|
Post by spokker on Nov 27, 2008 20:29:48 GMT -8
Woah, Malibu voted yes 69%. How did that happen?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2008 21:17:02 GMT -8
Woah, Malibu voted yes 69%. How did that happen? Probably thanks to Expo Phase 2 to Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 27, 2008 22:58:10 GMT -8
I wouldn't worry about Vernon. I think they have less than 100 residents in that Industrial Zoned city. The fact that they have such a large business tax base and almost no population, means they have extra funds to spend on Police, Fire, and road repair.
About Measure R. It's a mixed bag, it's not all for Rail construction. A lot of the money will go towards road repair, and highway widening projects ..... I'm sure this is what most Angelenos voted for , not the mass trasit per se.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 28, 2008 1:56:41 GMT -8
I wouldn't worry about Vernon. I think they have less than 100 residents in that Industrial Zoned city. The fact that they have such a large business tax base and almost no population, means they have extra funds to spend on Police, Fire, and road repair. About Measure R. It's a mixed bag, it's not all for Rail construction. A lot of the money will go towards road repair, and highway widening projects ..... I'm sure this is what most Angelenos voted for , not the mass trasit per se. Well, 50% of Measure R is going to rail, by far the lion's share, that's why I call it Measure Rail. I think most voters knew it. If MTA stops blocking the service through Inglewood on BNSF Harbor Subdivision once they build their Crenshaw Line, Vernon can benefit from increased activity in the rail yards there. Currently they are worried that if they let freight service through Inglewood, they may get opposition from BNSF customers to building light-rail. But MTA could also stop the freight service on that segment altogether. I would like the freight service to be continued because it could be used in emergencies, if something happens to the Alameda Corridor. I think if MTA had continued the freight service on the Santa Monica Branch, we would probably have less opposition to the Expo Line today. But their policy is to stop freight first so that they don't have to deal with the freight customers when they are ready to build the line.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 2, 2008 15:30:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jun 30, 2009 14:18:22 GMT -8
Less than 9 hours to go until Measure R goes into effect. Where I live, the sales tax will be 9.75 cents.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 30, 2009 14:51:34 GMT -8
Sale tax?! I'm going to drive to Nevada to go grocery shopping now!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 21, 2010 11:05:59 GMT -8
It looks like sales tax revenue is consistently down 15-20% over the last two years and Measure R money is already being diverted to operations, yet the mayor is still saying that we can borrow and pay back the full anticipated amount. Seems fiscally irresponsible. Houston is already considering scrapping many of their planned new lines and maybe we're in the same place yet pretending otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 21, 2010 13:48:07 GMT -8
It looks like sales tax revenue is consistently down 15-20% over the last two years and Measure R money is already being diverted to operations, yet the mayor is still saying that we can borrow and pay back the full anticipated amount. Seems fiscally irresponsible. Houston is already considering scrapping many of their planned new lines and maybe we're in the same place yet pretending otherwise. I agree and I am worried about this also. No one seems to be addressing this. I'd add to this that projects like the Downtown Connector and Crenshaw are already more expensive than they were anticipated to be when Measure R passed so by definition there is not enough money to complete them. We really need some revenue from the state gas tax for operations. I'm not sure how this will all play out. Something has to give for sure. I do know that we can't use all the sales taxes for operations. It is bad enough that we use pretty much all of Prop A and C for operations. No one wants to raise fares, but they have hardly moved in the last 20 years. We have spent a lot on rapid busses and so forth, but aren't really seeing any real ridership from these investments. I imagine there should be some bus cuts. On the rail side, I hope we can keep the same service. If we did have to cut service, I would start with the least used lines like the Gold Line that require the highest subsidies.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 21, 2010 15:34:17 GMT -8
They already cut blue line service back to every 30 minutes at night under the transparent guise of it being a temporary cut required by "maintenance work". They will cut the rail lines with transit dependent riders before they cut the gold line which serves more "choice" riders. But it looks like the plan is to spend Measure R money and ride it out without the painful cuts that other TA's are making.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 21, 2010 21:22:20 GMT -8
