The key is to have as much of your own money as possible. The federal government isn't gonna come in and fund 100% of your local transportation needs, so if this tax passed, I personally would expect lots of small improvements quickly but bigger stuff like the purple line not to really be ready for eight or nine years. This is infrastructure we're talking about, massive, huge infrastructure, and it takes years, but more importantly, it lasts for hundreds of years and the construction and eventual transportation improvements pump billions into the economy for the entire life of the project.

Eight or nine years sounds like a horribly long time, but you've got to fight people every step of the way to build something in LA, so you can expect environmental delays, community opposition, and other factors we can't imagine, and then you have to expect those delays to themselves cause delays via inflation raising the price of building materials and people successfully altering the route.

The key (besides passing the tax obviously) will be to keep the momentum going. It's tough to sell infrastructure projects because the timeline is so long, but we need to remember what happened to the last subway, how its design was perverted and ruined and then it was strangled in the crib. By the time this subway is nearing completion, we could be on our second completely different mayoral administration. I'm, however, optimistic. If this thing actually passes with 2/3rds of the vote (knock on wood), then I suspect we've reached a turning point in the city's psyche, and I also suspect that a half cent sales tax and the end of the Bush department of transportation will be enough to build the subway the right way the first time.

Here is the audit that shows local money is spent as promised.

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/04_April/20080414OtherICAOC_PH_Item2b.pdf

It isn't a done deal but the subway to the sea may actually happen in a reasonable timeframe if we can get this measure passed.

In any case, this will take a 2/3rds majority to pass, I highly doubt it will, whereas the additional vehicle tax and or gas tax will only need a simple majority.

--------------------

There are 50 years worth of worthwhile transit projects to fund as we are decades behind. We won't be needing a "sunset clause" any time soon.

I would support a bond measure that would be paid back through revenue, or even the other initiative which is essentially a use-based carbon tax. Look at the High Speed Rail initiative, this is a $10Bn bond, to pay for a $40Bn system, and the expectation is that revenue generated here will be $4bn / year. Those numbers are a lot easier to swallow, and doesn't involve a tax.

I will consider the funding plan and judge accordingly before voting. All options need to be on the table: fare increases (while not the draconian 2007 plan, something a little higher than the fares we have today), contracting service, and trip thinning on lesser used routes.

How about making bus service more efficient by putting toll lanes on every MTA funded highway? The reduction in car trips, and the revenue generated by cars, could help eliminate the 25-30% share of the MTA budget that goes to cars and send more money to transit while improvin transit times. That would mean more money for buses and more secure roads.

I mean, if toll booths work at train stations, why not on the roadway as well?

Metro would be more efficient with about 30 fewer lines.

That, or voluntarily ask every worker to take a 20 percent pay cut and convert their pensions to defined-contribution plans.

I just don't think these efficiency measures are likely to happen.

although I am all for metro, and want it to succeed. It's extremely hard to believe that raising our already ridiculously high sales tax rates is necessary.

I will probably begrudgingly vote for the proposition, I think it sends a bad signal, and the metro should look to rum more efficiently.