|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 29, 2008 11:08:41 GMT -8
Roadtrainer and his wife and kids will vote YES! on transit tax! It is better than what Sacramento and Washington has promised us!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 29, 2008 11:22:04 GMT -8
I think the sales tax increase is terribly flawed for two reasons: It was hastily passed to get on the November ballot in hopes of an easy pass, and the actions of the San Gabriel Valley politicians to shake down much of the county for unreasonable demands poisons the chance of getting meaningful projects out of this tax measure. The corrosive effects of the San Gabriel Valley will mean every region in the county is now going to be pleading that they are short-changed -- South Bay, San Fernando Valley, Gateway Cities and even Los Angeles and the Westside cities. Everyone being short-changed is a mathematical impossibility. Some regions will be donors while others will be takers. Or, worthy projects will have to be stripped to fund unworthy projects to correct the perception of "feeling short-changed." So you know who is going to end up screwed? The people who live or commute within the Westside/Central sector. It will be punished for its productivity. Except that the Westside is the one section of Los Angeles County that hasn't gotten screwed. Just look at the projects: Expo Line is obviously a westside project, the Purple Line subway is a huge, expensive westside project, I would consider the Crenshaw Line to be westside and if a West Hollywood branch of the Purple Line gets built, we should really consider that to be a separate subway line. Screwed? Not even in the slightest. sure, you can argue that the San Gabriel Valley will probably get more than it deserves. but here's the problem: all of the corporations and businesses on the westside can't vote. but the bedroom suburbs of the SGV can vote (as well as the bedrooms of the San Fernando valley and the bedrooms of the South Bay). no matter how equitable a countywide transit measure is, no matter how time you take putting it together, you're still going to have to spread the money around to all regions of the county or it won't get passed. because the Westside may be the economic engine of the county, but the one thing it doesn't have is the population to overcome NO votes elsewhere. Instead, much of these problems could have been solved by what was described as a "mythic populist revolt." Take at least one year to solicit community input and give projects a preliminary evaluation. Break down the projects into the five Sector Governance Councils. Solicit input from the community on what projects should be funded, and how much of their regional allocation should go between capital, operations, roads and local return. Run these meetings in the format of the Westside Corridor, Downtown Connector or Long Range Plan Meetings that have taken place in 2007 and 2008. Once a project list is finalized, then it goes on the ballot. This would mean the tax money reflects the desires of the community, and very few surprises when the ballot measure is presented. Also, a slower time to evaluate means that the expensive capital projects would have a better cost and time schedule. Wad, you've done a great job of explaining your idea. you've done a lousy job of explaining how exactly you're going to wrest the power away from the MTA board. how is this plan going to be implemented? in other words, how are you going to get the bell around the cat's neck? take one year to deliberate and you've given car drivers in Los Angeles one year to get used to the idea of paying $4.50 a gallon. you've given the skeptics one year to assume that nothing will get done. that's one year's worth of all talk and no action. sure, these projects will take time to complete. let's say a project takes 5 years to complete. wait one year, and it'll still take 5 years to complete, except now the project will start one year later. I'm not entirely certain why you want to balkanize the process in the first place. will the San Gabriel Valley suddenly stop wanting the Gold Line extension? no, but now the system is rigged so they won't ever be able to afford it without help from the other regions. if it is public input you want, let's really democratize the process. take a transit survey, or maybe a referendum. give everyone, from Lancaster to Azusa to Torrance, a list of transit and highway projects and ask them which should be top priority, numbered from 1 to 10. the results may not make much sense, but at least it would reflect the desires of the community, or the will of the people, or something.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 29, 2008 13:53:46 GMT -8
It would be nice to have each section of the county have the ability to vote for its own projects, but that is not the way it works...although I suppose a group of cities could have simultaneous ballot measures, and certainly the City of L.A. could raise its own money and Construction Authorities.
Right now, I believe that the Westside needs to realize that this sales tax will guarantee a Green Line/LAX connection, an Expo Line to the Sea, a Downtown Connector, and a Purple Line Extension to La Cienega. Certainly long-range planning can be done for other projects, but that's about it.
Anything more HAS to come from Sacramento and Washington. Those are fights for next year.
Similarly, the SGV has to realize a sales tax will guarantee a Gold Line to Azusa (and maybe Claremont), a fix to I-10, I-5, SR-60 and I-605, and the ACE project, and Metrolink upgrades. If the Gold Line can't be extended beyond Azusa without threatening the other projects, then the SGV voters might not appreciate everything going only into one light rail line that some voters out there don't care about.
Anything more than HAS to come from Sacramento and Washington. Those are fights for next year.
