|
Post by masonite on Nov 14, 2008 20:12:44 GMT -8
Well, we can see where this is all trending, and it does appear that the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines will be moving forward, and not with one project being pitted against the other. Because we were in such horrible shape without Proposition R, to some degree we're able not so much to leap forward but to at least avoid going backward. Next year, the fight shifts to Washington for matching funds. According to Roger Snoble and the Measure R schedule, there is no plan to go for matching funds for Expo and the Gold Line. It only appears that the Purple Line and Regional Connector will attempt to get federal funds, but those projects are years away from starting construction. Snoble said it was too time consuming and expensive to go for federal funds for Expo, which doesn't make sense to me, since that was the original plan. Seems to me that we should be trying to get some of that infrastructure money being bandied about by the feds, but Metro doesn't seem all that interested in making the effort to get those funds.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 14, 2008 20:48:04 GMT -8
Wasn't the East Side Goldline built with federal money ??
Yes, we have to jump through hoops to get that federal money ... especially with the economy the way it is. But we need every penny our political influence can siphon from Sacramento and Washington D.C.
LA is America's 2nd biggest metropolis. LAX is 2nd busiest in international flights. Our ports are the largest in America and handle over 40% of incoming cargo. Our transportation well-being is for the good of the nation.
Why don't we deserve Federal aid ?
Once Measure R goes into effect next year ... yeah $40 Billion (Estimate) seems like a lot. But this is spread over 30 years. That's not really much considering how much will be spent on fixing potholes and fixing freeways.
We must demand matching funds for future projects, Metro, Metrolink, LAX Airport expansion.... etc.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 14, 2008 20:55:34 GMT -8
Wasn't the East Side Goldline built with federal money ?? Yes, we have to jump through hoops to get that federal money ... especially with the economy the way it is. But we need every penny our political influence can siphon from Sacramento and Washington D.C. LA is America's 2nd biggest metropolis. LAX is 2nd busiest in international flights. Our ports are the largest in America and handle over 40% of incoming cargo. Our transportation well-being is for the good of the nation. Why don't we deserve Federal aid ? Once Measure R goes into effect next year ... yeah $40 Billion (Estimate) seems like a lot. But this is spread over 30 years. That's not really much considering how much will be spent on fixing potholes and fixing freeways. We must demand matching funds for future projects, Metro, Metrolink, LAX Airport expansion.... etc. The Eastside Gold Line is a federally funded project. I agree with all else you stated. Federal funds are key, but I am concerned with MTA's attitude towards gaining those funds.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 14, 2008 22:22:48 GMT -8
Considering that it appears to take 3-5 years to get federal matching funds for every possible project (remember, we're still not anywhere near to being out of the inertia of the Bush era with respect to transportation and especially mass transit funding), it makes perfect sense to not have the Expo or Foothill Gold Lines built with federal money.
I remember learning from Jerard that the Eastside LRT project was initially agreed to funding by the Clinton, not the Bush administration. That's how long it takes to get federal funding.
In 3-5 years, I want to see the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines near to completion, not finalizing federal funding agreements. Pushing to get the Downtown and Wilshire Subways in 3-5 years for initial funding and construction is a much more timely solution for those entities.
Again, Proposition R is a wonderful first step...but the second step is to have a federal government that doesn't have a problem funding urban road and rail initiatives quickly--as quickly as they're built in Iraq and Afghanistan with federal funds!