They already cut blue line service back to every 30 minutes at night under the transparent guise of it being a temporary cut required by "maintenance work". They will cut the rail lines with transit dependent riders before they cut the gold line which serves more "choice" riders. But it looks like the plan is to spend Measure R money and ride it out without the painful cuts that other TA's are making. Given that the work related to upgrading the Downtown Blue Line track to prepare for the under copnstruction Expo Line and that will be over a long period of time it is wiser to have one consistent nighttime schedule rather than flip back and forth throughout the week. If they went between a 20 minute on a Monday and then a 30 minute nighttime schedule for the next day or any day the contractor needs to do work that will confuse and anger more riders then just having a flat temporary schedule. Going by that assesment that would mean the Green Line service would have been significantly reduced based on the same theory since it runs through mostly transit dependent areas. Not to mention the recently opened East LA Gold Line extension would have this service reduced.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 22, 2010 11:30:56 GMT -8
I assume that the 30 minute headway is to accommodate single tracking. I would think that with the newly installed crossovers that shouldn't be an issue as they should be able to single track significant portions without having to single track all the way from Washington to 7th/metro. For example they could single track between San Pedro (Maple) and Pico (Venice) and still maintain 20 minute headways.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 22, 2010 16:15:26 GMT -8
I assume that the 30 minute headway is to accommodate single tracking. I would think that with the newly installed crossovers that shouldn't be an issue as they should be able to single track significant portions without having to single track all the way from Washington to 7th/metro. For example they could single track between San Pedro (Maple) and Pico (Venice) and still maintain 20 minute headways. They will once the catenary to power these crossovers are installed. That maybe for another weekend shut-down to string those up and get them operable and properly hooked to the existing system.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 25, 2010 23:37:27 GMT -8
It looks like sales tax revenue is consistently down 15-20% over the last two years and Measure R money is already being diverted to operations, yet the mayor is still saying that we can borrow and pay back the full anticipated amount. Seems fiscally irresponsible. Houston is already considering scrapping many of their planned new lines and maybe we're in the same place yet pretending otherwise. Bluelineshawn alluded to the situation at the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston, Texas, AKA METRO. I came across a news column in the Houston Chronicle from Rick Casey titled "METRO Can't Let Rail Jeopardize its Buses" and an official statement from METRO stating that they are prioritizing buses or rail; that buses are the backbone of public transportation. What's surprising in the news article is that the Chronicle made a reference to our situation with the BRU Consent Decree that shed a negative light on our rail renaissance in expense of bus service. This is coming from a city of the same size and with the same car dependency, although they currently have 1/10 the rail miles (METRORail's Red Line, pretty much street median at-grade 7.5 mile light rail). So much for rail expansion there.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2010 20:45:35 GMT -8
Looking at the Measure R oridnance posted on Metro's website, I see that Rail Capital Projects are supposed to get 35% of funds, and highway projects are getting 20% of the sales tax, with the rest of transit operations, local return and other projects. However, the law does not set these percentages, from what I saw. I added up the required expenditures on highway projects, and it comes out to less than $2 billion, out of an expected 35 to 40 billion dollars of tax revenue over the next 30 years (per estimates...)
So it looks like Metro could chose to spend more on new rail transit. Currently they have budgeted for $12 billion for rail capital projects, including 4 billion for the subway to Westwood. But if Metro changes there policy, could they not spend up to 50% of the sales tax on transit capital projects? That would leave 25% for operations, 15% for local return, 5% for metrolink and other rail projects, and 5% for highway capital projects. We could have up to 20 billion for transit capital projects, if the economy improves.
If we make sure all the Measure R rail projects get a 50% federal match (not likely, but possible if the rules change), we could have up to 40 billion overall for rail capital projects.
That's 10 times the estimated cost of the subway to westwood, and could build 80 miles of subway (at 500 million per mile with stations), 200 to 800 miles of light rail (expo cost vs gold line cost), or 800 to 1000 miles of streetcar, or more likely a mix.
