LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Given Metro's track record, that's a big if. Besides, wouldn't the Metro Board of Directors (which has representation from all over the county) have to give its approval before the measure goes before voters? That's just as big an obstacle as the ridiculous supermajority threshold.

Thoughts, anyone? Special tax initiatives now only need a simple majority vote, and the amount of signatures required to get them on the ballot must be equivalent to at least 10% of the number of registered voters within that city/county. LA County had 5,306,704 registered voters as of the 2018 general election, so any initiative would require over half a million signatures to get on the ballot. That's a reach.

An LA city-only measure (or one in conjunction with some combination of West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica, Inglewood, and Glendale) likely wouldn't generate the sales tax* revenue needed to fund a half-dozen grade-separated rail projects. I don't know how a parcel tax would compare, but I think a sales tax would be an easier sell.

Originally Posted by numble

Propositions A and C, which give a total of 1% to Metro required simple majorities to pass as they occurred before 1997.

In 1997, California voters passed Proposition 218 to requires local governments to get two-thirds approval to raise any local taxes. Most people thought Proposition 218 meant that any increase in local taxes proposed (from government or private citizens) requires two-thirds approval.

The California Supreme Court just ruled that the two-thirds rule only applies to government entities (Metro is still considered a government entity), and that private citizen initiatives, even involving a tax increase, can be passed by a simple majority:
http://legal-planet.org/2017/08/28/c...n-prop-13-218/

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I was just coming here to post about this. This is HUGE and very under-reported. This opens up the possibility of someone placing a true urban transit measure on the ballot that doesn't fund any freeways or trains to the exurbs in an effort to get a 2/3rds vote.

It'd be great to see one that focuses exclusively on boosting bus service and building a high-quality BRT network on our major corridors, accelerating the most worthy Measure R/M projects (Vermont HRT, Crenshaw northern extension, Eco-rapid line, and Sepulveda HRT), and extending the Purple Line to Santa Monica. Maybe some money for grade separations thrown in there as well.

Only problem is that many LA county jurisdictions have now reached their maximum sales tax. A new measure would need to a different mechanism (parcel tax? income tax? gas tax??).

*All of LA County already exceeded the 2% local cap tax rate (which isn't a hard cap) when we passed Measure H in March 2017, which increased the sales tax by 0.25% to address the homeless crisis.

[caligrad]

Lets say.....We have a public/private partnership with our rail lines....What would that entail ? For example.....Lets say the city reaches out to Google, Apple, Microsoft.... And say "Hey, you guys are worth billions, how about throwing a billion or two towards mass transit lines (LRT for obvious, cheaper reasons) in the county of LA and we'll name that line you help funded after you ? just in time for the Olympics ? with 20 year naming rights or something?"

Would corporations fall for that ? solid advertising in a region of 18 million with millions of tourists each year

I'm sorry, I'm just severely underwhelmed with the 28 by 28 BS. LA needs solid lines under construction.

[Quixote]

The other option is another referendum that requires the approval of the Metro Board of Directors, assuming the threshold gets lowered to 55%. Move LA absolutely cannot use the same "ground-up" approach as they did with Measure M by letting the regional COGs decide what they want.

The current Metro Board:

Sheila Kuehl (LA County Third District)
James Butts (Inglewood)
Eric Garcetti (LA)
Kathryn Barger (LA County Fifth District)
Mike Bonin (LA)
Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker (LA)
John Fasana (Duarte)
Robert Garcia (Long Beach)
Janice Hahn (LA County Fourth District)
Paul Krekorian (LA)
Ara Najarian (Glendale)
Mark Ridley-Thomas (LA County Second District)
Hilda Solis (LA County First District)

[Quixote]

Based on that representation (which will change come 2024) and the type of projects we'd want built, I'd say you're guaranteed a 'yes' vote from the following:

1) The LA mayor (an automatic)
2) Second District Supervisor
3) Third District Supervisor

Which means you'd have to win over at least four more members.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Based on that representation (which will change come 2024) and the type of projects we'd want built, I'd say you're guaranteed a 'yes' vote from the following:

1) The LA mayor (an automatic)
2) Second District Supervisor
3) Third District Supervisor

Which means you'd have to win over at least four more members.

LA mayor appoints 3 seats. If you think the 3 votes above get it, then they just need 1 more vote.

