Move L.A.’s Measure R2 Draft Proposal, Including Their Rail Fantasy Map

Move L.A.'s draft breakdown for a possible 2016 transportation funding measre. Source: Move L.A.
Move L.A.’s draft breakdown for a possible 2016 transportation funding measure. Source: Move L.A.

Last week, Move L.A. convened its annual transportation conversation conference under the banner of “Imagining Measure R2.” The daylong conference was profiled in the L.A. Times and at the Source. Today SBLA takes a look at Move L.A.’s “strawman” R2 proposal presented that day. It’s a draft for purposes of discussion, very likely to change some before it would reaches the ballot in 2016. It looks a lot like Measure R, but there are also a few big differences.

Measure R was a 30-year county-wide half-cent sales tax narrowly approved by L.A. voters in 2008. Measure R funding has been key to Metro’s rail expansion underway, including the Gold Line Foothill Extension, Expo Line Phase 2, Crenshaw-LAX Light Rail, the Regional Connector, and the Purple Line Extension. In 2012, a subsequent transportation bond proposal, Measure J, received 66 percent approval, but narrowly failed to pass the two-thirds needed.

Measure R2, under Move L.A.’s initial strawman proposal, would be a 45-year county-wide half-cent sales tax, with project revenues approximately $90 billion. It would run concurrently with Measure R for R’s remaining 20+years, which presents some issues with overall sales tax limits in some L.A. County cities. R2 is anticipated to be on the 2016 ballot and would need to pass by a two-thirds majority.

The overall R2 breakdown (see pie chart graphic at top of post) is somewhat similar to Measure R.

category 2008 Measure R 2016 draft Measure R2
New rail & BRT capital 35.00% 30.00%
Metrolink capital 3.00% 5.00%
Rail capital existing lines 2.00%
Rail Operations 5.00%
Bus Operations 20.00%
Transit Operations 20.00%
Highway Capital 20.00% 20.00%
Local Return 15.00% 15.00%
Active Transportation (bike-ped) 4.00%
Goods Movement 6.00%

There are a few important differences. The strawman proposal includes funding for active transportation: pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

During the lead up to Measure R, advocates unsuccessfully pressed for 1 percent each for walking and bicycling, and some cities, including Los Angeles, have dedicated some of their local return funding for active transportation. Move L.A. is proposing, overall, that 4 percent of R2 would fund active transportation. That’s roughly $3.6 billion. This is a big step forward from past measures, especially when federal changes are causing Metro to step back from active transportation.

Not only does active transportation have its own dedicated 4 percent funding stream, but Move L.A. has also proposed that walking and bicycling be included in the new rail transit funding.

Within the $27 billion for rail, the proposal “set[s] aside 3 percent for first mile/last mile infrastructure.” That’s an additional $0.8 billion that could go to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, though potentially also to various other feeder strategies such as car share, taxi, shuttles, etc. (maybe even parking lots.) With dedicated first mile/last mile embedded in rail capital, it should be routine for new Metro rail facilities to look more like the Orange and Expo Lines, with dedicated walk and bike trails running parallel within the right-of-way.

Move proposing that half of the 20 percent dedicated to highways (an estimated $9 billion) be incorporated into a countywide “Grand Boulevards” program. (The other half goes to… freeway improvements. Can’t win ’em all.) Grand Boulevards would upgrade larger streets with existing bus service to become more “complete streets” with a mix of transit, bike, pedestrian and car usage. Features could include:

  • Street resurfacing
  • Signal synchronization
  • Landscaping
  • Bicycle and Pedestrian features
  • Bus service enhancements: “better safer bus stops with real time digital information” and bus-only lanes “where appropriate.”
  • Incentives for new mixed-use and mixed-income development

And then there’s Move L.A.’s rail fantasy map! Most of these lines are also viewable as a snappy L.A.’s Got Lines 2 video.

The dotted blue lines represent Move L.A.'s proposal for expanded rail lines throughout L.A. County.
The dotted blue lines represent Move L.A.’s proposal for expanded rail lines throughout L.A. County.