If either the Westside or the SGV fights too many 2009 or 2010 battles in this year (2008) the voters and taxpayers and commuters will NOT be served.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 29, 2008 23:23:02 GMT -8
sure, you can argue that the San Gabriel Valley will probably get more than it deserves. but here's the problem: all of the corporations and businesses on the westside can't vote. Westside/Central has about 30 percent of L.A.'s population, too. Don't forget the very high population density. This sector is a colossus in every respect. I will say this: I don't have a plan. I would present it to the board, but I don't have a handy English-to-stupid translator. In order to wrest power away from the board, this would either have to be imposed by the state legislature or done directly by the board members themselves. You know which board members would go for it? The more conservative members, such as Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and possibly the small city appointees. Zev will go for it if the public finds such an approach popular. The biggest hurdle to overcome is that the board members do not want to relinquish their meddling privileges. They know how to play politics, even though they don't know squat about the consequences of their actions. Yet, the board members can be persuaded that devolving this responsibility to the sectors can also be in their best interests. For one thing, the community can state their preferences in what projects should be funded, and more importantly, how the funding split should be mixed to reflect local preferences. One of the imperfections of a countywide ballot is that a blanket funding formula, such as what the existing Propositions A and C have right now, skews funding toward budget line items rather than localities. Some sectors will get frozen out of the big ticket projects, and you get the howls of "Why does X get a subway and we get nothing?". The regions may have other needs, and devolving the tax process to the sectors would better tailor how money is spent to the respective regions. These meetings are also a great educational tool, as the public will find out just why certain things get funded and what the evaluation benchmarks are. So the board can get political cover by pointing out that the tax plan was debated publicly, and that the projects funded aren't the result of a political food fight. Plus, the board does not lose any of its governance powers. It will still sign off on the final ballot measure, and it will get the ball rolling to determine the ground rules for the process, especially to determine the equitable allocation formula. That is subject to a heated debate itself, since there is no such thing as a truly equitable formula. For example, a "reap what you sow" formula -- where each sector will keep whatever sales tax is produced within its region -- screws over the South Bay and Gateway sectors because of their heavy reliance on industrial land use. Distributing funds based on population means that the good deeds of Westside/Central will not go unpunished. Once a formula is found that pleases all sectors, the process then goes to the sectors, where the public must lend their voice as to where their share of the funds should go. It would be split between five categories: public transit capital, public transit operations, highways, local surface streets and local return. Each of these five categories shall receive a minimum 10 percent split. The budget items can be tailored to local needs. If no suitable funding split is found, each category will get 20 percent equally. This way, if the San Gabriel Valley or Westside/Central wants their high-priced rail projects bad enough, the community can urge that their share of funds go to the maximum 60 percent for public transit capital. If you want rail lines, you have to get used to more than a decade of no action before the first shovel is driven into the ground. The first segment of the Red Line opened in 1993, yet the planning began in the 1960s! Planning is not nothing. It's the part people don't care about because it is boring and they cannot see it happening. Well, look at it this way. November's "now or never tax" is not going to bring fast-acting relief. The tax is not going to be collected the day after. Plus, the construction projects are not going to begin on day one of the assessment. It's going to take at least a full fiscal year before the revenue account has enough money in it to pay invoices. Metro must have the cash on hand before it begins construction. So we're still going to wait until the third year before construction begins. Again, under this process, the San Gabriel Valley can have its Gold Line if it so desires. The residents can even allocate as much as 60 percent of their tax revenues to get the thing built. The only thing is, maybe they'll cool their heels a bit once they find out from Metro that it's expensive not just in capital outlay but in performance yield. The residents might then say, "Hmm ... maybe we shouldn't build it, or just build it to Azusa and consider extending it should it prove to be popular." Then again, they may still decide for the whole line. That's fine, too. But at least the San Gabriel Valley will decide where its money should go without feeling that the other regions cleaned them out. That's not really applicable here. A survey is non-binding, and can easily be construed as a wish list. You really need the give-and-take of a public meeting because the constraints are crucial. A referendum means putting an existing measure before a plebiscite, at least in the practice of California election law. Referenda overturn measures, not put them on the books. These surveys would be for the benefit of the board, not for the public. They are a filtering device, but are useless for determining the merits of a project.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jul 29, 2008 23:57:22 GMT -8
Metro Rail is very much a piecemeal system full of segments of varying degrees of usefullness. If this half-cent sales tax doesn't fund projects to close gaps in the system, such as the Green Line to LAX/Norwalk, the Downtown Connector, and the Purple Line, I'm not sure what it's going to accomplish. Crenshaw is on track to become another Green Line if it too doesn't go to LAX or connect with the Purple Line. A Gold Line to Azusa, a gimped Crenshaw, and a plane ticket to move to some other state. I'm this close. Seeing prop 1 fail might just push me right out of California
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 30, 2008 10:27:15 GMT -8
