept" message that will resonate better in key areas where folks vote more fiscally conservative. This is critical to the message you bring up that another 50 cents in some cities will be a lot to swallow, projects that are completed on time and on-budget with good ridership like Expo Line and the Azusa Extension will have from the start is a net positive. Also a new tax will be an easier sell for those same voters if it is packaged like Measure R that shows key project(s) in many sub-regions and addresses opportunities with investments and upgrades to Metrolink, Goods Movements and bike-ped, even complete key project links that are missing from R such as Foothill Gold Line to Claremont, South Bay extension to Torrance and towards Long Beach, the North Crenshaw Corridor to Wilshire Blvd and Hollywood, Rail in the SF Valley and Corridors linking Burbank-Glendale and Pasadena. Show voters what they are getting and show that you're accountable in spending the funds and support will be earned. In my mind, an extension creates confusion that didn't help J despite getting 66.11%, also politically an extension with the proposed legislative adjustments you propose makes Measure R all the more messier politically which would potentially create greater in-fighting that would really harm any chance of getting 2/3. Doing something like eliminating or reprogramming highway funds to go towards Freight rail grade separations and improved arterial streets requires new legislative language,IMO it is better to start from scratch with something like that.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 4, 2013 7:14:05 GMT -8
I'm also thinking 2016. If for no other reason because the state legislature will very likely lower the transit tax voting threshold from 2/3 down to 55%: www.legintent.com/california/ca-senate-bills/california-may-lower-threshold-for-voter-approval-of-local-taxes/So then in 2016, either an extension of R, or an additional tax would be an absolute slam dunk given J almost hit the 2/3 mark. Of course, a lot also depends on the general national and state fiscal situation. No telling what will happen in 2-3 years, but the state budget is sure looking pretty good these days. Once Metro comes up with a list of projects, we will have a better idea of the costs involved. I agree with the poster who said that the 20% allocated to road improvements should be cut back. The current 405 widening has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and I don't see any additional freeway widening projects being seen in a good light. With higher levels of vehicle automation coming, better use of the current lanes will be much more cost effective in the long run than laying more concrete. Once the costs are known, I believe I would be more in favor of an additional tax than an extension of R. R already runs through 2038, and things are hard to predict a few years into the future let alone 25. Pay for it now, over a shorter period, and get the work done. If they can get a public/private partnership to dig two tunnels through the Sepulveda Pass, that would leave more money for the other projects, and also be less disruptive than trying to again widen the 405. If the Express Lanes pilot program is deemed successful in April 2014, they will almost certainly extend it indefinitely. All net revenue from those projects have to be reinvested into the corridor they are in. That will provide some funding going forward, though somewhat minimal ($20 million/year). If they also convert the 405 HOV lanes to HOT lanes like they are considering, that money could be added to the Sepulveda Pass PPP work. The contractor could build the tunnels and charge whatever they want for car tolls. Metro could pony up money for the rail portion and operate the trains as part of the current system, possibly charging more than regular fares. That would allow for future expansion along that heavily congested corridor. I saw in the document referenced earlier that they are looking at eventually going all the way to LAX. RT
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 4, 2013 10:07:33 GMT -8
I'm also thinking 2016. If for no other reason because the state legislature will very likely lower the transit tax voting threshold from 2/3 down to 55%: www.legintent.com/california/ca-senate-bills/california-may-lower-threshold-for-voter-approval-of-local-taxes/So then in 2016, either an extension of R, or an additional tax would be an absolute slam dunk given J almost hit the 2/3 mark. Of course, a lot also depends on the general national and state fiscal situation. No telling what will happen in 2-3 years, but the state budget is sure looking pretty good these days. Once Metro comes up with a list of projects, we will have a better idea of the costs involved. I agree with the poster who said that the 20% allocated to road improvements should be cut back. The current 405 widening has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and I don't see any additional freeway widening projects being seen in a good light. With higher levels of vehicle automation coming, better use of the current lanes will be much more cost effective in the long run than laying more concrete. Once the costs are known, I believe I would be more in favor of an additional tax than an extension of R. R already runs through 2038, and things are hard to predict a few years into the future let alone 25. Pay for it now, over a shorter period, and get the work done. If they can get a public/private partnership to dig two tunnels through the Sepulveda Pass, that would