(and someday, if Sacramento gets its act in gear, we can get more funding from that source as well!)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 14, 2008 23:11:26 GMT -8
Yeah, in the Snoble interview linked a few pages back he said that they didn't want to use federal money because it would take too long. Plus they would end up spending money for things that they wouldn't otherwise have to do.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Nov 15, 2008 8:22:26 GMT -8
Wasn't the East Side Goldline built with federal money ?? Yes, we have to jump through hoops to get that federal money ... especially with the economy the way it is. But we need every penny our political influence can siphon from Sacramento and Washington D.C. LA is America's 2nd biggest metropolis. LAX is 2nd busiest in international flights. Our ports are the largest in America and handle over 40% of incoming cargo. Our transportation well-being is for the good of the nation. Why don't we deserve Federal aid ? Once Measure R goes into effect next year ... yeah $40 Billion (Estimate) seems like a lot. But this is spread over 30 years. That's not really much considering how much will be spent on fixing potholes and fixing freeways. We must demand matching funds for future projects, Metro, Metrolink, LAX Airport expansion.... etc. The Eastside Gold Line is a federally funded project. I agree with all else you stated. Federal funds are key, but I am concerned with MTA's attitude towards gaining those funds. OK, I've been involved in the Federal Funding exercise. I reported back from DC the day I was in one of the House Office Buildings and learned that the Expo and Wilshire Federal Funds were withdrawn. And I was also in DC, when we got the Federal Funds for East Los Angeles and then the hold up from House Member Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., who came to Los Angeles, where numerous "fund raising" activities were held to get his favor. Now, here is the problem with Federal Funds: A two year or more minimum delay to a project and a more costly set of standards. The Foothill Gold Line is shelf ready and the Expo Phase II will be ready to break ground in 2011. With local funds, Metro can break ground in 2010 for Foothill and 2011 for Expo II. With Federal Funds, the projects might not meet high "new rider criteria" because of Grade Separations and other betterments the community requires. If Foothill Gold Line and Expo Line I & II can be used as the local funding match for both the Downtown Regional Connector and the Purple Line, which both won't be ready to break ground until 2012-2015, wouldn't it be better to get the heavy hitting funds with projects that clearly will meet Federal Ridership standards on the first try and actually fit in the the new and upcoming T4America (Transportation Equity Act) Authorization cycle? While the T4America Authorization is due at the end of 2009, history shows it could be delayed one or two more years. Are you really suggesting with this information, that we hold up the Shelve Ready projects and do nothing while we sit and wait for the Federal Government? The tax money from Measure M starts getting collected July 1, 2009 and with the exchange of some of the colors of money, Prop. A and C with Measure M, we would also have more local share to get around the fact that Prop. A and C can NOT be used for tunnels. Metro, urged by Richard Katz must hit the streets with projects to get under construction in 2010 after the first money gets in. No one ever said transportation funding was easy to understand, but the public will react if they see transit fares being hiked and no projects break ground for FOUR years. Some of this is from Lessons Learned from the mistakes of the 1990's and other classic Los Angeles funding screw ups.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Nov 15, 2008 9:31:52 GMT -8
I just checked the LA County Registrar-Recorder website. No update since Nov. 11 afternoon. Same percentages. Updated Results as of 5 p.m., Friday, November 14: R - MTA SALES TAX - YES---1,848,845---67.31 NO------898,036---32.69 It takes 66.7 to win. The remaining uncounted ballots continue to decline and as previously stated, the mathematical odds of not winning are now next to impossible. The sales tax law goes into effect in January and the tax starts to be collected July 1, 2009, so don't expect instant changes. Metro will avoid the big service cuts that would have hit in June and the fares will stay stable for the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 15, 2008 13:12:28 GMT -8
OK, I've been involved in the Federal Funding exercise... Thanks. Excellent information! Roger Snoble said bascially the same thing last week. If Expo II goes with a design/build (and it will) could it possibly be able to also break ground in 2010?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 15, 2008 13:25:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Nov 15, 2008 13:58:50 GMT -8
OK, I've been involved in the Federal Funding exercise... Thanks. Excellent information! Roger Snoble said bascially the same thing last week. If Expo II goes with a design/build (and it will) could it possibly be able to also break ground in 2010? Expo II has an EIR/EIS to complete. Should it be adopted by early 2010, yes the bids could go out and yes, ground could be broken. However, there are a lot of issues and decisions to be resolved. And probably some nasty curve balls from some of the community advocates, who possibly could tie things up in a possible court action and delay the project for one or two years. Otherwise, yes, with NO obstacles Expo II could open by 2013-14.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 15, 2008 14:37:46 GMT -8
The current Expo phase 2 schedule (from the 11/13/08 Expo Board presentation) is: Administrative Draft EIS/EIR to FTA -- Nov-08 Start Public Hearings on Draft DEIS/DEIR -- Winter-09 Board Adoption of LPA [route decision] -- Winter-09 Request to enter Preliminary Engineering (PE) -- Winter-09 Add another year to complete PE and the Final EIS/EIR -- 2010 Attempts to challenge Final EIS/EIR in court -- 2010 Begin final design and construction -- 2010 Phase 1 was here in early 2006. Thus opening in 2014 is about the earliest we can expect.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 18, 2008 19:04:18 GMT -8
Latest from LA County: R - MTA SALES TAX - YES - 1,848,845 - 67.31% NO - 898,036 - 32.69%
Last Updated: 16:55 11/14/2008 So another 42,188 YES votes and 17,472 NO votes since Tuesday, and the %YES rose from 67.23% to 67.31%. Looking good! This was just posted: R - MTA SALES TAX - YES - 1,922,453 - 67.51% NO - 925,226 - 32.49% Last Updated: 18:14 11/18/2008
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 18, 2008 19:39:11 GMT -8
The Ballots are 100% counted. Measure R has Passed !! It's Good !!
