LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Yeah, cherry-picking which jurisdictions to include in the measure would seem to be much more feasible if we're taking about a property tax (instead of a sales tax). If property values are going to continue to increase due to lack of new inventory, then his would also be a great way to derive something of value out of it.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Pretty much what you just said. Put stuff in about upzoning and making development easier to appease developers, and the equivalent for unions.

This would render the initiative dead on arrival. Angeleno voters aren't educated enough to be sold on "good" upzoning/development. In order to get votes, you'd have to sell it on its own merits: an intra-city bond measure to get your community out of its auto-dependent morass. And it would still be iffy, because Angelenos bitch and moan about traffic, but neglect to read up on its causes or its solutions.

It's like the prop 13 quagmire - why vote to increase your own taxes in exchange for societal benefits that, due to your lifestyle-induced ignorance of the public realm, won't even allow yourself to comprehend? And why vote to abolish it when you already selfishly benefit from it. The prop 13 quagmire is the suburban quagmire - a distillation of the entire American culture-war into a single legislative initiative. Why hope that someone with the attention-span of a house-fly would find interest in the wider social benefits of self-taxation to begin with, when he's too busy lusting about a bigger yard to bbq in? Goes to my complaint of the vapid consumerist LA lifestyle (every city's got it, but LA is torch-bearer) - if you want to live in a city, live like you mean it. Don't ask for more parking for yourself, and then complain about regional traffic. Don't ask for lower taxes, and then complain about piss-poor education and dumb kids who don't vote. Don't build a half-assed city because then you create the ignorant electorate that can't save itself from itself (people who've become too stupid for their own good - trump voter phenomenon). I am a firm believer in being products our environment. Have you heard, Texans love laissez faire capitalism, dereg, privatization, SUVs, big homes, and cheap oil? Environment = culture = environment.

The failures of democracy are the failures of the public realm to factor into the daily lives of its people - to be aware of a greater common good (the public realm). And Angelenos' appreciation of this realm is the worst of any major global city. Self-taxation for benefit that are self-explanatory to other city-folk is an extremely tough sell here, and the problem is deep-rooted in our lifestyle and culture. Here more than most places, things must get much worse before people wake from the self induced coma of suburban culture. LA's electorate is NOT an enlightened crowd. Starting a local initiative is an admirable cause, but our intellectually-passive electorate votes solely on the basis of self-observed hardship, and that alone. Change will happen o its own time, as it always has.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Yeah, cherry-picking which jurisdictions to include in the measure would seem to be much more feasible if we're taking about a property tax (instead of a sales tax). If property values are going to continue to increase due to lack of new inventory, then his would also be a great way to derive something of value out of it.

Sales tax would raise more money, I think, although it does so in a definitely more regressive way.

Here's existing Sales Tax rates:
https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/boe95.pdf

Santa Monica, Inglewood and Culver are above the county base level, but the others aren't. The problem with cherry-picking jurisdictions, if I'm not mistaken, is that you would need a joint powers authority to receive the taxes in the name of the various cities and act as the funding agent. Also, I'm not sure if this is a necessity, but in the Bay Area, the BART multicounty proposition that just failed I believe had to pass in each respective jurisdiction in order to take effect. I don't know if that's just the way the ordinance was written.

In any case, taking the multi-city approach could be messy. If it were a three-city coalition of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Los Angeles that would open up one extra route, Santa Monica Boulevard from La Brea to Century City. (Of course, you could also argue that that segment is a project of regional interest and Metro should really be footing the bill, not just 3 cities.)

For an LA-only sales tax I think the corridors should include some of the following:
1) Wilshire, to Bundy maybe with a stop added in at Barrington to make the most of the city's investment
2) Vermont, south to the Green Line. Ideally you'd go further to the Harbor for votes but that crosses out of the city limits.
3) Santa Monica/Sunset, Union Station to La Brea. La Brea is an ok end point as it would connect to the Crenshaw Line.
4) Western, Expo to the Glendale Metrolink Station in Atwater.
5) Pico/Venice, really I still think only the Pico half of this line, from DTLA to Pico/Rimpau, makes sense until Venice gets its act together.
6) Ventura/Reseda, a branch off the Sepulveda Line about the length of the East SFV project. Terminating at CSUN.
7) An extension of (3) east to CSULA
8) An extension of (5) to Lincoln Heights and El Sereno.

Something like that.

[electricron]

Can't city councils and county commissioners raise the property tax rates already, without having a referendum? California has so many taxes dedicated for exclusive projects it's mind-blowing, just give these taxation and allocation powers to public officials and hold them accountable at reelection if they stray too far.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Takes Another Step Towards Reality
by STEVEN SHARP on September 01, 2017, 10:59AM

I've been out of town and busy with work so just catching up on my transit news reading.

Seems like the big problem here is that Metro is evaluating ESFV in a vacuum without thinking about Sepulveda Pass. What would it take for the Metro Board to insist on heavy rail being in the final EIR?

I think most people that even pay remote attention to transit issues in LA knows that a continuous rail service from deep in SFV (like say... Sylmar) through West LA to LAX is the way to go. And if we are going to tunnel thru the Sepulveda Pass, we should be building for the highest capacity.

