|
|
Post by johanragle on May 7, 2015 16:05:53 GMT -8
thesource.metro.net/2015/05/07/update-metro-continues-to-explore-2016-ballot-measure/ By Steve Hymon on May 7, 2015 • ( Leave a comment ) As many of you know, Metro is updating its long-range plan and has been exploring the possibility of a ballot measure in November 2016 to raise more money for transportation projects and services in Los Angeles County. Before this post goes any further, I want to make it abundantly clear that no decision has been made yet about going forward with a ballot measure. That said, Metro has been looking into the possibility of a new half-cent sales tax and/or the possibility of extending Measure R beyond its expiration date in 2039. The proposals are designed to raise enough money to deliver major projects and provide funds for projects involving transit, highways, local streets, walking and biking and other transportation improvements. Part of the ongoing planning has also involved asking the 88 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to prioritize transportation projects that they want funded. In response, the nine Council of Governments (COGs) that represent cities and unincorporated areas in the county submitted an initial list of about 2,300 projects. That number is indicative of the great need for transportation improvements in the county. In addition, Metro conducted a general public survey of county residents to determine if a new ballot measure has a chance of getting the two-thirds approval necessary to pass. That’s a big consideration. Ballot measures take time, effort and money. There’s not much point in pursuing something that has slim chances of passing. The survey results were cautiously optimistic with more than two-thirds of those interviewed saying they would support a ballot measure with a new tax and a possible extension of Measure R. The survey also involved asking respondents about particular projects, some of which are already in Metro’s long-range plan. This doesn’t mean that any particular project or service will be in an updated long-range plan or ballot measure. That will be determined later. The survey was done to provide some initial feedback for Metro’s potential long-range plan update. Yes, I’m using a lot of conditional language. The reason I’m tip-toeing: the decisions to update the long-range plan and to go forward on a ballot measure will ultimately be made by the 13 members of the Metro Board of Directors, the elected officials and their appointees who have the final say on decisions involving Metro. To this point, the Board has been supportive of studying the long-range plan update and ballot measure. That’s not the same as actually pulling the trigger on it. Ballot measures, in particular, are always challenging with their fate often tied to voter turnout, the economy, local politics, voter perception of Metro and other variables. Metro still must perform a considerable amount of outreach to the COGs and other stakeholders about the potential ballot measure and what could be in it. Metro is also pursuing state legislation that would allow the agency to put a ballot measure before voters next year. Here are the documents Metro sent to the COGs and Board staff last week: www.scribd.com/doc/264560903/Metro-General-Survey-Results-Presentationwww.scribd.com/doc/264561173/Ballot-Measure-Resources-Memo-to-COGswww.scribd.com/doc/264570502/Potential-long-range-plan-ballot-measure-update-for-COGS
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 7, 2015 16:31:23 GMT -8
thesource.metro.net/2015/05/07/update-metro-continues-to-explore-2016-ballot-measure/ By Steve Hymon on May 7, 2015 • ( Leave a comment ) As many of you know, Metro is updating its long-range plan and has been exploring the possibility of a ballot measure in November 2016 to raise more money for transportation projects and services in Los Angeles County. Before this post goes any further, I want to make it abundantly clear that no decision has been made yet about going forward with a ballot measure. That said, Metro has been looking into the possibility of a new half-cent sales tax and/or the possibility of extending Measure R beyond its expiration date in 2039. The proposals are designed to raise enough money to deliver major projects and provide funds for projects involving transit, highways, local streets, walking and biking and other transportation improvements. Part of the ongoing planning has also involved asking the 88 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to prioritize transportation projects that they want funded. In response, the nine Council of Governments (COGs) that represent cities and unincorporated areas in the county submitted an initial list of about 2,300 projects. That number is indicative of the great need for transportation improvements in the county. In addition, Metro conducted a general public survey of county residents to determine if a new ballot measure has a chance of getting the two-thirds approval necessary to pass. That’s a big consideration. Ballot measures take time, effort and money. There’s not much point in pursuing something that has slim chances of passing. The survey results were cautiously optimistic with more than two-thirds of those interviewed saying they would support a ballot measure with a new tax and a possible extension of Measure R. The survey also involved asking respondents about particular projects, some of which are already in Metro’s long-range plan. This doesn’t mean that any particular project or service will be in an updated long-range plan or ballot measure. That will be determined later. The survey was done to provide some initial feedback for Metro’s