Now the hard part .... doling out the funds to all the various agencies and cities in LA County. Making sure our tax dollars are NOT miss spent .... like the first Redline Subway ... $300 million a mile anyone ??
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 18, 2008 21:35:59 GMT -8
185,000 provisional ballots still remaining to be counted... LA Times - Measure R takes biggest lead yet
The half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in Los Angeles County known as Measure R took its largest lead yet on Tuesday, as the Los Angeles County Registrar posted updated results from the Nov. 4 election. The results are unofficial.
Measure R now holds 67.51% of the vote out of the almost 2.85 million ballots cast. It needs 66.67% to be approved. The Registrar estimates there are still approximately 185,000 votes to be counted, with most of those provisional ballots. The next update of results is scheduled to be posted on Friday afternoon.
In terms of raw votes, Measure R's lead is now about 23,051 -- an increase from about 16,675 after last Friday's update. The fewer votes there are to be counted, the more difficult that lead will be to overcome.
In related news, a sales tax increase in Santa Clara County to extend the BART rail system to the southern Bay Area has taken an extremely narrow lead after trailing since Election Day. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting today that the difference between winning and losing is less than a dozen votes. About 9,800 votes remain to be counted, reports the Chronicle.
--Steve Hymon
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 19, 2008 11:20:24 GMT -8
Provisional votes, unlike absentee votes, are apparently favoring Measure R, so no problems there. This should easily stand and the lead should increase. We might have the final result Friday next week. Isn't the BART-tax vote something? It is currently over the two-thirds majority by only a mere eight (yes, "8") votes out of 611,886. The transit advocates there must be having an heart attack.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 21, 2008 19:54:16 GMT -8
Latest from LA County: R - MTA SALES TAX - YES - 1,848,845 - 67.31% NO - 898,036 - 32.69%
Last Updated: 16:55 11/14/2008 So another 42,188 YES votes and 17,472 NO votes since Tuesday, and the %YES rose from 67.23% to 67.31%. Looking good! This was just posted: R - MTA SALES TAX - YES - 1,922,453 - 67.51% NO - 925,226 - 32.49% Last Updated: 18:14 11/18/2008 Another 54,145 votes counted in today's update (but still not all the votes remaining, per Steve Hymon Tuesday, "The Registrar estimates there are still approximately 185,000 votes to be counted, with most of those provisional ballots."), and the % YES keeps increasing: R - MTA SALES TAX - YES - 1,963,147 - 67.65% NO - 938,677 - 32.35%
Last Updated: 18:24 11/21/2008 The margin of victory (over the 2/3 required) is now 28,597, up from Tuesday's 23,051 and last Friday's 16,675.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 21, 2008 20:25:32 GMT -8
So, in order for Measure R to fail now, the remaining votes should have a Yes of 45% or less. But this is even less than the lowest Yes vote in the county -- Quartz Hill with 46%.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 23, 2008 22:51:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 24, 2008 0:09:39 GMT -8
Thanks to Darrell big-time for both referencing my latest CityWatch article (see below), but also for helping to come up with a map that shows what I have labelled as the Ocean To The Eastern Regions (OTTER) Line from the beach to the Inland Empire. I suppose that the OTTER Line should rightfully include the Eastside Gold Line, but since so many Eastsiders are unhappy about it not being part of the Red Line, it's best kept off the map for now (although it's my hope that--like the Orange Line--it will enjoy high ridership and popularity that will really turn the heads of a lot of locals).
Anyway, here's my latest CityWatch article:
Prop R Transit Tax Appears to have Passed: What That Means and What’s Next Getting Around LA By Ken Alpern
Despite the best efforts of some childish county supervisors to destroy our county’s economic future, the voters won out and made a historic vote to guarantee some historic vision of how the cities and county of L.A. will connect to each other this century. The numbers aren’t final, but the tally is up to 67.51% (necessary voting threshold is 66.67%) at the time of this writing—Proposition R is actually on its way to becoming reality.