Measure R2 would dedicate $27 billion to new rail capital. Here are Move L.A.’s new rail lines listed roughly west to east:

  • Orange Line Light Rail: The existing Metro Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) could be converted to light rail.
  • Metro rendering of multi-deck tunnel below Sepulveda Pass. Click for full image and presentation.
    Metro rendering of multi-deck tunnel below Sepulveda Pass. Click for full image and presentation.

    Sepulveda Connector: A new north-south rail line could extend from Sylmar to LAX, roughly parallel to the 405 Freeway and Sepulveda Boulevard. This  could include a mega-project multi-deck bypass highway tunnel (with cars, buses, and trains) under the Sepulveda Pass. At last Friday’s event, HDR InfraConsult’s Mike Schneider estimated the Sepulveda project cost at “$6 billion to $8 billion …or maybe up to $20 billion.” With tunnel highway lanes operated as toll roads, Measure R2 funding could be part of an overall Public-Private-Partnership.

  • Green Line to Torrance and Long Beach: The Metro Green Line light rail could be extended south from its Redondo Beach Terminus, connecting to the South Bay, including Torrance, then east through Wilmington to connect to the Willow Blue Line Station in Long Beach.
  • Hollywood-Crenshaw Connector: The under-construction Crenshaw Line could be extended north to connect with the Purple and Red lines, on Wilshire and in Hollywood, respectively.
  • Burbank Airport 5-Freeway Connector: This rail line could extend north from Union Station, roughly parallel to the 5-Freeway, connecting to Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport, then south to the Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station.
  • Glendale-Pasadena Connector: This rail line could extend east-west, roughly parallel to the 134 Freeway, connecting to the Metro Gold Line in downtown Pasadena.
  • West Santa Ana Branch Corridor: This future rail line could extend south from Union Station through Southeast L.A. cities connecting with the Metro Green Line then heading diagonally southeast to Cerritos, at the edge of Orange County.
  • Gold Line Eastside Extension, Phase 2:  The existing Eastside Gold Line would be extended from East Los Angeles via two spurs. The north spur could extend directly east to South El Monte. A southern spur could connect through Montebello and terminate in Whittier.
  • Green Line Extension to Santa Fe Springs: The Green Line could extend east to the Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station.
  • Foothill Gold Line Extension Phase 2B: The Gold Line’s Foothill Extension, currently under construction, will extend the line to Azusa. This further extension would take the line to Claremont and Montclair at the border between L.A. County and San Bernardino County.

As mentioned, Move L.A. calls this their “strawman” proposal. It’s a vision in draft form, put forth to generate discussion. The lines, the boulevards, the percentages, etc. are all subject to plenty of modifications, and a few hurdles, before Angelenos might get to vote on what finally emerges.

  • ubrayj02

    Measure R2 can suck it. The MTA already gets it’s $.02 from LA County residents. A regressive tax on the poorest in the county is NOT the way to fund further system wide expansion. If these rail and highway projects cannot pay for themselves in expanded sales tax revenues then we need to stop doing them.

    Metro is sitting on millions in incredibly valuable real estate around their light rail stations – stations with no bathrooms, no amenities, no rental income. Metro only sells ad space to large companies who can pay for every bus in the system to be wrapped in corporate messages. Metro hands out hundreds of millions each year packing sand into the highway system expansion rat hole and car subsidies.

    This entity needs to start executing on the mandates in Proposition A & C – and start making money off of the value it should have been bringing to the county all along.

  • gobluth

    I’m so annoyed that Jerry Brown and the Democratic supermajority didn’t lower the local tax threshold to 55%. Would have been such a simple thing to do, and would have taken very little political capital. Sure, Jerry Brown is pretty great compared with Cuomo but that’s not saying much. He hasn’t taken advantage of the supermajority at all since 2012 (and with the indictments of all those corrupt Democrats, I’m not sure the supermajority exists anymore).

  • Lorenzo Mutia

    I’m guessing R2 can’t be levied as some property tax, for the planned areas at least.