Now, what if the federal government had funding for transit similar to the highway trust fund, with projects funded at a 20/80 local/federal match? We could have up to 100 billion dollars for transit capital projects (though we migh have to save some money for operations!) With that kind of money, we could all be friends with Damien Goodmon again, and build 390 miles of subway and elevated rail all over the county (well, 200 to 400 miles, depending on cost inflation).
I think this shows the importance of changing policy on a federal level, if we are going to see a real transit system built here in the next 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 15:23:19 GMT -8
Interesting map of the 10/30 plan from the Mayor's office: image removed[/img] Could anyone resize this? Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 15:42:32 GMT -8
From the imagine above, it appears that financing 13.7 billion worth of transit capital projects will only cost 2.4 billion in interests payments over 30 years. The chart also seems to show 2.8 billion in savings due to avoided construction inflation costs. If this is correct, the 10/30 plan would actually save 200 million over 30 years, enough for another couple miles of light rail, and we would be enjoying the operations savings and utility of these transit projects for 1 full generation.
I also note that only 23% of the funding is expected to come from Federal New Starts sources. If more of these projects can be submitted for Federal funding matches, we could have 5 billion more to spend now or over the next 30 years.
Finally, these numbers show only 12 billion for transit capital projects out of Measure R. As I mentioned above, we should be able to increase this to up to 20 billion dollars without changing any laws, if Metro feels the public wants more for transit and less for new highways. With a 50% federal match and a 15 billion dollar loan, that could be 40 billion for transit in the next 10 years. I doubt Metro has the ability to finish planning and construction that quickly, but perhaps we could start with the 10/30 plan detailed above, and double the system again over the subsequent decade.
So, what would you build for 25 billion? That could be 250 miles of at-grade light rail, 50 or more miles of heavy rail subway, hundreds of miles of bus rapid transit lanes. Anyone want to make a new map?
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 11, 2010 17:38:09 GMT -8
Despite the potential savings, let's not forget that if 30/10 goes through, the income from the sales tax will be committed to paying back the advances, and so funding for post-30/10 projects would have to come from other sources.
The disadvantage here is that if we wanted to continue the rapid expansion pace, presumably by the same scheme, we'd have to convince voters to accept another sales tax increase while measure R is still in place but not showing tangible benefits. On the other hand, however, 10 years of successful expansion could leave the voters hungry for more, and there might be more political will for that.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 11, 2010 20:49:11 GMT -8
If 30/10 leads to delaying funding for the highway projects, we could get a significant amount of money for transit from Measure R, beyond the 30/10 plan. After a 10 year expansion, including Expo phase 2, the subway to Westwood, the regional connector, and the Sepulveda / 405 project, rail ridership will be much higher, even if gas prices stay flat. Perhaps at that time voters or our representatives will see the benefit of delaying the measure R highway projects another 10 years, while getting the feds to match additional projects. Or a new law could keep the same level of sales tax but redirect it all to transit operations and capital projects. Who knows what will be politically possible in 10 years, if this plan is implemented well.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 3, 2010 11:20:29 GMT -8
In case you hadn't seen it, here is a colorful diagram Metro put out in April illustrating how far along all of its projects are.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 3, 2010 15:19:36 GMT -8
Very nice chart. The only way that I could think of improving it would be if they had the horizontal axis spaced out to reflect actual time versus the 25-50-75-100% they show now. Or maybe they are so close that it just made sense to do it the way that they did. I think that jeisenbe makes a good point, in that people may very well be up for voting in another sales tax increase in say 6 years if they can visibly see the 10/30 speedup working, and some of the projects get completed and increase ridership. If the Federal government actually implemented some kind of "Infrastructure Bank" that would allow 30/10 to come about, then in 6 years we might take advantage of it again. If you think about it, its almost like a credit card for transit as far as LA is concerned. Get everything built now and pay it off over time. Everybody likes credit cards And by the time 6 years or so have passed, we will be in a better position to re-assess what has been built WRT what is not in the current 30/10 plan, and then devise the list for the next 15/5 plan. All the ridership models used to select the next rail corridors to build can then incorporate all the newly completed projects and provide better guidance. RubberToe
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 3, 2010 21:30:06 GMT -8
Rubbertoe, Los Angeles County currently has 1.5% sales tax for transportation, including the two previous ballot measures and the new measure R, I believe. This is a pretty impressive commitment; Seattle only taxes itself 0.9% (which is the maximum allowed under state law there... I'm sure voters would go for more if they could) and has a pretty impressive bus system, and a new pre-metro / light rail.