The BRT and streetcar options in the preliminary study are basically a farce (the biggest farce "no build" is required by law).

[Illithid Dude]

I can see a tram working very well. There are already plans for the Orange Line to be converted to a tram system, which would interface incredibly well with a potential Ventura streetcar. The low density of the SFV would be ideal for a wide spanning tram network. I agree that Metro is making a mistake viewing the Ventura corridor in a vacuum. This spur could be the beginnings of a new transit network that could span a huge swath of the valley.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I can see a tram working very well. There are already plans for the Orange Line to be converted to a tram system, which would interface incredibly well with a potential Ventura streetcar. The low density of the SFV would be ideal for a wide spanning tram network. I agree that Metro is making a mistake viewing the Ventura corridor in a vacuum. This spur could be the beginnings of a new transit network that could span a huge swath of the valley.

There are no plans to convert the Orange Line to a tram, and Measure M actually requires it to be converted to light rail.

Why would a tram work well if it will be slower than a bus?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

The East SFV corridor should be built as grade-seperated HRT, and cut back to Panorama City to make it affordable. In the long run, we'll want a single HRT corridor from the Antelope Valley line to LAX, so we should do it right the first time.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by numble

There are no plans to convert the Orange Line to a tram, and Measure M actually requires it to be converted to light rail.

Why would a tram work well if it will be slower than a bus?

The light rail the Orange Line would be converted to would be a low floor light rail aka a tram, so that the stations would not have to be interrupted. I believe the only reason the team would be slower than the BRT is because it would include all the stops the local buss service along Ventura makes, which is a retry silly decision that can easily be changed in the future. Streetcars are wonderful forms of transportation that are used throughout much of the world. There are many cities that are similar to Los Angeles that use streetcar systems, such as Melbourne. Of course, a streetcar being a good transportation system is contingent on it being planned well, which I have (limited) faith Metro will be able to accomplish. Moreover, think of the bigger picture - streetcars running down Magnolia, Victory, Ventura, and more. Many of these streets were originally built with streetcars in mind, and could easily sustain a rebuilt route. The trick is Metro realizing that this line could be the beginning of a greater system, and not studying the line in a bubble as they currently are.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The trick is Metro realizing that this line could be the beginning of a greater system, and not studying the line in a bubble as they currently are.

All transit agencies seeking federal funding for new transit projects look at individual corridors and not the entire system, because that's the way the Feds look at it. Highways are treated the same, I-10 corridor improvement projects are separated from the I-5 corridor, and looked at individually.

Metro can't not change the way the Federal government studies and approves projects. Please don't suggest it can.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The light rail the Orange Line would be converted to would be a low floor light rail aka a tram, so that the stations would not have to be interrupted.

[Citation needed]
Anyway, the stations will have to get rebuilt longer, and many of them will be elevated, so a tram wouldn't save much $.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by bzcat

I've been out of town and busy with work so just catching up on my transit news reading.

Seems like the big problem here is that Metro is evaluating ESFV in a vacuum without thinking about Sepulveda Pass. What would it take for the Metro Board to insist on heavy rail being in the final EIR?

I think most people that even pay remote attention to transit issues in LA knows that a continuous rail service from deep in SFV (like say... Sylmar) through West LA to LAX is the way to go. And if we are going to tunnel thru the Sepulveda Pass, we should be building for the highest capacity.

The BRT and streetcar options in the preliminary study are basically a farce (the biggest farce "no build" is required by law).

The key piece to the statement is that both the East SFV and Sepulveda Pass Corridors in both Measure R and M are defined in their respective voter approved legally binding ordinances as separate corridors.

The only process that could enable Metro to legally combine them IS THE EIR Process. And that can come in either two ways, suggest the Metro add HRT as an option to the East SFV project and/or then have a parallel review with the Sepulveda Pass Corridor so that it can be defined accordingly with the same timeline of review as East SFV corridor.

Those 5 words mentioned above; "voter-approved-legally-binding-ordinance" are the reasons why Metro is going through with the process because legally they have to. The Metro Board nor could Metro staff change at the drop of a hat combine both studies as it will require an amendment to the ordinance for both Measure R and Measure M because there is funding attached that two thirds of the voters in LA County approved.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Take your pick:

Move LA, Transit Coalition, Investing in Place

As a former staffer at Move LA, I would say they would with coalition of other non profits have the bandwidth to make something like that happen.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It's difficult to conceive of a situation where the use of VMT and the cessation of LOS would inhibit sidewalk and streetscape improvements. We are merely replacing a planning metric that hinged solely on mitigating the number of cars delayed, with one that mitigates excessive car usage. How could this be a bad thing? The net positives vastly overwhelm any negatives.

Because we are delaying one of the very alternatives to the car in public transit as an afterthought which then makes the situation worse when road space is allocated to a bike lane when it should have been for a bus lane but because the bus lane is required to go through a thorough EIR review and the bike lane doesn't, we are screwing transit.

