|
Post by masonite on Aug 6, 2008 8:20:02 GMT -8
Actually, the Green Line to LAX (should it have its own Authority, as has been proposed) would be funded through such vehicles as parking structures and commercial real estate that lie within L.A. City limits, and with such Authorities the City of L.A. has and can consider taking matters into its own hands. This isn't just my crazy idea, although I can understand why masonite might conclude it is. Similarly, certain SGV cities have taxed themselves to create street grade separations (at least if my memory serves me correctly) as betterments for the Gold Line. The Cities of Culver City and Los Angeles both put some money into assisting with grade separating the Expo Line Downtown and within Culver City boundaries (USC, though, weaseled out of every obligation after attempts to make everyone else pay for an expensive subway segment). So there are mechanisms for cities to do the job themselves if the county can't come together. At this point, I'd welcome more city and private investments if the county can't pull itself together...and at this point it does appear dubious for this sales tax to reach the 67% threshold if we don't have more politicians continuously badmouthing it. On the Gold Line and Expo, the cities are funding a grade separation here and there at the most. The vast majority of these lines are still being paid locally by the MTA. We are talking $10M here and $10M there that the cities are actually contributing on these lines. You are talking about them funding the entire lines along with say a federal match. That is more like $200M or $300M at the very minimum and probably more. That is a whole different ballgame to say the least. I wish you are right, but I just don't think there is any chance of this.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 6, 2008 9:41:32 GMT -8
On the Gold Line and Expo, the cities are funding a grade separation here and there at the most. The vast majority of these lines are still being paid locally by the MTA. We are talking $10M here and $10M there that the cities are actually contributing on these lines. You are talking about them funding the entire lines along with say a federal match. That is more like $200M or $300M at the very minimum and probably more. That is a whole different ballgame to say the least. I wish you are right, but I just don't think there is any chance of this. also, those $$$'s are for the most part more then the entire operating budget of those cities, net income kind of figures
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 6, 2008 10:32:34 GMT -8
My comments yesterday at StreetsBlogLA: Talk about opponents shooting themselves in the foot: With no sale tax there's no Eastside extension past Atlantic for Gloria Molina, no Foothill Gold Line for John Fasana and Mike Antonovich, and no increase in operating funding for the BRU's supporters. On the ballot finally or not, with "leadership" like this what are its chances of passage in November?
For contrast, be sure to see Ken Alpern's CityWatchLA column this week, "Time for the County Board to Act Like Grownups".
-------------------
No sales tax or other new funding measure leaves us with the default of the Draft LRTP. Over the next decade that would basically only operate the current bus and rail system (with fare increases), complete Expo to Santa Monica, and do some north-south BRT in the Valley. And even less political willingness to support projects sought by officials who opposed the sales tax. NickV's post yesterday is pretty consistent with this, a slight re-juggle of the existing draft LRTP funding.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 6, 2008 10:39:29 GMT -8
Although the Expo Line will happen sooner or later, it's not just the Wilshire Subway that will pay the price: any projects that are being supported by Antonovich or Molina, whether they be a rail line or a freeway, are almost certain to become a political impossibility at this point.
|
|
|
Post by movedeast on Aug 7, 2008 2:24:44 GMT -8
Just read the news here from New York. Sad. The obvious disfunction within the Board of Supervisors suggests either a charter amendment to revamp the structure of governance (Zev's idea) or retroactive term limits.
Given the issues it faces, LA County should be acting deliberately, like a small nation, rather than a collection of dis-connected suburban housing projects fighting over placement of a town swimming pool. From here, Molina's comments are breath-taking. She speaks as if this measure and the projects contained are somehow 'optional'. Perhaps Ms. Molina and those who voted against have other ideas on how people are to move around LA county? The signal it sends outside LA are even worse. Washington (and other advocates who want to help) take notice of these things - and nothing gets done without national support. Take cues from cousins to the north: SF Bart has five counties cheer-leading for its every move - Federal dollars find the path of least resistance.
I've written at least 10 times on this board how STATE chartered authorities just seem to work better (at least here in the East). State agencies seem to have the political clout to do unpopular things (levy taxes and tolls; use imminent domain; supercharge the revenue system to float bonds; and optimize budgeting by moving from one bucket and put in the next) Yes, I know the NY-MTA is in debt, yet it's moves are not often hemmed in by provincialism... everyone is talking about "how" to stabilize transit revenues... as importantly there is universal agreement that in transit there's ALWAYS much work to be done - and trust that the managers know very well what needs to be done.