I would support another 0.5%, if it went all to transit capital investment and increasing operations, but we should consider other ways to fund the system. First of all, the Feds should be matching everything 20-80 (or 4 federal dollars for every local dollar), like they do with highways. Second, Los Angeles shouldn't spend another dime on new highways until we repave and maintain the existing ones; this would free up a substantial amount of those tax dollars for transit. Finally, we need a more stable funding source than sales tax, which varies with consumption. A value-added tax on all services and products would be more fair, an income tax would be even better, but still variable during recessions. A land-value or property tax would be best of all.
I especially like the idea of a tax on land (not buildings), with higher rates closer to major transit investments, such as subway and light rail stations. Along with changes in building codes to allow mixed-use, low-parking development, this would encourage affordable, walkable development and increase transit ridership, while providing secure funding for the transit system. The land value tax would be use to support operations and maintenance, including buying new trains and remodeling stations in the future, while sales tax and federal funds would be used for continued expansion of the system, which can stand to vary with the economy.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 3, 2010 21:48:26 GMT -8
"Everybody likes credit cards"
Actually, the plan is like a 0% interest rate card that pays you 1% back on everything you buy, and this month only you get 5% back on all transit capital projects!
Because construction costs are increasing faster than inflation, and federal bonds are almost as cheap as the inflation rate, we would actually save money in the long run by building now and paying back the feds later. This situation exists because investors around the world continue to have a huge appetite for US Treasury bills. Despite our nation's problems, no other government is considered as trustworthy. So the federal government can easily sell bonds at low rates, lower than the rate of inflation in construction, resulting in savings for everyone.
And if you consider the additional value of being able to ride to the new trains and buses in a few years instead of a few decades, the savings are much bigger.
Consider that the whole original, 70 mile grade-separated BART system was built around 1966-1971 for 1.619 billion, or about 9 billion in today's dollars; that's 125 million per mile, including buying trains, building the transbay tube, and a two-level Market Street subway shared with Muni. Now BART even extensions in the suburbs are expected to cost 300 to 400 million per mile (e.g. to Livermore), and a new Geary subway is estimated at 500 million per mile. It appears that construction cost inflation is two to three times the regular inflation rate.
We need to build as much as we can now, before peak oil, development in Asia and Africa, and the aging US population make construction unaffordable.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 18, 2011 19:09:22 GMT -8
There are almost more items in Measure R that I really question than ones I like. I don't want to see local tax dollars go to the 710 Extension at all, but I think it would be quite a chore to get that repositioned for rail transit if at all possible. Even if it were, the SGV would put up a huge fight to get that money for that area, which would be hard to argue with.
Hopefully, after Measure R expires we can have an extension of it that goes almost all to rail transit. I'd like to see more useful items than the regional/political balance formula and instead focus on bang for the buck. We are going to have so many gaps in the system it will be almost laughable, but because these gaps don't have political or regional groups behind them, they are not at the front of the line.
Just think - Red Line extension to the Burbank Airport (and Metrolink) would be one I think should be near the top of the list as it would fill a gap for Metrolink riders not having to go downtown as well as serve a major airport. This should be talked about more.
Green Line Norwalk extension to HSR and Metrolink. This should be a no-brainer, especially if Metrolink ever gets those 30 min headways from OC (LA should extend to Norwalk or Downtown if that is the case).
Crenshaw Line to Purple Line gap - this is critical as everyone knows and you can even call it another gap from Wilshire to Hollywood/Highland
405 Line - with Measure R at best, we'll get from the Orange Line to the Purple Line, but it will have a gap to the Expo Line as well as to LAX and on the North to Sylmar Metrolink.