Metro Rail is very much a piecemeal system full of segments of varying degrees of usefullness. If this half-cent sales tax doesn't fund projects to close gaps in the system, such as the Green Line to LAX/Norwalk, the Downtown Connector, and the Purple Line, I'm not sure what it's going to accomplish. Crenshaw is on track to become another Green Line if it too doesn't go to LAX or connect with the Purple Line. A Gold Line to Azusa, a gimped Crenshaw, and a plane ticket to move to some other state. I'm this close. Seeing prop 1 fail might just push me right out of California Stay here brother and fight! lets get it passed!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 30, 2008 11:38:06 GMT -8
I will say this: I don't have a plan. I would present it to the board, but I don't have a handy English-to-stupid translator. In order to wrest power away from the board, this would either have to be imposed by the state legislature or done directly by the board members themselves. You know which board members would go for it? The more conservative members, such as Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and possibly the small city appointees. Zev will go for it if the public finds such an approach popular. The biggest hurdle to overcome is that the board members do not want to relinquish their meddling privileges. They know how to play politics, even though they don't know squat about the consequences of their actions. ****section clipped***** see below for comments. If you want rail lines, you have to get used to more than a decade of no action before the first shovel is driven into the ground. The first segment of the Red Line opened in 1993, yet the planning began in the 1960s! a cute comparison, but completely irrelevant. in the 1960s and '70s, most Angelenos would have scoffed at a rail system, and they voted against it multiple times. even when people finally did vote for rail, it wasn't a sure thing. the thing that got people to vote for it was the promise of rail lines to all parts of the county. times have changed and people are now demanding rail. they won't stand for a decade of no action. and a decade's worth of planning? I'm no transit engineer, but that's allowing for way too much time. Wad, it sounds to me like you're obsessed over the process. I just deleted a whole giant section of your previous message that was devoted entirely to spending formulas and dividing up the pie evenly and equitably, and I'm sorry, but it all sounds way too bureaucratic maybe the world would be a better place if people cared about this kind of stuff, but they don't. they don't care about formulas, they don't care about meetings and they're not going to e-mail suggestions either. what they care about is, "how fast can I get to work" and "will this train get me where I need to go." you say you want public input, but I just summarized 9/10ths of the public input. "I want it to go from [where my house is] to [the area where I work]." what we have on the table right now, is a sales tax plan. it may not be perfect. it includes some projects that aren't universally loved. but it is simple enough and stupid enough that people can say: "do I want to pay for transit? or am I not willing?" there's your public input, in simple, easy to understand terms. I understand why people don't like the SGV extension. they're afraid that it won't be successful, and they're afraid that it will waste limited funds and resources. I get that. well, to be perfectly frank, Wad- I don't think your plan has a good chance of succeeding. politically, I think it's a non-starter. you haven't even convinced your fellow transit nerds. even if we went along with it, we would waste our limited funds and resources fighting for it. or, we can fight for the sales tax plan that will give us a wad of cash, no pun intended, and a relatively decent idea of where to spend it. maybe it doesn't fund everything, but at least it'll get us on the road to where we want to go. it'll show that Southern California is serious about its transportation future, which is the sort of thing that Sacramento and Washington love to see before they throw money at us. it's not the whole answer, but its a start. it's not perfect, but maybe it's good enough. and it stands a good chance of succeeding, if we just give it that chance.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 30, 2008 20:38:59 GMT -8
Probably too late for the wonks here, but I just posted an outline of what the Metro Board passed last week from the Board Report, project list and funding breakdown. There needs to be a companion post about some of the issues raised. On "equity" it seems simple: to merely allocate by population, as Mike Antonovich wants, ignores paying for the impacts of commuters like the guy who lives in Palmdale but drives across the Valley to a job in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 30, 2008 22:45:49 GMT -8
a cute comparison, but completely irrelevant. in the 1960s and '70s, most Angelenos would have scoffed at a rail system, and they voted against it multiple times. The planning for the subway began in the 1960s. That's the relevant figure, even though voters finally approved a local sales tax in 1980. Planning did not began after the tax was funded. And what happened? It wasn't exactly a resounding success. Remember, the original plan was to make that map rapid transit, with Red Line cars and services ... not Metrolink. James, Metro has volumes of studies in the can. For the projects proposed for this sales tax, the preliminary planning studies have already been completed. These are only funded because of inaction 10-20 years ago. It is supposed to be bureaucratic. It's a bureaucracy, after all. Shrug off the importance of process at your own peril. You and I both know that the minutiae of protocols and procedures aren't going to get anyone excited, and most people couldn't care less about these matters. But when they exist, they are very important for both ethical and legal reasons. Have you seen how much interest public transit is generating among the public, James? Metro used to consider it good turnout when it could get 50 people to show up to a public hearing. Now, 200 people showing up is not uncommon. Plus, Metro is getting a few thousand e-mails as feedback. Besides, Metro gets better feedback from what is communicated to it then what it isn't. It's better to go on acting on information it has than to divine the prerogatives of a silent majority. Listen, I could remember the day when talking about transit was limited to about a dozen people on a Usenet newsgroup. Now everyone is in on the conversation. The internet has made communication about these matters more open, and mobilizing action has become much easier. If people still don't choose to get involved in the process, it's all on them. Apathy doesn't stop the world from spinning. Yet we have transit because there are a few people who can read into such vagueness and form it into something concrete. We could just as easily never do anything again because, action or apathy, in the end people