leave more money for the other projects, and also be less disruptive than trying to again widen the 405. If the Express Lanes pilot program is deemed successful in April 2014, they will almost certainly extend it indefinitely. All net revenue from those projects have to be reinvested into the corridor they are in. That will provide some funding going forward, though somewhat minimal ($20 million/year). If they also convert the 405 HOV lanes to HOT lanes like they are considering, that money could be added to the Sepulveda Pass PPP work. The contractor could build the tunnels and charge whatever they want for car tolls. Metro could pony up money for the rail portion and operate the trains as part of the current system, possibly charging more than regular fares. That would allow for future expansion along that heavily congested corridor. I saw in the document referenced earlier that they are looking at eventually going all the way to LAX. RT I'd say it is unlikely that the threshold will be reduced to 55%. It failed miserably in the last legislature. The link you provided had the proposed amendments that ended up going no where in 2013 in the Legislature, but we'll see going forward as 3 years is a long time. I was the one suggesting that the 20% highway contribution on Measure R be eliminated going forward on a new Measure. It is important to note that the 405 project has really nothing to do with Measure R though. It is funded by the Federal Govt. mostly (small state and local contribution too). It is not on the list of Measure R highway projects as it had independent funding. Don't believe they can convert the 405 lanes to HOT lanes as the lanes are already near capacity with just carpools. You should watch the last Transit Coalition monthly meeting (on YouTube), where the Sepulveda Pass PPP was fully discussed. It was a very interesting discussion since most people know very little about this project. Looks like the current plan is to let the PPP build the highway/rail tunnel and a pretty hefty toll would be charged as well as higher than normal fares for the rail line. This may be controversial though as everyone wants a $1.50 rate. However, I'd strongly support this. People don't realize that a fast tunneled rail line from Sylmar to LAX is all but impossible in the next 50 years without a PPP.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 5, 2013 11:10:16 GMT -8
an eleven percent reduction (66.66 to 55%) is pretty huge for legislators to swallow and puts most cities in 'danger' of being able to pass it. If they went piecemeal, and had passed a reduction to 63% last year it probably would not have been opposed, since all the legislators would know it would pretty much only apply to los angeles, it's also not a big enough change to really generate headlines. one or two legislative terms later you can reduce it another 3% to 60% probably, but I imagine you'd have a hard time getting it reduced below that. That would make a big difference and put funding more within reach. It's still a difficult number to hit, but not the virtual impossibility of 66.66.
I love that map, my only quibble would be a pink line from hollywood highland to the purple line at century city (or beverly hills) and connect the crenshaw line straight up la brea to hollywood highland.
I do love the idea of the pink line then extending all the way to venice. but really just providing that SM BLVD connection from hollywood highland to century city would be great.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 5, 2013 11:22:42 GMT -8
an eleven percent reduction (66.66 to 55%) is pretty huge for legislators to swallow and puts most cities in 'danger' of being able to pass it. If they went piecemeal, and had passed a reduction to 63% last year it probably would not have been opposed, since all the legislators would know it would pretty much only apply to los angeles, it's also not a big enough change to really generate headlines. one or two legislative terms later you can reduce it another 3% to 60% probably, but I imagine you'd have a hard time getting it reduced below that. That would make a big difference and put funding more within reach. It's still a difficult number to hit, but not the virtual impossibility of 66.66. Why are we ok with "no" votes counting twice to 1 "yes" vote? Is that real democracy?
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 5, 2013 17:27:01 GMT -8
no it's not, but changing the supermajority requirement is too big a pill to swallow at once. Baby steps might get us closer to equality.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 5, 2013 23:02:22 GMT -8
no it's not, but changing the supermajority requirement is too big a pill to swallow at once. Baby steps might get us closer to equality. Then the 55% is reasonable....but 67% is basically weighting the favor to the minority.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 6, 2013 10:07:27 GMT -8
Again, I have no disagreement, but there is no support for that radical of a change all at once.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 31, 2014 12:05:53 GMT -8
Another year in the books. Pretty amazing we have 5 rail lines under construction now in LA County. Also, the Wilshire Busway broke ground at the beginning of the year and CAHSR will have its groundbreaking ceremony on Jan. 6. For 2015, I don't think we'll see any major openings, as Expo and the Gold Line are expected to open in 2016. The best we can probably hope for is the completion of the Wilshire busway and further construction progress on those 5 lines.