Roger Snoble and his team are GREAT. They deserve to report up into people who recognize how much of a world class leadership team there is in So Cal and further recognize how grave the situation is. In my view, Roger's group has been thinking small - because the people he works for can't think big... and won't let him get there. Molina wants a subway to the east side. Great! That's big thinking. But you need balls Gloria. Not some whimpy abstention.
So here's my suggestion. Go hat in hand to your Southern California based Governor (who must get something if he let HSR stay on the ballot) and gather together your enormous So Cal legislative contingent. Put forth a bill or a state referendum to transfer the authority, revenue sources, assets and obligations of the LACMTA (and its sister agencies; OCTA and Ventura, San Diego transit - as well as Metrolink) into a SINGLE STATE CHARTERED AGENCY. Give it a clear AND EXCLUSIVE mission to link the population and job centers of the So. Cal. region by rail. Amend the state code to provide for the next 100 years counties and cities within the region may not undertake rail transit related infrastructure investments without the consent of same nor make any move to block or interfere with the agencies work.
The issue of transit will now become a state matter - the same as your interstate highway system. The courts are the only recourse (and there should be a clear and rapid process defined there too by law). Today highway projects seem to happen without a hitch. New bridges, hov lanes, interchanges, signage systems... things hum along at Cal trans. Meanwhile rail is left in this quagmire of imagined feudal states (the East Side of Los Angeles County is not really even an "entity" - the subject area is mostly LA City who's directly elected representative "the Mayor" supported this plan).
Exasperating. Time to set transit free once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 7, 2008 3:07:55 GMT -8
Movedeast, Metro is a state agency.
The state determines the structure and operating mission of Metro. It's board is at the county level, though.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 7, 2008 4:25:22 GMT -8
Unfortunately, it's all about Ms. Molina's continued resentment (which, to some degree, I have some sympathy) that the west side of the county got a subway and "she" didn't. It's all about her.
Yaroslavsky and Burke got on the Friends4Expo bandwagon and became FOR something: Expo, Crenshaw and Wilshire Subway (not really lionizing the Downtown Connector, unfortunately, but recognizing it has to be done sooner or later)...and I think they'll get it, one way or another.
Antonovich, while having self-defeating tactics, is FOR something and is likely to get a bit of what he wants but is risking losing the majority of his goals because of these tactics.
Both Knabe and Molina really aren't FOR anything...Knabe is anti-tax and is at risk of damning the future transit, including the Green Line to LAX, with faint praise. Molina, though, is the least understandable because her constituents really want these projects (freeway and rail).
Were she to say something like "dammitall, if we can throw $1 billion at a conceptual project between the Valley and the 405 freeway, I want another $1 billion at a conceptual southeast extension of the Red or Purple Line to serve the southeast corner of the Downtown region" she'd get it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 7, 2008 7:32:27 GMT -8
Molina is one of the most powerful figures in Southern California. She could be using that power to negotiate and lobby from a position of strength for projects in her region. Instead, she is using it to destroy the possibility of projects for the rest of the Southland.
Knabe and Antonovich are known idiots, but let's not let them off the hook either. Even though we've gotten used to their parochial, myopic vision, we still need to remember that they too prevented this from getting on the main ballot.
IMO, L.A. County needs to do the following:
1) Increase the number of Supervisors, from the current 5 to around 9. 2) Consider making some or all of these at-large Supervisors, meaning they are elected by everyone, rather than just a single district. 3) Make the County Executive an elected position.
We need a major shakeup in how decisions about regional issues are made. What we have now does not work.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 7, 2008 9:18:35 GMT -8
It's perhaps moot now, but these are all reasons why I was annoyed by so much lukewarm or non-support from progressives and transit-friendly people here. Reforming this system might never happen. This sales tax was the best shot possible given the circumstances.