potential long-range plan update. Yes, I’m using a lot of conditional language. The reason I’m tip-toeing: the decisions to update the long-range plan and to go forward on a ballot measure will ultimately be made by the 13 members of the Metro Board of Directors, the elected officials and their appointees who have the final say on decisions involving Metro. To this point, the Board has been supportive of studying the long-range plan update and ballot measure. That’s not the same as actually pulling the trigger on it. Ballot measures, in particular, are always challenging with their fate often tied to voter turnout, the economy, local politics, voter perception of Metro and other variables. Metro still must perform a considerable amount of outreach to the COGs and other stakeholders about the potential ballot measure and what could be in it. Metro is also pursuing state legislation that would allow the agency to put a ballot measure before voters next year. Here are the documents Metro sent to the COGs and Board staff last week: www.scribd.com/doc/264560903/Metro-General-Survey-Results-Presentationwww.scribd.com/doc/264561173/Ballot-Measure-Resources-Memo-to-COGswww.scribd.com/doc/264570502/Potential-long-range-plan-ballot-measure-update-for-COGS Interesting summary if you look at the detail. Unfortunately, public transit scored pretty low. People are more interested in spending money on freeways and road repair. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 7, 2015 21:45:53 GMT -8
thesource.metro.net/2015/05/07/update-metro-continues-to-explore-2016-ballot-measure/ By Steve Hymon on May 7, 2015 • ( Leave a comment ) As many of you know, Metro is updating its long-range plan and has been exploring the possibility of a ballot measure in November 2016 to raise more money for transportation projects and services in Los Angeles County. Before this post goes any further, I want to make it abundantly clear that no decision has been made yet about going forward with a ballot measure. That said, Metro has been looking into the possibility of a new half-cent sales tax and/or the possibility of extending Measure R beyond its expiration date in 2039. The proposals are designed to raise enough money to deliver major projects and provide funds for projects involving transit, highways, local streets, walking and biking and other transportation improvements. Part of the ongoing planning has also involved asking the 88 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to prioritize transportation projects that they want funded. In response, the nine Council of Governments (COGs) that represent cities and unincorporated areas in the county submitted an initial list of about 2,300 projects. That number is indicative of the great need for transportation improvements in the county. In addition, Metro conducted a general public survey of county residents to determine if a new ballot measure has a chance of getting the two-thirds approval necessary to pass. That’s a big consideration. Ballot measures take time, effort and money. There’s not much point in pursuing something that has slim chances of passing. The survey results were cautiously optimistic with more than two-thirds of those interviewed saying they would support a ballot measure with a new tax and a possible extension of Measure R. The survey also involved asking respondents about particular projects, some of which are already in Metro’s long-range plan. This doesn’t mean that any particular project or service will be in an updated long-range plan or ballot measure. That will be determined later. The survey was done to provide some initial feedback for Metro’s potential long-range plan update. Yes, I’m using a lot of conditional language. The reason I’m tip-toeing: the decisions to update the long-range plan and to go forward on a ballot measure will ultimately be made by the 13 members of the Metro Board of Directors, the elected officials and their appointees who have the final say on decisions involving Metro. To this point, the Board has been supportive of studying the long-range plan update and ballot measure. That’s not the same as actually pulling the trigger on it. Ballot measures, in particular, are always challenging with their fate often tied to voter turnout, the economy, local politics, voter perception of Metro and other variables. Metro still must perform a considerable amount of outreach to the COGs and other stakeholders about the potential ballot measure and what could be in it. Metro is also pursuing state legislation that would allow the agency to put a ballot measure before voters next year. Here are the documents Metro sent to the COGs and Board staff last week: www.scribd.com/doc/264560903/Metro-General-Survey-Results-Presentationwww.scribd.com/doc/264561173/Ballot-Measure-Resources-Memo-to-COGswww.scribd.com/doc/264570502/Potential-long-range-plan-ballot-measure-update-for-COGS Interesting summary if you look at the detail. Unfortunately, public transit scored pretty low. People are more interested in spending money on freeways and road repair. Well it makes sense, considering 75-90 percent don't use transit, and even transit users benefit from better roads and freeways |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 8, 2015 17:29:35 GMT -8
I read through the scribd article this sounds like a mind blowing amazing pair of initiatives, inclusive of a lot of direly needed freeway improvements, increased bus headways and all of the big ticket wishlist rail items. Let's go LA recently made me aware of how enormous a payoff can be had in improving freeway on and off ramps, and that, rather than lanes, comprises a major part of the freeway component.