I am not sure if there will be appetite to push another sales tax measure when you won’t have any Measure M projects built yet (Regional Connector, Crenshaw, Expo Phase 2, Foothill Gold Line to Azusa and Purple Lines segments 1&2 are all Measure R projects). It’s notable that Metro staff did not put a new sales tax measure as a potential source of funding for the 28x2028 initiative.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

I think the other alternative to raising funds, rather than increasing our already very high taxes, is to use value capture on yet to be built homes. Say an ordinance was passed in the zone outlined in grey below that anyone could build any building up to 80 feet over whatever is permitted in the area, without parking or setbacks or affordable housing within 1/2 a mile of all existing and proposed metro lines, provided they paid $30 per square foot of building not permitted under current development codes. This money all goes into a fund, and when there is enough, construction starts on the lines shown. To raise the funds needed to build everything shown (about $14 billion), then about 400 million new square feet of development would need to be permitted, equivalent to about 300,000 new housing units, all clustered around the new metro lines.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by numble

LA mayor appoints 3 seats. If you think the 3 votes above get it, then they just need 1 more vote.

I am not sure if there will be appetite to push another sales tax measure when you won’t have any Measure M projects built yet (Regional Connector, Crenshaw, Expo Phase 2, Foothill Gold Line to Azusa and Purple Lines segments 1&2 are all Measure R projects). It’s notable that Metro staff did not put a new sales tax measure as a potential source of funding for the 28x2028 initiative.

Measure M is basically an acceleration of the Measure R projects, plus funding for Sepulveda to LAX and Crenshaw North.

I would agree though that the focus for right now seems to be the R/M projects, with little momentum for something groundbreakingly ambitious. But we need to start having that conversation at some point. Let's be honest, most of those R/M projects will do little to change the transportation culture here.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I think the other alternative to raising funds, rather than increasing our already very high taxes, is to use value capture on yet to be built homes. Say an ordinance was passed in the zone outlined in grey below that anyone could build any building up to 80 feet over whatever is permitted in the area, without parking or setbacks or affordable housing within 1/2 a mile of all existing and proposed metro lines, provided they paid $30 per square foot of building not permitted under current development codes. This money all goes into a fund, and when there is enough, construction starts on the lines shown. To raise the funds needed to build everything shown (about $14 billion), then about 400 million new square feet of development would need to be permitted, equivalent to about 300,000 new housing units, all clustered around the new metro lines.

That's just another hidden tax no? we already got stuck with something like this for building housing for the low income/homeless. We need more housing at this point, not more hidden taxes and fees that will keep developers from even stepping foot in LA county while the ones that do charge outrageous amounts for a 1 bedroom.

The only solid, cheaper, option I think will actually work is if the city gets serious about public/private partnerships. It might be our saving grass instead of always increasing taxes. 5 cent increase is nothing. Now, add another increase and another and another and another stacked on each other and that tax will end up being a lot after a while.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by caligrad

For example.....Lets say the city reaches out to Google, Apple, Microsoft.... And say "Hey, you guys are worth billions, how about throwing a billion or two towards mass transit lines (LRT for obvious, cheaper reasons) in the county of LA and we'll name that line you help funded after you ? just in time for the Olympics ? with 20 year naming rights or something?"

Don't be silly, these days huge corporations expect the taxpayers to give THEM billions of dollars, not the other way around.

[numble]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Lets say.....We have a public/private partnership with our rail lines....What would that entail ? For example.....Lets say the city reaches out to Google, Apple, Microsoft.... And say "Hey, you guys are worth billions, how about throwing a billion or two towards mass transit lines (LRT for obvious, cheaper reasons) in the county of LA and we'll name that line you help funded after you ? just in time for the Olympics ? with 20 year naming rights or something?"

Would corporations fall for that ? solid advertising in a region of 18 million with millions of tourists each year

I'm sorry, I'm just severely underwhelmed with the 28 by 28 BS. LA needs solid lines under construction.

Nobody is going to pay billions for advertising. The naming rights for the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco was just $110 million. Naming rights for sports stadiums often are under $50 million.

Here is a list of US rail lines with corporate sponsorship, the sponsors basically are charged $1 million or less per year:
https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...4-78D26970F46A

The popular public/private partnership model is to award a DBFOM contract to the private partner, having the private partner finance part of the construction cost, and allowing them to operate and maintain the line for 20-25 years after construction in exchange for annual payments.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Measure M is basically an acceleration of the Measure R projects, plus funding for Sepulveda to LAX and Crenshaw North.