Now SB 743 in theory should work for a transit district, but not a transit corridor. That distinction in terminology is important to understand why Transit will get left out of the conversation in practice. Because for most study, transit projects are studied as corridors of many miles to understand the cumulative effects, a transit district is only in a localized zone of a 1/2 mile radius from a stop/station. If too many of them are coupled together by EIR definition that is no longer understood as a district it becomes a corridor.

Yes the reporting is a work in progress, but even the case of a faulty metric for VMT (and I'm sure the ultimate metric will be well thought out - after all, virtually all abolitionists of LOS are from the smarter half of our state ) will be vastly better than abating developments in order to favor automobile throughput as an "environmental concern". LOS has been the primary reason why American roads are basically 6 lane highways, and its cities are ped-hostile suburban wastelands with minimal attention given to "sidewalks and streetscapes".

Is LOS really the culprit or are bad land use financing decisions that support sprawl in the outer fringes?

Because I can give a couple of examples that I've used with the Sierra Club using LOS as the guide to where we had a comprehensive transit/bike/ped friendly improvement package as a mitigation for a project and what prevented the project for approval was that the Governor wouldn't sign it. Also in LA County did the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica or Old Town Pasadena needed to change from LOS to VMT to make the pedestrian friendly environments happen or did they think strategically on where to place the car and built an environment where that vehicle is not needed while they are there. Guess what it didn't require changing the metrics to do that. They thought smartly about their respective cities Downtowns.

The issue with VMT in this trial period of figuring out what works is important in how does VMT translates for projects that move goods for our economy through our interstates? VMT at the surface level will be a barrier to improvements to those corridors most of which contain improvements to those sidewalks and bike lanes. VMT is well meaning but an unintended consequence that needs refinement.

[blackcat23]

What's Behind L.A. Metro Rail's High Operating Costs?

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

What's Behind L.A. Metro Rail's High Operating Costs?

I had a really hard time wrapping my head around the argument/metrics.
I think I understand what the implications are...but...

It's probably just me, though

[numble]

Here are some important recent tidbits that are informative for those interested in accelerating Metro projects:

SB-1 (gas tax increase) and the extension of the cap-and-trade program, will provide a lot of potential funding for Metro. A briefing book has been prepared for Metro's Executive Management Committee meeting this month detailing the additional funding:
https://media.metro.net/projects_stu...efing_Book.pdf

Metro is very well-placed for one funding program under SB-1, the Local Partnership Program:

The Local Partnership Program (LPP) is a program that provides competitive and formula funds to agencies that raise local transportation revenues through dedicated sales taxes or fees.

PROGRAM GOALS
Reward local or regional transportation agencies that raise local transportation revenues through dedicated sales taxes or fees, and incentive aspiring agencies to pass sales taxes and/or impose fees dedicated to transportation.

It looks like they will be moving to using ExpressLanes revenue to fund additional ExpressLanes throughout the county, and a larger ExpressLanes network would have more revenue to funding transit. Here are the details in this month's meeting of Metro's Ad Hoc Congestion, Highway and Roads Committee:
https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...ECA&FullText=1

Instead, staff recommends the Board permit interfund borrowing where net toll revenues generated on the I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes are advanced as a loan to support the financing of the planning and construction of additional ExpressLanes identified in the Strategic Plan.

Finally, they are going to be making decisions on private proposals to accelerate the WSAB line, Sepulveda line and conversion of Orange Line to light rail this fall, according to this post on Metro's blog:
http://thesource.metro.net/2017/09/1...rivate-sector/

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by numble

Here are some important recent tidbits that are informative for those interested in accelerating Metro projects:

SB-1 (gas tax increase) and the extension of the cap-and-trade program, will provide a lot of potential funding for Metro. A briefing book has been prepared for Metro's Executive Management Committee meeting this month detailing the additional funding:
https://media.metro.net/projects_stu...efing_Book.pdf

Metro is very well-placed for one funding program under SB-1, the Local Partnership Program:


It looks like they will be moving to using ExpressLanes revenue to fund additional ExpressLanes throughout the county, and a larger ExpressLanes network would have more revenue to funding transit. Here are the details in this month's meeting of Metro's Ad Hoc Congestion, Highway and Roads Committee:
https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...ECA&FullText=1



Finally, they are going to be making decisions on private proposals to accelerate the WSAB line, Sepulveda line and conversion of Orange Line to light rail this fall, according to this post on Metro's blog:
http://thesource.metro.net/2017/09/1...rivate-sector/

Great info, thanks for the breakdown and links!

[Car(e)-Free LA]

The Sherman Oaks neighborhood council has decided to push for a fully underground East San Fernando Transit Corridor and Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor. For once I agree with them. Is there any chance of a grand deal, in which upzoning and a subway both occur?

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

The Sherman Oaks neighborhood council has decided to push for a fully underground East San Fernando Transit Corridor and Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor. For once I agree with them. Is there any chance of a grand deal, in which upzoning and a subway both occur?

I think that idea is absurd. It would cost an estimated $8 billion to do the East San Fernando Corridor fully underground. There are sooooooooo many better projects that could be done with that money.