Probably the biggest thing in 2015 will be the list of Measure R+ projects that may come to light to some degree during the year.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 11, 2016 13:44:23 GMT -8
Per the LATimes: www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-transit-projects-20160311-story.htmlTLDR: Vermont subway (Heavy rail?) between Expo and Red line Sepulveda tunnel (rail and freeway toll tunnel) between Expo and Orange Van Nuys line Orange to Sylmar (rail or bus) 9.2 miles West Santa Ana line (rail or bus) 20 miles gold line valley extension to Montclair gold line east side extension(s) Green Line to Torrance 8.5 miles orange line grade separations and signal priority partial orange line to rail funding Lincoln blvd bus lanes Purple line acceleration Large LAX station capable of supporting multiple train lines and the people mover. Crenshaw to Hollywood (via mid city) is on the bubble and may not be included no red line to burbank airport no red line to arts district no subway to the sea
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 11, 2016 17:30:39 GMT -8
Per the LATimes: www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-transit-projects-20160311-story.htmlTLDR: Vermont subway (Heavy rail?) between Expo and Red line Sepulveda tunnel (rail and freeway toll tunnel) between Expo and Orange Van Nuys line Orange to Sylmar (rail or bus) 9.2 miles West Santa Ana line (rail or bus) 20 miles gold line valley extension to Montclair gold line east side extension(s) Green Line to Torrance 8.5 miles orange line grade separations and signal priority partial orange line to rail funding Lincoln blvd bus lanes Purple line acceleration Large LAX station capable of supporting multiple train lines and the people mover. Crenshaw to Hollywood (via mid city) is on the bubble and may not be included no red line to burbank airport no red line to arts district no subway to the sea What they're trying to build looks good to me, although they could throw in the Arts District station (that can't be too expensive, right?). Seems reasonably geographically balanced for votes. My concern is that taxes are just getting too damn high. I wish they could've done that bonding scheme to future revenue, instead. I'll still vote for this one, though.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 13, 2016 5:53:16 GMT -8
I'm excited to see the Vermont subway make this list. I would expect it to have high ridership per mile, especially compared to the suburban lines. It is also encouraging to see the Crenshaw to Hollywood line moving forward, and the Sepulveda pass line. I have doubt about building a new highway tunnel along with the rail line. I hope the federal funding situation will improve so this will be unnecessary.
The new southeast rail line looks to have fairly good ridership compared to existing light rail lines.
The gold line extensions have questionable benefit. I wish Metrolink electrification and frequent service were being considered for these areas instead.
The 1-station extension of the Red Line to the Arts district is cheap enough to that it does not really need to be on the list. But an extension east on Whittier Blvd should be restudied; it would have higher ridership than the gold line extensions and would not cost much more per mile if the alignment were elevated (as planned for the Gold line extension) instead of underground. It couldn't make it all the way east this round, but it would get better ridership in East LA area, and a future extension could be promised if funds allow.
The light rail extension to Torrance and the Orange Line improvements are small benefits but are reasonable projects for the area. The Valley would greatly benefit from electrified Metrolink with 15-minute service. I'm disappointed this hasn't materialized even with the blended service plan for High Speed Rail on parts of the Burbank-LA-Anaheim tracks.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 13, 2016 7:56:42 GMT -8
My guess is the Vermont subway would be light rail. I think the design of the tracks at Vermont and Wilshire preclude a heavy rail connection there - there would be a forced transfer in any case from what I remember. They would then be better off with light rail in order to minimize future construction costs on extensions, eliminate 3rd rail safety issues if they go with a future surface extension south of Expo, and possibly have connections to Expo or Green lines in the future.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 13, 2016 9:05:00 GMT -8
I think metro link increased service and a non subway heavy rail on Whittier would face heavy local opposition because they are viewed as much more disruptive of communities than light rail.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 13, 2016 14:32:22 GMT -8
I think metro link increased service and a non subway heavy rail on Whittier would face heavy local opposition because they are viewed as much more disruptive of communities than light rail. I'm not sure how a non-subway is possible on Whittier Blvd, which is normally 2 lanes + parking, and is much too busy to lose some of those lanes. Are you talking about an Chicago-type El? I had the chance to to briefly chat w/ Joe Vinatieri (Whittier City Council) at a GLEE planning meeting a couple of years ago, and brought up a Metrolink station in Whittier, and his position clearly favored getting the light rail to Whittier over a Metrolink connection. Seeing how Metrolink costs an arm and a leg these days, I think he's right. The GLEE very well might have the same outcome as the GLFE, where an extension further out, past the traffic, encourages people to ride. The present terminus at Atlantic is like Sierra Madre Villa - if you drive or take the bus there, you might as well drive the whole way. Hopefully it can match the speed of the GLFE, which is another reason that the GLFE is getting such good ridership.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 13, 2016 19:34:08 GMT -8