I would agree though that the focus for right now seems to be the R/M projects, with little momentum for something groundbreakingly ambitious. But we need to start having that conversation at some point. Let's be honest, most of those R/M projects will do little to change the transportation culture here.

That's not really a fair characterization of Measure M. It accelerates the third Purple Line segment, and converts many BRT projects under Measure R to rail projects (Sepulveda, ESFV, WSAB), as well as converting the Orange Line to rail.

The most important part is that the Measure M tax does not sunset and the tax rate will double in 2039. After the 28x2028 list of projects are done, there are only a handful of projects on the Measure M list that need to be completed, and Metro will have more leeway to decide where the Measure M money goes next.

With extra funding from SB1 (gas tax), public/private partnerships, ExpressLanes (which should be a major revenue generator once they add 105 and 405), a possible congestion pricing program and maybe a new federal infrastructure bill, I think one can be optimistic that they can complete the Measure M list early and freeing up funds for new projects.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by caligrad

That's just another hidden tax no? we already got stuck with something like this for building housing for the low income/homeless. We need more housing at this point, not more hidden taxes and fees that will keep developers from even stepping foot in LA county while the ones that do charge outrageous amounts for a 1 bedroom.

Yes and no. Parking requirements often cost ~$80/built square foot of other space, so replacing that with a $30/sqare foot fee actually decreases overall costs.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by numble

That's not really a fair characterization of Measure M. It accelerates the third Purple Line segment, and converts many BRT projects under Measure R to rail projects (Sepulveda, ESFV, WSAB), as well as converting the Orange Line to rail.

All of those projects, minus the Orange Line LRT, were part of Measure R. Measure R did a very good job of selling the illusion that it was more than just a down payment for said projects.

The most important part is that the Measure M tax does not sunset and the tax rate will double in 2039. After the 28x2028 list of projects are done, there are only a handful of projects on the Measure M list that need to be completed, and Metro will have more leeway to decide where the Measure M money goes next.

But they’ll still need to equitably apportion funding for new capital projects across the entire county, which is the very root of the problem because it forces us to sacrifice quality for quantity. We need about a half-dozen rail projects similar to the Purple Line extension in scope, and almost all of them need to be in Central LA, the Westside, and the SFV.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

All of those projects, minus the Orange Line LRT, were part of Measure R. Measure R did a very good job of selling the illusion that it was more than just a down payment for said projects.

By your logic, the Sepulveda and Crenshaw North were also part of Measure R. Measure R provided $1 billion for Sepulveda. The Measure R studies for Sepulveda and Crenshaw projects included segments and project scopes beyond what Measure R could fund and Measure R specifically says the Crenshaw line should start from Wilshire Blvd, while they never really sold WSAB and ESFV (which only got ~$200 million in Measure R) as rail lines. Besides those projects, Measure M also includes a Green Line extension to Norwalk, a Lincoln Blvd. line that will be converted to rail, a Pasadena to North Hollywood line that will be converted to rail, a statement to consider extending Green Line further south to the Blue Line, a second Eastside Extension line, and a Vermont BRT line that will be converted to rail.

But they’ll still need to equitably apportion funding for new capital projects across the entire county, which is the very root of the problem because it forces us to sacrifice quality for quantity. We need about a half-dozen rail projects similar to the Purple Line extension in scope, and almost all of them need to be in Central LA, the Westside, and the SFV.

There is nothing in the Measure M ordinance that requires this, only rules that say if a project is completed without spending on the funds designated in Measure M, the excess funds should go to projects in the same region.

The Metro Board may add projects by a 2/3 vote "so long as such additions do not delay the Groundbreaking Start Date, Expected Opening Date, or amount of “Measure M Funding 2015$” of any other “Expenditure Plan Major Project”."

[SFBruin]

^^ That boulevard line really fills in the gaps in the Measure M plan for the Westwise nicely.

Crazy what one line can do.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Don't be silly, these days huge corporations expect the taxpayers to give THEM billions of dollars, not the other way around.

Just a thought. I know they wont give billions but the point Is the city needs to figure out other ways than a sales tax increase every few years. With little to no show for those sales taxes. 100-200 million is better than nothing don't you think ? getting a few corporations to do that with naming rights or exclusive advertising rights can do the trick.