will be stupid either way. You wouldn't be fighting for my process. You'd save your energy for the meetings and do your fighting there. The sales tax plan is happening for November. I'm not saying we need to put a halt to it. I would suggest that this should be an option to consider if the vote is between 50% and 67% percent, where it still passes but not by the two-thirds threshold. You can come back in two years, where there will be some interest in the governor's race, and the public process would give the voters enough goodwill to pass it with a supermajority. I guess 1980 and 1990 were just for show, then. This measure pales in comparison to 1980. That's the one that really marked the turning point. Every sales tax plan had been defeated prior to then. We only had an extensive bus system that had been shedding riders at about the same rates as newspapers are losing circulation today. The RTD had been losing riders faster than Southern California was growing. Yet people still passed it. The 1980 vote would be very instructive, because you should look at what didn't get built, or what was downgraded. You would think that, almost 30 years later, Metro is now an experienced rail builder and wouldn't muck things up the way RTD had when it started construction. The information on construction is much better. There's enough of a knowledge tree and real-world data to improve the time and cost reliability of major investment projects. What worries me, though, is the board members, who are only marginally smarter than the public they represent. This sales tax measure was implemented in great haste, and there's a very high likelihood that what will actually get built will look nothing like what will go before voters. The even bigger problem comes when the board has to approve the construction procurement. Oh, but that's the process thing. You don't care too much about that, so I won't bother. I'd support this sales tax measure because the closest subway station to my house would no longer be a terminal. I am also worried about the prospects of it because of Mike Antonovich. Even though the ballot measure promises to fund a Purple Line extension, he is a hater. He resents the subway, and he strikes me as the guy that, rather than biting his tongue now that a subway extension has support, will actively move to defund subway construction while on the Metro board. He will easily round up at least six other voters by promising to redirect the boodle to suburban representatives. They will then tell Westside/Central, "Let them eat red buses." Sacramento and Washington are the polar opposite of what you think they are. They don't love throwing money at us. Don't mistake the millions or billions we get from them as an act of magnanmity or munificence. Their roles are the opposite. It's the job of Sacramento and Washington not to give us money. Their job is to make it as hard as possible to get money from them in the first place, and to make transit agencies justify their worthiness through documentation. The whole process ... wait, never mind.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 30, 2008 22:53:33 GMT -8
Seeing prop 1 fail might just push me right out of California The only places you could conceivably go are New York City, Chicago or Boston. This may be cold comfort to you, but L.A.'s grass is greener than about 99 percent of the country.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 31, 2008 1:58:43 GMT -8
a cute comparison, but completely irrelevant. in the 1960s and '70s, most Angelenos would have scoffed at a rail system, and they voted against it multiple times. The planning for the subway began in the 1960s. That's the relevant figure, even though voters finally approved a local sales tax in 1980. Planning did not began after the tax was funded. Wad, have you seen some of those planning documents from the 1960s? I have. I don't know if they still have them, but the Torrance library used to have a stash of transportation planning documents from the 50s, 60s and 70s. There's one that shows the infamous Beverly Hills freeway, as well as subway maps that don't even come close to LAX, subway maps that link all parts of the county.... and you know what? All of those documents are extremely rudimentary. They had a vague idea of where they wanted the subway to go, but you can't for a moment pretend that this preliminary study represented anything resembling "planning for the Red Line" if you're trying to prove that transportation projects take 20 years to complete, it is obnoxiously dishonest to dredge up L.A. subway plans from the 1960s. BTW, the idea of a Channel Tunnel linking France and England dates back 200 years to the reign of Napoleon.... what took them so long XD And what happened? It wasn't exactly a resounding success. Remember, the original plan was to make that map rapid transit, with Red Line cars and services ... not Metrolink. so, on Planet Wad, anything that doesn't go exactly as planned is deemed a failure? would we be better off today if we hadn't tried in 1980? James, Metro has volumes of studies in the can. For the projects proposed for this sales tax, the preliminary planning studies have already been completed. of course preliminary planning has been done. most of the projects in the sales tax measure are projects that we've known for ages that we need to build. we simply lacked the funding to build them. not only has plenty of planning been done, but plenty of public meetings have been held. any additional outreach would be superfluous. Shrug off the importance of process at your own peril. You and I both know that the minutiae of protocols and procedures aren't going to get anyone excited, and most people couldn't care less about these matters. But when they exist, they are very important for both ethical and legal reasons. oh, I don't doubt that processes exist for a reason. there's still environmental reports to make and engineering and design work to be done. but we're talking about processes that should take months, not years to complete. but Your Process ( I'm using capital letters here — I want to be perfectly clear that this is specifically your decentralization/ balkanization proposal that I'm criticizing, and not just any "process") that you've been talking about.... that's just adding layers of bureaucracy where there's none needed. it's completely unnecessary, and you yourself explain why in the next section: Have you seen how much interest public transit is generating among the public, James? Metro used to consider it good turnout when it could get 50 people to show up to a public hearing. Now, 200 people showing up is not uncommon. Plus, Metro is getting a few thousand e-mails as feedback. yep. you betcha. the MTA gets tons of feedback. their long range plan documents are filled with feedback. and while some of those