The rail line proposed are the Sepulveda subway. The subway to the sea. Crenshaw to Hollywood highland via weho. Santa ana. Cross valley rail to gold line. All three gold line extensions. Van nuys. Convert orange line.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 8, 2015 21:31:03 GMT -8
I read through the scribd article this sounds like a mind blowing amazing pair of initiatives, inclusive of a lot of direly needed freeway improvements, increased bus headways and all of the big ticket wishlist rail items. Let's go LA recently made me aware of how enormous a payoff can be had in improving freeway on and off ramps, and that, rather than lanes, comprises a major part of the freeway component. The rail line proposed are the Sepulveda subway. The subway to the sea. Crenshaw to Hollywood highland via weho. Santa ana. Cross valley rail to gold line. All three gold line extensions. Van nuys. Convert orange line. Don't get excited as no way do all those projects make it to the final measure. They had a list of $275B worth of projects. They will have to cut out about 80% of that. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 8, 2015 23:36:41 GMT -8
Still subway to the sea, Crenshaw to Hollywood, Sepulveda pass, cross valley rail, and two gold line extensions are a given. Combined with r they can fund those. And all the freeway improvements are nice too.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on May 14, 2015 10:50:10 GMT -8
la.streetsblog.org/2015/05/14/coalition-calls-for-10-percent-of-sales-tax-to-go-to-walk-bike/ Coalition Calls For 10 Percent of Future L.A. Sales Tax To Go To Walk-Bike by Joe Linton Other California county transportation sales tax measures set aside funding for walking and bicycling - why not Los Angeles? Image via white paper [PDF]  There is a new twist in the path to a 2016 Los Angeles County transportation sales tax measure, tentatively being called “Measure R2.” Investing in Place just announced that a coalition of more than thirty community groups has come together to urge that “at least ten percent of the next Los Angeles County transportation sales tax measure be dedicated for walking, bicycling, and safe routes to school investments.” In addition, the coalition is insisting that twenty percent of the “local return” be set aside for active transportation. The sales tax “local return” goes to individual cities on a per capita basis to pay for transportation expenditures. Though a number of cities, notably the City of Los Angeles, have used some local return monies for walk and bike projects and programs, most cities throughout L.A. County have not. Readers may be familiar with the proposed Measure R2, but if not, see these recent SBLA articles about what it tentatively looks like and what decisions are being made now. Though a very small amount of 2008’s successful transportation sales tax Measure R funding has gone to bike and pedestrian projects, there was no dedicated active transportation funding in either Measure R in 2008 nor the defeated transportation sales tax Measure J in 2012. The coalition (a listing of groups is shown after the jump) was shepherded under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Active Transportation Collaborative, the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, and Investing in Place. They researched other transportation ballot measures in California, finding many examples of successful set-asides for active transportation, prominently