South of the 10 the city needs a dozen more blue/expo/Crenshaw lines running and asap. Our traffic isn't going anywhere until we have a larger network.

Originally Posted by numble

Nobody is going to pay billions for advertising. The naming rights for the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco was just $110 million. Naming rights for sports stadiums often are under $50 million.

Here is a list of US rail lines with corporate sponsorship, the sponsors basically are charged $1 million or less per year:
https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...4-78D26970F46A

The popular public/private partnership model is to award a DBFOM contract to the private partner, having the private partner finance part of the construction cost, and allowing them to operate and maintain the line for 20-25 years after construction in exchange for annual payments.

At the end of the day. Anything is better than nothing. At this point, we're getting a new rail line every 5-8 years? while the city grows quicker than that. Even if its not a billion. 100-200 million is better than nothing.

[numble]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Just a thought. I know they wont give billions but the point Is the city needs to figure out other ways than a sales tax increase every few years. With little to no show for those sales taxes. 100-200 million is better than nothing don't you think ? getting a few corporations to do that with naming rights or exclusive advertising rights can do the trick.


South of the 10 the city needs a dozen more blue/expo/Crenshaw lines running and asap. Our traffic isn't going anywhere until we have a larger network.



At the end of the day. Anything is better than nothing. At this point, we're getting a new rail line every 5-8 years? while the city grows quicker than that. Even if its not a billion. 100-200 million is better than nothing.

It's not a new rail line every 5-8 years. Here is the schedule since Measure R was passed in 2008.

2009: Eastside Gold Line Extension
2012: Expo Line Phase 1
2016: Foothill Gold Line Extension to Azusa
2016: Expo Line Phase 2
2020: Crenshaw Line
2021: Regional Connector
2023: Purple Line Extension Segment 1
2023: LAX People Mover
2024: Foothill Gold Line Extension to La Verne/Pomona
2025: Purple Line Extension Segment 2
2026: Purple Line Extension Segment 3
2027: East San Fernando Valley Line
2028: West Santa Ana Branch Line Phase 1
2028: Foothill Gold Line Extension to Claremont/Montclair

On top of that current schedule, Metro wants to complete additional projects on an accelerated schedule by 2028: Sepulveda Line Phase 1, Eastside Extension Phase 2, West Santa Ana Branch Line Phase 2, and Green Line Extension to Torrance.

On top of Metro's acceleration efforts, the City of LA is trying to fund/accelerate a Red/Purple Extension to the Arts District, and West Hollywood is trying to accelerate the Crenshaw North Extension.

[SFBruin]

Could LA city charge an income tax to pay for additional transit lines just in the city?

I know that CA taxes people to the moon already, but central and West LA aren't supposed to be cheap places to live.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by numble

By your logic, the Sepulveda and Crenshaw North were also part of Measure R. Measure R provided $1 billion for Sepulveda. The Measure R studies for Sepulveda and Crenshaw projects included segments and project scopes beyond what Measure R could fund and Measure R specifically says the Crenshaw line should start from Wilshire Blvd, while they never really sold WSAB and ESFV (which only got ~$200 million in Measure R) as rail lines. Besides those projects, Measure M also includes a Green Line extension to Norwalk, a Lincoln Blvd. line that will be converted to rail, a Pasadena to North Hollywood line that will be converted to rail, a statement to consider extending Green Line further south to the Blue Line, a second Eastside Extension line, and a Vermont BRT line that will be converted to rail.
There is nothing in the Measure M ordinance that requires this, only rules that say if a project is completed without spending on the funds designated in Measure M, the excess funds should go to projects in the same region.

The Metro Board may add projects by a 2/3 vote "so long as such additions do not delay the Groundbreaking Start Date, Expected Opening Date, or amount of “Measure M Funding 2015$” of any other “Expenditure Plan Major Project”."

It’s not really correct to say that the tax rate doubles in 2039. It makes permanent the current level of transit taxation under A/C/R/M. When R would have expired, M increases. That money is accounted for in the M plan through the 2050s. There’s not going to be any excess money until then.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Could LA city charge an income tax to pay for additional transit lines just in the city?

I know that CA taxes people to the moon already, but central and West LA aren't supposed to be cheap places to live.

No, I don't believe that California permits its cities to levy municipal earnings taxes.

Most cities around the country that do have municipal earnings taxes fund public transportation through sales taxes and/or property taxes. The lucky ones (Maryland, New York) have significant state funding for local public transportation.