Well and metrolink stations have daily ridership in the hundreds, while a light rail station is an order of magnitude higher, with daily boardings in the thousands. A Whittier metrolink station would be a very poor substitute for light rail service.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 14, 2016 9:02:21 GMT -8
My guess is the Vermont subway would be light rail. I think the design of the tracks at Vermont and Wilshire preclude a heavy rail connection there - there would be a forced transfer in any case from what I remember. They would then be better off with light rail in order to minimize future construction costs on extensions, eliminate 3rd rail safety issues if they go with a future surface extension south of Expo, and possibly have connections to Expo or Green lines in the future. Not necessarily. You could build a new platform nearby to the South, and then link it up to the tunnels North of the existing station: wilshirevermont.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/feasibility-of-a-south-vermont-subway-line/Not sure why it couldn't be logistically possible. I'm not sure how a non-subway is possible on Whittier Blvd, which is normally 2 lanes + parking, and is much too busy to lose some of those lanes. Are you talking about an Chicago-type El? The areas where it's 2 lanes +parking is West of Indiana, around Arizona, and in Old Town Montebello. Everywhere else Whittier Blvd has a median/left-turn lane.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 14, 2016 12:30:37 GMT -8
My guess is the Vermont subway would be light rail. I think the design of the tracks at Vermont and Wilshire preclude a heavy rail connection there - there would be a forced transfer in any case from what I remember. They would then be better off with light rail in order to minimize future construction costs on extensions, eliminate 3rd rail safety issues if they go with a future surface extension south of Expo, and possibly have connections to Expo or Green lines in the future. Not necessarily. You could build a new platform nearby to the South, and then link it up to the tunnels North of the existing station: wilshirevermont.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/feasibility-of-a-south-vermont-subway-line/Not sure why it couldn't be logistically possible. I'm not sure how a non-subway is possible on Whittier Blvd, which is normally 2 lanes + parking, and is much too busy to lose some of those lanes. Are you talking about an Chicago-type El? The areas where it's 2 lanes +parking is West of Indiana, around Arizona, and in Old Town Montebello. Everywhere else Whittier Blvd has a median/left-turn lane. Very nice, I'm wondering if part of the plan for constructing Vermont is to get it to expo so that future extensions can be partially funded by hov fees from the parallel 110 freeway. If it interline with the red line, they could also increase head ways on the red line by running north Hollywood to expo service.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 14, 2016 18:06:50 GMT -8
^ You know, that's a question i've wondered about sometimes. It would make sense to divert some of the fees to at least fund the EIR studying.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 14, 2016 18:29:51 GMT -8
My guess is the Vermont subway would be light rail. I think the design of the tracks at Vermont and Wilshire preclude a heavy rail connection there - there would be a forced transfer in any case from what I remember. They would then be better off with light rail in order to minimize future construction costs on extensions, eliminate 3rd rail safety issues if they go with a future surface extension south of Expo, and possibly have connections to Expo or Green lines in the future. I agree, light rail makes the most sense to me - as long as it's totally grade separated. Although, if the costs are close enough I would choose heavy rail. The only trouble would be the higher cost of future extensions, so again I revert to light rail (grade separated at least to the Green line).
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 18, 2016 10:50:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 18, 2016 11:07:39 GMT -8
Mid-century conversion of the Orange Line bus to rail? I should start my cryogenic freezing now so that I could wake up then. How about a mid-millennium conversion instead?
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 11:35:13 GMT -8
What a crummy birthday present. Seems like nobody else is happy either.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 18, 2016 11:43:36 GMT -8
btw, 35% of the 120 billion would be for rail the same as measure R.
Measure R raised 40 billion and 35% was allocated to rail, 14 billion.
This is three times the size of Measure R, 42 billion for rail.
In the first 15 years of Measure R, for one third the amount of money, we got 5 rail projects.
In the first 15 years of this new measure, with three times the money, we get three rail projects: Gold Foothill 2, Van Nuys, and West Santa Ana. And a Busway rather than subway for Vermont.
Have expenses really gone up that massively that we spend three times as much and get two thirds the result?
They absolutely have not. Inflation is at an all time low and construction costs are relatively low given the contraction of the great recession.
Completely awful, nothing but a play for 30 billion in graft. Downright Russian, all things considered.
three times the money for two thirds the outcome. just infuriating.
And as an additional insult, we're going to fleece tax payers of 120 billion to build lexus lanes and gift toll roads to private corporations. Build everything with public money and then only allow the wealthy to use our collective infrastructure. The sheer amount of P3 nonsense is vile in this measure.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 18, 2016 13:59:55 GMT -8
The Van Nuys Blvd (East SF corridor) and GL Claremont look like the winners, as it looks to me like there's enough money for light rail for both projects to start soon. The Sepulveda Pass (all the way to LAX) is insanely expensive - I'm reading it as over $6.5 billion.
|
|