My one criticism is that I believe they waited too long to decide to do it. They were non-committal about it for so many months, and we all knew they'd put it out there, but if they'd focused their energies earlier, the mayor and others, there would've been more time for the "crooked backdroom deals" and other stuff that Molina really wanted.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 7, 2008 10:13:44 GMT -8
somthing tells me that if metro were to be structured in the way that the NYtimes is suggesting that we would have 1 year of construction / progress and 15 years of budgetory hell
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 7, 2008 13:03:26 GMT -8
It's perhaps moot now, but these are all reasons why I was annoyed by so much lukewarm or non-support from progressives and transit-friendly people here. Reforming this system might never happen. This sales tax was the best shot possible given the circumstances. My one criticism is that I believe they waited too long to decide to do it. They were non-committal about it for so many months, and we all knew they'd put it out there, but if they'd focused their energies earlier, the mayor and others, there would've been more time for the "crooked backdroom deals" and other stuff that Molina really wanted. Even though I've made some critical comments on here on how the initiative has been altered and so forth I know for myself I am still an enthusiastic supporter of the tax. I believe almost all others on here are as well. Don't mistake some of our sniping for non-support. I'm sure all of us would make changes to the bill, but that doesn't mean we won't vote for it. While it still needs state approval, and I would horribly upset if state lawmakers did not approve this for a vote considering they have swiped our transit money for years and then to not allow us to vote to tax ourselves for transit would be the ultimate in non-responsible government. Don Knabe announced he will change his vote so this will be on the ballot if the state approves it. We need some serious money behind the campaign if this makes it to the ballot. Somebody needs to find a Stephen Bing or someone with deep pockets. You never know it still could pass. If it doesn't, hopefully we can at least celebrate the High Speed Rail bond.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 7, 2008 13:10:33 GMT -8
I have a couple of technical questions that someone may have the answer to.
1. If Expo Phase II has Prop A and C money, why put it on the list for sales tax funding? Are we just trying to be sure it has money in case it doesn't get a big federal match? By not including these funds, it may have been better for the sales tax initiative.
2. The state was talking about adding sales taxes for services a few months ago, although seems to be focusing instead on just raising the rate. If services are then taxed, how does that work for Prop A. and C? I assume they would just follow along and then there would be more revenue for the MTA. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 7, 2008 13:39:29 GMT -8
1. If Expo Phase II has Prop A and C money, why put it on the list for sales tax funding? Are we just trying to be sure it has money in case it doesn't get a big federal match? By not including these funds, it may have been better for the sales tax initiative. If it passes Expo will be paid with all local money and Downtown Regional Connector will be the project that will go towards the Federal funding New starts. That is one of the reasons why that amount locally towards Expo is important, it means a greater likelyhood to get the Regional Connector (a stronger project compared with Expo on a riders/mile basis) with a 50% federal match.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Aug 7, 2008 13:44:50 GMT -8
That has to do with New Starts funding right? The one that only funds a project every few years? Two questions then: is that the only way to get federal funding for urban rail projects, and how does it compare with federal funding for highway projects?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 7, 2008 13:49:50 GMT -8
That has to do with New Starts funding right? The one that only funds a project every few years? Two questions then: is that the only way to get federal funding for urban rail projects, and how does it compare with federal funding for highway projects? It's not the only way, but it's the one that has the largest pot available to recieve funding. The highway projects I'm not too familiar with. I'll have to do some more research on that.
|
|
|
Post by BRinSM on Aug 7, 2008 13:56:32 GMT -8
We need some serious money behind the campaign if this makes it to the ballot. construction unions?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 7, 2008 14:15:23 GMT -8
this is like a bad movie link
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 7, 2008 18:34:39 GMT -8
"this is like a bad movie"
Dumb and Dumber comes to mind.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 7, 2008 19:15:42 GMT -8
Again, before it seemed likely that opposition would die down once it was on the ballot. All of the politicians though are squawking about actively opposing and trying to convince their constituents that the sales tax would be highway robbery for the two valleys, and I expect the local papers to buy it.
It's good taxpayer money won't be wasted by a foolish second ballot, but the chances for 67% passage seem low if anyone is actually going to campaign against it (other than the usual Howard Jarvis stuff).
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Aug 7, 2008 19:58:36 GMT -8
The governator is pushing for a temporary 1% sales tax to fix the budget. I don't think the .5% increase has a chance.
I'll probably get slammed for this one, but why not just raise fares? Transit is super cheap compared to driving. I think the average person could afford to pay a little more.