e-mails are crackpots and monorail enthusiasts or worse, quite a few are saying WE WANT TRAINS NOW. quite a few of those voices are from the Westside. quite a few of those voices are from the SGV. they got comments from everywhere.and guess what? the MTA just voted for a sales tax that gives a little something to everyone, everywhere. I guess they really do listen to public comments, don't they? You wouldn't be fighting for my process. You'd save your energy for the meetings and do your fighting there. what are you talking about? how are we supposed to implement your wonderful Process if we don't fight for it? that's assuming that the Transit Coalition doesn't come out and fight against it. you're getting away ahead of yourself if you think we're going to be going to lovely, wonderful meetings that are part of a Process that hasn't even been approved yet. oh, and BTW Transit Coalition members already go to plenty of meetings. The sales tax plan is happening for November. I'm not saying we need to put a halt to it. I would suggest that this should be an option to consider if the vote is between 50% and 67% percent, where it still passes but not by the two-thirds threshold. You can come back in two years, where there will be some interest in the governor's race, and the public process would give the voters enough goodwill to pass it with a supermajority. oh, so we only implement Your Holy Process if the sales tax fails? how very generous of you. in the meantime, how about lending us a hand so that we reach that magical 67 percent? I am also worried about the prospects of it because of Mike Antonovich. Even though the ballot measure promises to fund a Purple Line extension, he is a hater. He resents the subway, and he strikes me as the guy that, rather than biting his tongue now that a subway extension has support, will actively move to defund subway construction while on the Metro board. He will easily round up at least six other voters by promising to redirect the boodle to suburban representatives. They will then tell Westside/Central, "Let them eat red buses." that very well could happen; I don't think we can trust him any further than we can throw him. but, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. we'll just have to keep an eye on Mr. Antonovich and hope that even he isn't stupid enough to try and overturn the "will of the people." which is the sort of thing that Sacramento and Washington love to see before they throw money at us. Sacramento and Washington are the polar opposite of what you think they are. They don't love throwing money at us. go back and re-read what I wrote. did I say they love to throw money at us? no, I said that the sales tax measure is the sort of thing that Sacramento and Washington love to see before they throw money at us. will they make us jump through hoops? yes. is there a big pile of money for us if we jump through those hoops? we wouldn't jump through the hoops if there wasn't. will the sales tax measure help us get that money from Sac or D.C. ? YES!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 31, 2008 9:49:02 GMT -8
Westside/Central has about 30 percent of L.A.'s population, too. Don't forget the very high population density. This sector is a colossus in every respect. not as colossal as you would try to persuade us it is. also you will notice the complete lack of pockets of density in los angeles. so a blanket of projects is a good approach in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 31, 2008 15:09:27 GMT -8
not as colossal as you would try to persuade us it is. also you will notice the complete lack of pockets of density in los angeles. so a blanket of projects is a good approach in my opinion A threshold of 30,000 people per square mile is rather high. Here is a Census Tract map of population density along the Expo Line on a different scale for comparison. For more, and corridor densities of other lines, see here. Also, I posted comments and a detailed outline of the proposed sales tax at LA Visions.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 31, 2008 15:13:13 GMT -8
Regardless of where the people live, we need to ask the entire county to foot the bill, so we need to put forth projects that each taxpayer in each part of the county is willing to invest in.
It's partially politics, it's partially the concept of ensuring taxpayers that they're money is being fairly and appropriately spent.
I think that if we fast-track and ensure Expo, Crenshaw, the Downtown Connector and start the Subway, then this is a very good start for the Westside/Central region of L.A. County.
I also think that building up the freeway and rail lines in the rest of the county is equally good for those affected regions of the county.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 31, 2008 15:27:53 GMT -8
Westside/Central has about 30 percent of L.A.'s population, too. Don't forget the very high population density. This sector is a colossus in every respect. not as colossal as you would try to persuade us it is. also you will notice the complete lack of pockets of density in los angeles. so a blanket of projects is a good approach in my opinion This only tells part of the story. Job density is just as important, and that isn't picked up on a map like this at all. Also, realize some of the pockets are due to things like Dodger Stadium and LAX. While these places don't show up as having population density they create enormous amounts of traffic in their own right and are places where people want transit to take them. Also, the map still shows huge concentrations in and around Downtown LA with not nearly as much in the suburban areas.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 31, 2008 15:40:00 GMT -8
A threshold of 30,000 people per square mile is rather high. Here is a Census Tract map of population density along the Expo Line on a different scale for comparison. For more, and corridor densities of other lines, see here. if i dont cap the map out at 30,000 the entire county turns red. with this you can see the dense parts and the county as a whole
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 31, 2008 18:22:59 GMT -8
if i dont cap the map out at 30,000 the entire county turns red. with this you can see the dense parts and the county as a whole Is there a legend for the steps between 0 and 30,000? I agree with the other comments that we also need job densities. Unfortunately those aren't as easily available.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 31, 2008 22:13:15 GMT -8
I agree with the other comments that we also need job densities. Unfortunately those aren't as easily available. What about public transit ridership density?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 31, 2008 23:21:26 GMT -8