last year’s Measure BB in Alameda County, with twelve percent of overall funding dedicated to walking and bicycling. Read the coalition research in this January 2015 white paper: Best Practices for Funding Active Transportation with County Transportation Sales Taxes [PDF]. More about the coalition and its demands here. While we won’t know the final ballot language for a 2016 measure until next year, Metro was promising tht it would have a draft proposal this summer. However, Investing in Place is also reporting that the Measure R2 schedule is being delayed about two months: the final expenditure plan was due in July, now it looks like September. Groups represented in the coalition effort, per Investing in Place: AARP California Advancement Project / Healthy City Advocacy Advance / Alliance for Biking & Walking Advocacy Advance / Toole Design Group Amigos de los Rios Bike East Bay Bike San Gabriel Valley California Walks Climate Resolve Day One Community Health Councils Estolano LeSar Perez Advisors Ghost Bikes / Empact Long Beach Investing in Place L.A. River Revitalization Corporation L.A. THRIVES / Low Income Investment Fund Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action Los Angeles Walks Move L.A. National Health Foundation Natural Resources Defense Council Urban Solutions Pacoima Beautiful Pomona Valley Bicycle Coalition (LACBC Chapter) Proyecto Pastoral San Gabriel Valley COG Santa Clarita Valley Bicycle Coalition (LACBC Chapter) Santa Monica Spoke (LACBC Chapter) South Bay Cities COG The Trust for Public Land Walk Bike Glendale (LACBC Chapter) West Hollywood Bicycle Coalition (LACBC Chapter)
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 27, 2016 11:11:00 GMT -8
Very tough front page article for Metro on today's LA Times and any entity trying to invest in public transit locally. This is why I think a Measure R2 is an almost impossible sell, especially with so many other competing tax increases on the ballot. Hopefully, I am wrong and things really turn around this year.
Bottom line is people will use the system if they feel safe, it goes to where they want to go and is reasonably fast. They don't want to sit on a train at a place like Farmdale while cars go whizzing past and people on the train are tossing trash all over the place and trying to hawk candy like on some third world bus.
Also, we have failed so far to make the rail network a major part of the LA lifestyle. You go to other cities like the Bay Area and they have on the traffic reports, the report on whether trains are running on time and so forth. Here nothing. It mostly seems like we have just built a slightly better bus with our rail system and that is how we treat it. Also, our parking codes mandate massive parking for all new buildings even around transit stations. Once people have to pay for a parking spot as a sunk cost, they are just going to use their car and that is what seems to be happening. One final point is that we don't have an integrated system at all. Outlying counties like Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino have terrible transit and Metrolink doesn't interact with our rail system except at Union Station, which is an embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jan 28, 2016 14:38:58 GMT -8
The separation between the El Monte bus station and Metrolink station is a huge embarrassment, as is the big gap between the end of the Green Line in Norwalk, and Norwalk Metrolink.