This sales tax isn’t something we should crow too loudly about: we had to do it because Sacramento and Washington completely failed their responsibilities towards transportation and infrastructure over the last several decades. It appears that very few politicians really figured out how President Eisenhower guaranteed a postwar booming economy because of his emphasis on building the transportation network of the latter 20th century. Republicans and Democrats alike have dismissed revamping this network as “expensive” while vomiting hundreds of billions of dollars annually at projects that made some people happy but didn’t ensure economic growth.
While I am therefore most sympathetic to Supervisor Don Knabe’s concerns about taxing ourselves during an economic meltdown, it should be remembered that L.A. County might have just ensured economic growth for the next few decades.
I am less sanguine and sympathetic towards Supervisor Antonovich and those San Gabriel Valley politicians who waged war not only on the City of Los Angeles (particularly the Westside), but on their own constituents—who stood the most to gain in the short-run (see below) from this proposition. Their immature, completely-unrealistic plan of pushing their light rail plan (without a rail yard maintenance facility, to boot) at the expense of every other county rail project showed only that they were neither team players nor really prepared to build their own rail line. Fortunately, enough San Gabriel Valley residents had the good sense to ignore them.
As for Supervisor Molina, who still is stuck on past inequities and continues to fail her Eastside constituents in establishing a coherent transportation network, I am absolutely in favor of having her constituents give her a message (not just the message where they completely ignored her and voted overwhelmingly for Proposition R): grow up, shape up, or don’t run for re-election! The Eastside pays taxes and deserves better.
I’ve previously written to CityWatch to describe the Ocean To The Eastern Regions (OTTER) Rail Concept that will be built over the next decade, and one which illustrates how (as with the I-10 freeway) our light rail projects will connect our county and make the east/west rivalry irrelevant:
The first two major projects that Proposition R will fund are the segments between Culver City and Santa Monica in the west (a.k.a., the second phase of the Expo Line, and between Pasadena and Azusa in the east (a.k.a., the first phase of the Foothill Gold Line). Federal matching funds take several years to work out, and the Downtown Connector between Staples Center and Little Tokyo (probably a subway) is one of the next battles to be fought by Metro and by L.A. County politicians.
I’ve previously described the all-important Downtown Connector that will link all four converging light rail lines (Expo, Blue, Pasadena Gold and Eastside Gold) and avoid a 30-45 minute transfer via the Red Line Subway. Ridership will go up and more Downtown access to/from the entire county will result if this Connector (blue/gold dotted line) is built--a failure to fix this poor linkage will sit as well with taxpayers as the failure to link the Green Line to LAX:
There are several “shelf-ready” projects that have the consensus and planning behind them, and need only funding (whether it be local, state or federal), and they MUST be approved and pursued by Metro as soon as possible to benefit the entire county:
1) The I-5 widening between the 91 and 605 freeways, and other freeway projects that should have been already paid for by the state-passed Proposition 1B, but which were underfunded when previously-approved state transportation funds were yanked away by Sacramento to balance its general budget
2) The Metrolink Run-Through Project and Union Station to ensure free-flowing Metrolink trains between the different outlying portions of the county (the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and from the Southeast Cities and Orange County); the current configuration makes it cumbersome for trains to move from one side of Union Station to the other
3) Widening and grade-separation of L.A. County portions of the LOSSAN (Los Angeles-to-San Diego) Rail Corridor, which has so many Amtrak and Metrolink trains that it is the second-most highest-traveled rail corridor in the nation
4) The Alameda Corridor East project, which would grade-separate and create a vital freight corridor to help serve roughly half the freight cargo east of the Mississippi River that enters our ports in Long Beach and San Pedro, and which would remove the need for much of the truck fleet that clogs our highways and which would make it easier for San Gabriel Valley commuters who have to wait for these trains to move by major cross-streets.
As aforementioned, it takes years to get federal matching funds for projects in the planning phases (unlike those four projects above, which are truly ready-to-go), but as we now can plan locally, a four-part effort for federal matching funds will include:
1) More funds for future freeway and road projects
2) The aforementioned Downtown Light Rail Connector
3) The long-awaited Green Line/LAX connection, as well as a LAX People Mover rail to connect the Green Line to each individual airline terminal
4) The Wilshire Subway
So the fight doesn’t end (I suppose it never does), but at least we can tell Sacramento and Washington to start doing their fair share…and for those politicians who purport to go to Sacramento and Washington to represent us, a final message:
Bring back the matching funds, or don’t come back!