Wad, have you seen some of those planning documents from the 1960s? ... There's one that shows the infamous Beverly Hills freeway, as well as subway maps that don't even come close to LAX, subway maps that link all parts of the county.... The fact is, the subway we had today had its planning started in the late 1960s, even though modifications were made later on until Proposition A was passed. What had happened was that the cost of building the map out did not materialize. That's a very real possibility now. The 1960s plans were supposed to be the backbone of a rapid transit system. It was the work of two decades prior to the 1980 vote that allowed for projects to be voted on in 1980. The clock did not start in 1980. It did, though, force L.A. County to drastically scale back what it did accomplish. Brace yourself for that happening again. <FLAG>Illegal use of straw man. 10 yard penalty. On Planet Earth, James, what was supposed to be a countywide rapid transit project ended up being built piecemeal and in incompatible fragments because the tax revenues raised would not have allowed for the system to be completed. It won't happen again, because ... ? If the measure fails and Metro has to go back to the drawing board, not only would additional outreach be required, it would improve passage the next time around and would rank projects based on voter desires and technical merit. If the measure passes, let's cross our fingers and hope we don't L.A. up transit again. I agree that the processes take too long. These aren't rules that Metro made up to give its bureaucrats work. These are regulations imposed by the state and feds. They are reluctant to ease up on them because they'd be on the hook for funding more projects. Adding what exactly? The Sector Governance Councils exist right now. The public hearings are required right now. It's just a different way of doing the same thing. Better, too. Do you trust a listless cadre of politicians whose food fight in 2008 will make successful transit a slam dunk by 2038? I sure don't. My view has been that whatever successes L.A. has seen was in spite of politics, not because of it. I credit the Metro riders for using what we have -- in incredible numbers -- and for sharp professionals who help keep the system running and clean up after the political mess. Saying it will not make it happen. Now, in transit timelines, is completion within 10 years. And this is all stuff Metro has to do, not because it wants to do it. The Transit Coalition can take whatever position it pleases. Fight it for all I care. Why it would is the business of its members. I've still put a viable plan on the table. Mind you, this does not hinge upon taking a position against the upcoming sales tax measure. If it passes in November, the whole thing would be moot. If it fails, the need for these projects are not going to go away. If the sales tax passes between 50 and 67 percent, this calls for refining the next tax, not cowering away from it for years to come. Well, yeah. I'm not asking you guys to stop the measure from going to the ballot in November. I'm not asking for you or anyone else to throw a monkeywrench into the existing plan. I am saying you should have a contingency plan in case the measure fails. I can't give you an exact prediction of what the final vote will be, but I have a feeling it would be within a reasonably close range of the magical 67 percent. So even if it doesn't get passed this time around, the hurdle will be cleared next time. Just don't get too emotionally worked up about it. We'll get these projects, if not immediately, but in the near future. Don't mistake stupidity for mendacity. I happen to dislike Antonovich, but it's not because I think he's stupid. I am observing his gambit, though. And for all we know, the fix may already be in. I'm not arguing with your logic. I agree here. I take the harsher view: The sales tax is the sort of thing that Sacramento and Washington force us to do because they won't give us a dime if we don't. The state and the feds don't really facilitate transit. They referee it. The state and federal transportation bureaucracies act as agents of elected officials. They are charged with turning two key desires of politicians -- steering funding toward politically favored districts and imposing fiscal discipline -- and converting those into methods and documentation. Politicians cannot outright demand that a specific project be funded, instead they select cost and performance metrics that would make their projects more favorable. At the same time, they fob off the important funding disbursal role on the bureaucracy so they aren't responsible for directly outlaying the amount. It's paradoxical: The political process determines technical merit while the bureaucracy handles what should ultimately be a deliberative decision.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 1, 2008 4:27:35 GMT -8
James and wad: You DO realize that you're more on the same page than you realize, right? You DO realize that you ignore each other's arguments at our collective peril, right?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 1, 2008 9:49:34 GMT -8
Is there a legend for the steps between 0 and 30,000? other then extrapolation, no. but you can make your own map!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 1, 2008 14:55:32 GMT -8
James and wad: You DO realize that you're more on the same page than you realize, right? You DO realize that you ignore each other's arguments at our collective peril, right? eh, I was getting bored with arguing with Wad anyways ;D seriously, the whole argument's getting circular now, and messages are hard to read when there's pingponging "quote/ unquote" everywhere. I got what I needed out of him: over the last few days, he has gone from saying "I won't shed a tear if the sales tax fails" to actually giving something resembling a measure of support for the thing. I still don't understand why he insists on moving so slowly on everything, or why he thinks that more public input will generate a different result that what the sales tax currently offers, but whatever. onwards to November and victory
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 1, 2008 19:16:51 GMT -8
Speaking of how long it takes get stuff built, could projects be done in say, a third of the time? Half the time? Some of the Metro propaganda says, "Imagine building things faster..." Is that all BS?
Whenever I see transit project construction sites no one is there. Is this done to save money or what? What if there were three 8 hour shifts per day?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 2, 2008 4:16:06 GMT -8
James and wad: You DO realize that you're more on the same page than you realize, right? You DO realize that you ignore each other's arguments at our collective peril, right? Yes, Ken. In the words of Joe Pesci in "My Cousin Vinny": "I have no more use for this guy."