Maybe they could offer some kind of low income discount to those who make minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 7, 2008 20:14:06 GMT -8
not trying to pounce on you here, but increasing fairs will not entice new riders in this mid zone between affordable and not affordable gas prices.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 7, 2008 20:29:11 GMT -8
well now wait a second... ive been trying to do some math to figure out how much that would cost...
right now i got the 40 billion / 30 years. = 1,333,333,333.33
divide that but estimated daily ridership [2 million] = $0.67
current metro fair, 1.25 40 billion metro fair, 1.92
53% increase in fair...
i dont know how that relates to regular fair increases
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 7, 2008 20:30:43 GMT -8
We have among the lowest fares in the country. A better system, paid for with increased fares, will result in higher ridership.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 8, 2008 15:56:03 GMT -8
Read what Bart wrote in the L.A. Times Dan, you really need to see that other areas have actually gotten Transit and Road improvements. The SF Valley has a subway and the Orange line busway, plus two Metrolink lines. The San Gabriel Valley has the Foothill Gold Line, plus 2 Metrolink lines and the El Monte busway. The South Bay has the Green Line and the Harbor Transitway. Now, where is one of the highest concentration of employment in Los Angeles County? Ah, where? Why, it is West Los Angeles. What Metrolink line? What rail line? As others have pointed out, there is something for everyone all over the County, and even the beggar holding the cup without rail and one or two freeways is still West LA. Many from other parts of the County want to continue our journey via rail to West LA. And, please understand, it is the "Subway Towards the Sea", as there isn't enough money in Measure R to really get the Purple line west of Westwood. And nothing is regressive about a sales tax. It isn't included in rent or on food. Yeah, buy a car and you'll pay a little more, but the tax on average is $25 / yearly to the rest of us. Knabe doesn't want to waste an additional $10 million. Many of us voters want a crack at voting Yes on Measure R this November without election or voting challenges. Posted by: Bart Reed | August 07, 2008 at 02:22 PM I think Bart is 100% right!
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 8, 2008 16:07:30 GMT -8
We need some serious money behind the campaign if this makes it to the ballot. construction unions? The Unions will support the tax because it increases Union Jobs I.E. construction unions, Metro UtU. (drivers) ATU (Mechanics) and supervisors. How many train operators are needed for a start up? And stand-by divers? and mechanics? And supervisors? and addition personnel needed to keep all the system running? Not to mention that the new train operators are needed to replace the bus operators who are trained to drive the trains! I see more Jobs here and if your healthy and got no felonies you can go to work at Metro and be a bus operator (full time) for two years and become a Metro train operator.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Aug 9, 2008 1:27:15 GMT -8
I disagree with saying there's nothing regressive about a sales tax. I believe in this case a sales tax is absolutely justified, but I believe that in general, especially with regards to the Governor's new plan, sales taxes are some of the least progressive forms of taxation. Even if you exempt all the necessary basic goods, poorer citizens spend such a higher percentage of their income than do wealthier citizens that the tax does end up being regressive in many cases.
Re: Why not just raise fares While I'm sure raising fares will be necessary if this sales tax bill fails, it's important to remember that many of us on boards like this are not people actively depending on the transit system for our livelihoods. To a poor Los Angeleno (and there are many of them), a fare increase is a very big deal and they have no real choice on the matter. That was one of the best things about this sales tax proposal, in my opinion, keeping the dollar twenty five fare for at least three more years.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Aug 9, 2008 6:03:20 GMT -8
This is exactly why public transit flops in Los Angeles.
It is not just about building a first rate public transit system, it is also about income redistribution. You want both and will end up with nothing.
Focus on public transit. Public transit benefits society, the economy and is good for the working man. The people will support public transit.
Bring the Robin Hood scenario into funding and you will lose.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 10, 2008 4:45:26 GMT -8
This is exactly why public transit flops in Los Angeles. Why? And how?
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Aug 10, 2008 6:42:14 GMT -8
Well, we have a Green line that stops 1 mile short of LAX, a Red Line that goes no where, and an Orange line the should be LRT but instead is overcrowded with busses. We have the 405 grid-locked 24-7 and without even a proposed transit solution. The BRU insists that public transit is a right so drain resources funds to keep fares low. Both conservative and liberal oppose transit for petty political reasons, a la Molina, .
In spite of all these shortcoming, people still flock to use what little transit is available.
My point is that public transit is too important to stink up with politics. People here will pay for and support for more and better transit, so long as we leave tangential political aspirations, such as income redistribution or racism or whatever motivates those on the fringe, out of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 10, 2008 8:41:17 GMT -8
...a Red Line that goes no where, your funny
|
|