I'd bet anything that if the Green Line connected at Norwalk you'd see a large uptick in OC commuters transferring to the Green Line - it would be a lot faster (and cheaper!) than riding all the way to Union Station and doubling back on the Red/Purple and Blue Lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 28, 2016 14:54:36 GMT -8
The separation between the El Monte bus station and Metrolink station is a huge embarrassment, as is the big gap between the end of the Green Line in Norwalk, and Norwalk Metrolink. I'd bet anything that if the Green Line connected at Norwalk you'd see a large uptick in OC commuters transferring to the Green Line - it would be a lot faster (and cheaper!) than riding all the way to Union Station and doubling back on the Red/Purple and Blue Lines. I think with the People Mover at LAX, there will be more of a call to connect the Green Line to the Metrolink Station and even more so if High Speed Rail ever comes to fruition so it will happen eventually IMHO. Better to do now though. One good aspect about the potential Foothill Extension to Claremont is that it can connect to the SB Metrolink Line in Claremont. That will probably happen before the Green Line and will be our first non Union Station connection for Metrolink, which is amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jan 28, 2016 15:44:08 GMT -8
I think with the People Mover at LAX, there will be more of a call to connect the Green Line to the Metrolink Station and even more so if High Speed Rail ever comes to fruition so it will happen eventually IMHO. Better to do now though. One good aspect about the potential Foothill Extension to Claremont is that it can connect to the SB Metrolink Line in Claremont. That will probably happen before the Green Line and will be our first non Union Station connection for Metrolink, which is amazing. If they can get SANBAG to cooperate and allow extension of the line to Montclair, that would be even more amazing since the Metrolink's SB Express now makes a stop there, and it's a major transfer point to Foothill Transit, Omnitrans, and RTA. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 28, 2016 17:47:15 GMT -8
These are the "gaps" in the system in order of priority according to me...  1. Downtown LA gap (regional connector - under construction) 2. Wilshire Blvd bus lanes gaps in Beverly Hills (when hell freezes over), Westwood (maybe in a few more years), and Santa Monica (it's unbelievable this didn't happen already) 3. Mid city gap (Crenshaw between Expo and Purple line - no funding, probably won't be included in R3) 4. Norwalk gap (Green line to Metrolink - no funding but maybe R3 will address this) 5. El Monte gap (El Monte busway to Metrolink - no funding likely, ever) These are the "spurs" that would make the system more functional, again according to me 1. Purple line to Santa Monica (no funding but maybe R3?) 2. Red/Purple line to Arts District (it will happen once Purple line extension opens - just need some pocket change for platforms) |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 28, 2016 21:36:17 GMT -8
These are the "gaps" in the system in order of priority according to me... 1. Downtown LA gap (regional connector - under construction) 2. Wilshire Blvd bus lanes gaps in Beverly Hills (when hell freezes over), Westwood (maybe in a few more years), and Santa Monica (it's unbelievable this didn't happen already) 3. Mid city gap (Crenshaw between Expo and Purple line - no funding, probably won't be included in R3) 4. Norwalk gap (Green line to Metrolink - no funding but maybe R3 will address this) 5. El Monte gap (El Monte busway to Metrolink - no funding likely, ever) These are the "spurs" that would make the system more functional, again according to me 1. Purple line to Santa Monica (no funding but maybe R3?) 2. Red/Purple line to Arts District (it will happen once Purple line extension opens - just need some pocket change for platforms) The Move LA straw man framework has the mid city gap near the top. I think it is a priority for everybody and would be shocked if it isn't in the 2016 measure. The subway will be in BH before the busway ever will be. The Norwalk gap is a maybe. It seems to be getting more press lately, but Norwalk itself doesn't really want it or is lukewarm about it. The next measure will probably only include extending the Purple Line to Bundy. Martha Wellbourne, Metro Planning Director or former Metro Planning Director said it would be pretty easy to put the Arts District station at 3rd/4th Street, but pretty difficult to put it at 6th Street as it would conflict with a lot of future plans at the Yard. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2016 23:23:02 GMT -8