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Aug 2, 2008 8:59:25 GMT -8
I'd rather put the process in the hands of the customers who are paying for and using the system, and the people who have the data and the expertise to keep it running. If the San Gabriel Valley sector has a series of meetings, and the overwhelming support is for the Gold Line extension, then it should be built. At least let the public get a chance to determine how the money should be spent in their regions. The Metro board is not much smarter than rubber stamps, so the L.A. County residents should confine them to that role. Leave the planning of the system to the customers and the agency. But even that process would be tainted. Witness the Westside Council of Governments looking to a create faux-advocacy effort for their rail projects ( link): Authorization to amend the 2008-09 budget, to hire communication and public relations firm to design and implement an advocacy campaign for the WSCCOG’s priority transportation/potential sales tax-funded projects, and authorize the chair to execute an agreement with selected individual/firm I think that we should both recognize the self-defeating and childlike antics of some of those in the SGV, vs. more political posturing. I'm confused why politicians advocating for more investment in their region, which is being taxed just the same as others, is childlike? Molina was shafted on the subway. The SGV is constantly being shafted on the Foothill Extension. You expect them to bend over and ask for more? They're going to take the field to represent their local interests. And if they didn't, they'd set a precedence that would result in them being shafted even more in the future. This is politics man: the allocation of finite budgets to serve overwhelming needs, which requires defining priorities that are ever dependent on political scales, which are always slanted and shifting.These are the most powerful politicians and interests groups in the region, discussing a bucket load of money, for an agency with a poor track record both on the board and in the departments, that has no established oversight process that doesn't include the ballot box ('98 Prop A & C ban) or the courts (BRU v. MTA). The only people who should be screaming and shouting with pomp-pomps are the developers, contractors and unions who will make money hand over fist either way. The rest of us? Well I honestly question the mental capacity of those who AREN'T skeptical and critical. Instead, much of these problems could have been solved by what was described as a "mythic populist revolt." Take at least one year to solicit community input and give projects a preliminary evaluation. Break down the projects into the five Sector Governance Councils. Solicit input from the community on what projects should be funded, and how much of their regional allocation should go between capital, operations, roads and local return. Run these meetings in the format of the Westside Corridor, Downtown Connector or Long Range Plan Meetings that have taken place in 2007 and 2008. Once a project list is finalized, then it goes on the ballot. This would mean the tax money reflects the desires of the community, and very few surprises when the ballot measure is presented. Also, a slower time to evaluate means that the expensive capital projects would have a better cost and time schedule. I agree that the process has been completely flawed and considering it will determine the course of transit planning for the next 30 years that's reason enough to either vote no or leave the bubble blank. I would add in addition to the more localized discussion there needs to be a regional conversation and study. It's difficult to chart out need and performance by segmenting the county. Conversations, studies and commitments need to be made to identify regional and long-term planning solutions that maximizes tax-payer dollars. The absence of design uniformity/specifications, and long-term capital commitment to conforming existing systems is worrisome. Money will be wasted that could be going towards improving and expanding service. And the glaring absence of sufficient oversight authority is downright petrifying. Leaving it up to the MTA board or even the state legislature is the letting the fox guard the hen house. It's the job of Sacramento and Washington not to give us money. Their job is to make it as hard as possible to get money from them in the first place, and to make transit agencies justify their worthiness through documentation. Thank you wad. I'm continually amazed by people who just automatically assume that because Metro is proposing it, it must be great and therefore built. For all of those who bemoan federal oversight and call it an impediment to expanding rail in L.A. just pick up the phone and call the FTA. The feds cough up money for projects that can make the case, and when a project can, they're willing to cough up a lot. We just don't know how to build such projects. Speaking of how long it takes get stuff built, could projects be done in say, a third of the time? Half the time? Some of the Metro propaganda says, "Imagine building things faster..." Is that all BS? In a word: Yes. That's the Achilles heal of the sales tax. It's very difficult to accurately calculate construction cost for a project 10 years into the future. Not in your life can anyone calculate 25 years into the future, especially absent any policy for design and material consistency/purchases, especially in the world of unique and separate construction authorities. There's a lot that needs to be fixed at Metro before we can even think of making the guarantees that even this measure proposes. Again, we'd be better off spending the next 2-3 years: a) having the local conversations wad talks about to build consensus and political support, b) completing the regional and policy/design studies I'm always talking about, and then putting a bond measure (not a sales tax measure) on the ballot, which would at the least allow us to ensure that most of these projects would be in the construction phase 4-5 years from passage and completed within 10-15 years. And the irony of course is that the $20 billion bond I've proposed to start Get LA Moving, would cost the same as the $40 billion sales tax hike, but would deliver the projects identified decades sooner, provide money for even MORE projects, reduce the amount of time available to siphon money away, and create a track record for future expansion/capital investments.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 2, 2008 16:48:31 GMT -8
These are all interesting arguments, and I don't want to sound like a Metro-apologist, but I don't believe that it's possible to just spend two or three years discussing things and then get the money from somewhere else.
There are very few times when the political stars align and you can actually pass something like this. Sales taxes are regressive in nature, but bonds are illusions. They're, in my opinion, only one step better than kicking the can down the road and pretending you can pay for things you can't. The state is drowning in debt at this point because we refuse to actually pay for anything.
This is not a perfect plan, but it is a good start and the alternative is standing around while the city's infrastructure crumbles around us.
On the SGV politicians: The problem is not that they're trying to get money for the Gold Line and pushing hard. I understand that. What I don't understand is getting 700 million for the project and then threatening to lead efforts to oppose the sales tax. Without the bill, there isn't enough money for the gold line and it's not a good enough project to receive the massive federal funding they keep talking about. Why undermine themselves?
Similarly, the BRU doesn't seem to accept that with the sales tax, bus fares stay low, and without it, they increase and there are service cuts.
Again, I'm not claiming anything here is ideal, but it's politics and these are all important projects in desperate need of funding as soon as possible.