Subway to the Sea - not sure if it is really necessary to reach all the way to SM, although that would be ideal. The current terminus at the VA is not good though. It should at least reach the communities west of the 405 (Bundy, where BBB #14 could connect easily to Expo) and get past that horrible gridlock against the 405.
We are really going to have an underperforming system unless we address these gaps (much as we do with the Connector now).
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Feb 28, 2012 20:28:40 GMT -8
As talk heats up about extending Measure R I have to say that, political feasibility aside, I'd much rather increase our current sales tax for the present slate of projects. It strikes me as somewhat short-sided to use future revenue to accelerate projects whose need is based on current demand.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 28, 2012 23:58:42 GMT -8
It should be two-fold. We need a Measure R2; a second half cent sales tax that can follow the same operations/rail/highway funding ratio as Measure R. And then remove the sunset provision of "30 year time limit" of Measure R.
And this is the right political climate in LA for this to pass. We have a Mayor that is willing to invest in transit and actually supported a half cent sales tax increase prior to his re-election year in 2009. I fear future LA mayors are fearful of sales tax referendums, but Antonio has done a fantastic leadership role in supporting and advocating for funding; even if LA has to tax itself more. I hope the next LA mayor we get is just as passionate about transit expansion as Antonio has been so far for LA. This guy 100% deserves a future Purple Line station named after him. "Approaching Wilshire/La Brea/Antonio Villairaigosa station"...has a nice ring.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 29, 2012 6:43:13 GMT -8
If you are going to name a station on the Purple line after Villairagosa, it should be the Beverly Hills Wilshire/Rodeo station. That will really get the point across
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Mar 1, 2012 10:43:43 GMT -8
Can we have the chinese give us a low interest loan we can pay back. Instead increasing taxes the tax rates in the city and state are already high enough.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 1, 2012 11:13:35 GMT -8
Can we have the chinese give us a low interest loan we can pay back. Instead increasing taxes the tax rates in the city and state are already high enough. Did you know....Measure R only costs you $25/year using average purchasing (i.e. not buying a car or house). Think about it. That $25 helps build an expanded rail system so that you have less need for a car (which can cost $11K/year). So, isn't it better to invest your $25 for something that can help drive down (pun intended) other transportation costs? Local taxes to support infrastructure development is good b/c the money stays local. Even Republicans support local taxes when needed; its the federal and state when out of country control they do not like.
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Mar 1, 2012 13:07:08 GMT -8
Can we have the chinese give us a low interest loan we can pay back. Instead increasing taxes the tax rates in the city and state are already high enough. Did you know....Measure R only costs you $25/year using average purchasing (i.e. not buying a car or house). Think about it. That $25 helps build an expanded rail system so that you have less need for a car (which can cost $11K/year). So, isn't it better to invest your $25 for something that can help drive down (pun intended) other transportation costs? Local taxes to support infrastructure development is good b/c the money stays local. Even Republicans support local taxes when needed; its the federal and state when out of country control they do not like. I've always thought LA County could be a little more innovative about revenue sources. I do think there is a role for taxes, especially on items with negative transportation or environmental externalities. But there are other things too. Why, for example, couldn't we get a local Metro equivalent to the federal tax return option to give to the Presidential Election campaign fund? I would totally give some of my tax return to aid Metro's capital investments. Then again, that may be an idea that would work better for state-level projects like HSR. But where Metro is missing the boat is philanthropy. They should really get aggressive about inviting and fostering philanthropy. I've been spending some time at Cedars-Sinai recently and it's amazing how much stuff there is named for wealthy donors. The agreement is a win-win: the donor feels the satisfaction of helping a good cause, but gets some public recognition for it too. This kind of gets back to the Villaraigosa station idea, but it would obviously need to be much smaller in scale. Just some ideas off the cuff and certainly not without problems. The main point is that Metro could and should be more creative in getting money than just cheering on local tax initiatives and submitting grant requests to the feds.
|
|