(Ken Alpern is Co-Chair of the Council District 11 Transportation Advisory Committee and writes for CityWatch.) ◘
CityWatch Vol 6 Issue 94 Pub: Nov 21, 2008
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 24, 2008 8:22:50 GMT -8
4) The Alameda Corridor East project, which would grade-separate and create a vital freight corridor to help serve roughly half the freight cargo east of the Mississippi River that enters our ports in Long Beach and San Pedro, and which would remove the need for much of the truck fleet that clogs our highways and which would make it easier for San Gabriel Valley commuters who have to wait for these trains to move by major cross-streets. im still amazed how many times per night i hear the trains going down the alhambra sub. where is the union station run-through tracks listed as something measure r helps move forward?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 24, 2008 8:25:18 GMT -8
again with the real audio format... guess ill miss out on that one to!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 24, 2008 10:35:39 GMT -8
The LA Union Station Metrolink Run-through tracks project, which was highly touted a few years ago (I attended a presentation showing various options at that time) and seems to have gone into the deep freeze since then, would appear to be a valuable addition to the Southern California rail network. Back in the early 1980's, SEPTA, the Philadelphia transit operator, rerouted several electric suburban services through a new downtown underground station, which allowed run-through service, as opposed to the stub-end Reading Terminal, which was once used by SEPTA trains of Reading Company heritage, and the Pennsylvania station (with which I am not as familiar). Perhaps someone with more info on Philly could report on how well their "run-through" station has worked out over the years.
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on Nov 24, 2008 15:44:54 GMT -8
THINGS ARE ONLY LOOKIN UP!
YES - 1,997,551 - 67.79% NO - 949,056 - 32.21%
Last Updated: 14:43 11/24/2008
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2008 19:01:17 GMT -8
Measure R mathematically passes
With only about 34,909 more votes to count, it's now mathematically impossible for Measure R to fail, because 2,014,405 votes are needed, while it has already got 2,027,679 votes. Now we can have the official champagne!
R -- MTA SALES TAX YES 2,027,679 (67.89%) NO 959,019 (32.11%) Last Updated: 15:30 11/26/2008
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 26, 2008 19:20:58 GMT -8
how awesome would it be if it gets to 68%
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 27, 2008 11:23:17 GMT -8
Let us just be thankful Measure "R" got to 66.6667% despite the opposition from 3 Supervisors, San Gabriel Valley Newspapers, and sad to say, some friends of mine. It really galled me to be on the same side as Zevsky, but to use an old cliche', "Politics makes strange bedfellows". Now I can shine up my groundbreaking shovel for the start of Foothill Extension construction.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 27, 2008 11:28:26 GMT -8
You are correct, Bob. Now that Zev became flexible and focused on the future, we can only pray that Molina and Antonovich will do the same for the Eastside, and Knabe will do the same to get the Green Line to LAX and the South Bay Galleria Mall.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 27, 2008 11:43:10 GMT -8
Let us just be thankful Measure "R" got to 66.6667% despite the opposition from 3 Supervisors, San Gabriel Valley Newspapers, and sad to say, some friends of mine. It really galled me to be on the same side as Zevsky, but to use an old cliche', "Politics makes strange bedfellows". Now I can shine up my groundbreaking shovel for the start of Foothill Extension construction. dont forget the cities of long beach, pasadena, el monte and some other bedroom towns
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 27, 2008 17:01:21 GMT -8
I would like to see more service in the media industry centers like Burbank, Glendale, and the Valley. Those neighborhoods might not think they need rail. But as was the case with the Orange Line, the ridership potential is underestimated.
How about a Goldline extension west from Pasadena to Eagle Rock, Glendale, and Burbank Metrolink station.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2008 19:29:37 GMT -8
If you haven't seen the Measure Rail map by Metro, it's worth seeing. Measure Rail map by MetroComments on mapThe highest vote, an incredible 84%, came from West Hollywood. I think this area deserves a rail-line extension more than anywhere else. It's one place where people are guaranteed to ride the line if it's built. Perhaps an elevated line on parts of Santa Monica Blvd is a much cheaper option than a fully underground subway. They should also build a Silver Line on the east portion of Santa Monica Blvd, where there is a lot of transit-dependent people, some of them are young, some of them low-income. One of the lowest votes came from Vernon at 50%. Some people, much unlike us, must be tired of freight trains there. The map clearly shows that the lowest votes usually came from affluent areas, such as Palos Verdes, South Bay, parts of the Valley, parts of the 210 corridor, etc. Long live Measure Rail and let's hope for such rail measures and plans in the future!
|
|