How do any of you expect to ever pass anything to save this city if on a forum devoted to transit discussion, so many people are talking about opposing or not voting for the only major attempt to generate revenue for the very projects we spend so much time arguing about and discussing? At a certain point it just seems to me that we're all kidding ourselves arguing about things that will never happen.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 3, 2008 5:02:03 GMT -8
It's very difficult to accurately calculate construction cost for a project 10 years into the future. Not in your life can anyone calculate 25 years into the future, especially absent any policy for design and material consistency/purchases, especially in the world of unique and separate construction authorities. Michael Setty wrote an interesting piece on his site, Publictransit.us, why it is so hard to correctly estimate public costs. Some of the reasons: 1. It's not worth the money to pay a premium for highly precise cost estimation. The estimation studies come out of the overall construction budget, and more precision costs more money. The problem is, precision only means the final project cost would match the estimation cost. Plus, it doesn't make sense to spend heavily on multiple alternatives when only one will be chosen. 2. For projects such as public transit infrastructure, there are too many local variables (geological, costs of capital, etc.) that can affect the total price, making it harder to predict the price. Also, the projects are not built frequently enough to make future estimations on past results accurate. 3. As soon as a public entity announces an estimated construction price, that price becomes the floor -- not the ceiling. If Metro did not say a price for the subway to the sea, the extension could cost $2 billion. It may also cost $20 billion. It does not want to write a blank check. It estimates a cost of around $5 billion. What happens now is that all construction firms will now use that $5 billion as a starting point for their bids. If it turns out that the $5 billion was estimated, even though most firms can plausibly complete the job for $2 billion, people are going to prison.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Aug 3, 2008 8:51:45 GMT -8
There are very few times when the political stars align and you can actually pass something like this. More hyperbole from the other side. 66.6% was difficult enough without pissing off the SGV and alienating the South Bay. There is NOTHING that special about this election that gives it a better chance of passing than it would have in 2010 at 55% threshold, when we'd actually have time to lower the threshold through the legislature and build the region-wide consensus and plan. And I say that as political consultant, who specializes in presidential campaigns (and would be working this election if MTA didn't have it's rear-end so far up it's butt on Expo) and is very familiar with the so-called "Obama phenomenon." Umm, how do you think these projects are going to be built? The sales tax is going to be used to repay construction bonds. The impediment however is that the amount that can be annually bonded using this method, is far less than if the bond were passed initially. This translates into shorter projects, phased projects, increasing the construction cost tremendously. The savings in large mass transit projects is in economy of scale. If we had the capital, standardized designs, and the skilled workforce (it would need to expand), to where cranes could be up and tunnel boring machines could be reeving in a couple of years, we could build nearly twice the amount of rail that is proposed in this measure for $10 billion, and have it delivered decades sooner. It's much easier and drastically cheaper to lower the TBMs at Veterans Memorial Hospital and send them east to Wilshire/Western in 3 years in one shot than to do it in 3 phases over 10-15 years. And by drastically cheaper I'm talking MULTIPLE BILLIONS just in construction costs. The purpose of bonds is to build massive public works projects like the Eisenhower freeways, not balancing the state budget, or spending $1.5 billion on parks. And the world will not end if it does not pass. It will be brought back again in 2009 or 2010, much better than it is today. The NOW NOW NOW of transit advocates is disturbing. Maybe I just haven't been involved in this fight long enough, and I'm young enough to believe in the importance of doing this right - or at least half-right. This is the next 30 years of transit we're talking about.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 3, 2008 13:09:32 GMT -8
I understand your perspective on it, and if this were an ideal world or your plan were up for a vote, I would support it.
I think though, that you overestimate the realistic chances of your plans. No, this election is not magical, but the 66% vote requirement is very difficult to get by and right now, the current shock of oil prices and the small surge in public transit use tell me that people in the city want to be offered a solution they can vote on. If they're given a potential path out of this gas price mess then my instincts tell me they'll support it. Wait a few years though and who knows. The natural state of things in Los Angeles is opposition.
I would love it if they could lower the barrier to 55% (I personally think two-thirds vote requirements are the biggest problem holding back this state and they're the main thing I'd immediately eliminate if someone let me into a room with the California constitution and a pair of scissors). Frankly, I'm suspicious that you could get the barrier lowered. The conservative anti-tax/anti-government movement is very strong in this state, and they'd fight like hell to keep it off the ballot or to create some terrible alternate proposition. When Feuer brought it to the Assembly this year, it was dead on arrival, the Republicans made it known that it was something they considered completely unacceptable, and it's the sort of vague policy issue that's difficult to get a signature campaign centered on it.
On the bond issue, I see your point, and frankly if it killed the rest of the budget but got the transit system built, I'd be in favor of the massive bonds because I think it'll have such a huge economic impact on the city, but in terms of sustainability, I think this state is on a path to ruin if we keep trying to replace revenue with bonds. We're piling our debt so high that at some point we're going to destroy our credit and create bigger and bigger future budget crises. I feel like this plan can be done within the current city structure and revenues, and while changing those structures is worth fighting for, the results are not something you can count on.
I really do respect how strong you are in your opinions and how much knowledge you have about transit issues. I just don't have any confidence that a better solution is waiting around the corner in 2009 or 2010, and I think that however flawed, there is a lot of good in this current plan. I'm also quite doubtful that if this sales tax fails and the money dries up for the Gold Line, that the SGV politicians are suddenly going to be more receptive two years from now when what they wanted in the first place was immediate, fast Gold Line funding. This seems to me like the city's best bet. If it fails, I really hope you're right about things and I'll happily support any efforts to achieve your goals, but I worry all it will mean is putting off these projects for five or ten years and then trying to pass a similarly flawed bill in the future.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 3, 2008 15:13:15 GMT -8
Not sure how waiting a couple of years to pass a sales tax bill will somehow build consensus. Is suddenly everyone going to get what they want? No. Everyone wants their projects to be funded first, but obviously that can't be done. If anything, there will be just more time for arguing. For example, if you allocate funds just based on population as some want now, then people in the city are going to get screwed over and be upset.
|
|