Very tough front page article for Metro on today's LA Times and any entity trying to invest in public transit locally. This is why I think a Measure R2 is an almost impossible sell, especially with so many other competing tax increases on the ballot. Hopefully, I am wrong and things really turn around this year. Bottom line is people will use the system if they feel safe, it goes to where they want to go and is reasonably fast. They don't want to sit on a train at a place like Farmdale while cars go whizzing past and people on the train are tossing trash all over the place and trying to hawk candy like on some third world bus. Also, we have failed so far to make the rail network a major part of the LA lifestyle. You go to other cities like the Bay Area and they have on the traffic reports, the report on whether trains are running on time and so forth. Here nothing. It mostly seems like we have just built a slightly better bus with our rail system and that is how we treat it. Also, our parking codes mandate massive parking for all new buildings even around transit stations. Once people have to pay for a parking spot as a sunk cost, they are just going to use their car and that is what seems to be happening. One final point is that we don't have an integrated system at all. Outlying counties like Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino have terrible transit and Metrolink doesn't interact with our rail system except at Union Station, which is an embarrassment. Well since the legal decision expired, they've been slashing bus service to make it more inconvenient to ride, right? Not exactly shocking that ridership is declining when they're actively making bus head ways worse and making folks pay more. Vox had a good article up about how Houston has increased ridership by increasing head ways and consolidating lines, and I'd like to see the 2016 ballot measure include a lot of money for increasing head ways and rapid service on lines. But it's pretty stupid to extrapolate a three year trend as "down" when the 20 year trend is way up. The la times is clearly setting up to oppose the ballot measure, which is a shame. They do have a point that rail investments serve few people for immense cost. But we're also trying to build up a network that is more viable because of its inter connectivity. That's expensive but will probably be worth it in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 29, 2016 23:51:56 GMT -8
Very tough front page article for Metro on today's LA Times and any entity trying to invest in public transit locally. This is why I think a Measure R2 is an almost impossible sell, especially with so many other competing tax increases on the ballot. Hopefully, I am wrong and things really turn around this year. Bottom line is people will use the system if they feel safe, it goes to where they want to go and is reasonably fast. They don't want to sit on a train at a place like Farmdale while cars go whizzing past and people on the train are tossing trash all over the place and trying to hawk candy like on some third world bus. Also, we have failed so far to make the rail network a major part of the LA lifestyle. You go to other cities like the Bay Area and they have on the traffic reports, the report on whether trains are running on time and so forth. Here nothing. It mostly seems like we have just built a slightly better bus with our rail system and that is how we treat it. Also, our parking codes mandate massive parking for all new buildings even around transit stations. Once people have to pay for a parking spot as a sunk cost, they are just going to use their car and that is what seems to be happening. One final point is that we don't have an integrated system at all. Outlying counties like Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino have terrible transit and Metrolink doesn't interact with our rail system except at Union Station, which is an embarrassment. Well since the legal decision expired, they've been slashing bus service to make it more inconvenient to ride, right? Not exactly shocking that ridership is declining when they're actively making bus head ways worse and making folks pay more. Vox had a good article up about how Houston has increased ridership by increasing head ways and consolidating lines, and I'd like to see the 2016 ballot measure include a lot of money for increasing head ways and rapid service on lines. But it's pretty stupid to extrapolate a three year trend as "down" when the 20 year trend is way up. The la times is clearly setting up to oppose the ballot measure, which is a shame. They do have a point that rail investments serve few people for immense cost. But we're also trying to build up a network that is more viable because of its inter connectivity. That's expensive but will probably be worth it in the end. x The LA Times article was a little over the top in its negativity. However, this is not from cutting a few low performing bus lines. Ridership is down on just about everything from the Orange to the Blue to the Red Line. It is down sharply the last 3 years and hasn't gone up much over the last 20 and when considering the population growth of the City it has really gone no where. Bottom line is we have so far failed to provide a good alternative to driving for most people. Many people don't like having to deal with the crazies or feel safe, especially women. Many others feel it is just way too slow and go back to their cars for a faster ride. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Nov 8, 2016 15:31:33 GMT -8
By the way, today's the big day! No idea if it will pass or not, but I cast my vote. Metro has said "There is no Plan B", so today we will find out if LA will be a modern city with modern transportation options... or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Nov 8, 2016 22:44:25 GMT -8
For those of you taking a break from your all-vodka diet at tonights election results like me, the current numbers for Measure M are:  Still very early. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Nov 8, 2016 23:46:54 GMT -8
Since I'm apparently the only one to have not passed out from drinking (yet!), the current vote:  |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Nov 9, 2016 0:53:41 GMT -8
Update #3, lookin good so far with 50% in.  |
|