  • AJ

    They forgot the countywide BRT system

  • Fakey McFakename

    Mostly sensible ideas, especially if SB and OC fund extensions to Ontario and Santa Ana respectively beyond LA County boundaries. I thought the Eastside Gold II project was *either* Whittier or SEM (of which Whittier looks like a far better idea, given the corridor’s denser and SEM is close enough to the Silver Line to be reasonably well-served). Obviously drawn so everyone’s getting their piece of the pie, but no egregious train-to-nowhere parts there. I think a Purple to Expo shuttle down Vermont (the transit dependence around there is insanely high) makes more sense than running Metro alongside Metrolink to Burbank, but I guess the eastern SFV needs its piece of the pie.

    Is the proposed Crenshaw-Hollywood connection down San Vincente and through WeHo? The scale makes it hard to tell. But that would make sense, since it would basically be following the old Pacific Electric ROW from Pico-Rimpau (Vineyard Junction) down San Vincente. In fact, LADOT’s been floating a Culver-Venice-SM streetcar, and if they extended that further east along Venice Blvd, the similarity to the old Red Cars would be ridiculous.

    The Sepulveda Pass tunnel strikes me as both a gamechanger and ludicrously expensive barring significant federal funding. But with a PPP for road tolls and setting the rail fare at a level comparable to express buses rather than ordinary rail lines, it might enter into the realms of cost-effectiveness.

  • Dan

    Looks great. Especially making a big investment to fix the Sepulveda pass.

    The only major omission is see is that the Purple line should go all the way to the sea…

  • Alex

    I’d love to see BRT along Santa Monica Blvd. The density along there would support it really well and it would mesh nicely with the planned rail. I can dream, can’t I?

  • Kenny Easwaran

    They said something about “bus-only lanes where appropriate”. Hopefully “where appropriate” means the entire length of Venice Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Vermont Ave, La Brea, and a few other major boulevards in other parts of the city I don’t know as well.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    Property tax definitely would make much more sense, especially when you consider that one of the major benefits of a transportation system is what it does to property values.

  • DrM

    Has MoveLA outlined a construction timeline? Are we looking at 10 yrs to build out or 45 years?

  • Matt

    I don’t like reducing the new rail projects to 30%. I’d rather increase this to 40% and take 10% away from highways. The Purple Line should be expanded to Bundy at least. That area is a congested mess and the VA is a terrible terminus.

  • Matt

    A couple misstatements here.

    Metro only gets 1.5 cents and much of that goes to cities, muni operators and Metrolink.

    Metro doesn’t own much real estate, despite what people think. For example, the Culver City Station parking lot is owned by Culver City not Metro. The real estate they do own cost millions in taxpayer funds to acquire. It is not like they inherited it.

    The highway program that Metro oversees is paid for by federal, state and Measure R sources and they have no choice but to do these projects, because Caltrans would just take that money do them if not.

    Not sure how Metro would make any money off bathrooms. Instead they would require many millions of dollars in maintenance, security and legal liability costs. Other transit agencies across the country have closed theirs because of these costs.

    They could make a little more on renting some kiosks, but they can’t sell food, because they would end up spending more on cleaning the trains of the increased litter. Finally, Metro’s ridership is very very poor, and are not the type of clientele that retailers want. There just isn’t a lot of money there. Sure they could close the lines in East and South LA and open new lines in West LA as well as eliminate discounted passes and fares to solve part of that problem, but it is not politically possible.

  • Fakey McFakename

    Prop 13 basically makes that impossible. Plus property/parcel tax hikes tend to draw much more homeowner opposition. It’s also not much less regressive than a sales tax – you end up with old folks with property but little income struggling, and landlords just pass it along to tenants anyway.

    The ideal would be raising the gas tax/VLF and dedicating part of it to congestion mitigation projects (i.e., transit). But again, not gonna happen any time soon. Plus, it’s likely it would either require a statewide vote to pass or would draw enough opposition to get a veto referendum on the ballot, which would mean LA County’s share would be diluted by giveaways to the middle of nowhere in order to get it to pass.

  • Fakey McFakename

    LADOT is floating the idea of a Culver-Venice-SM streetcar in Westside Mobility. East of Culver, BRT of some kind definitely makes sense – it’s a wide street because of the old PE Venice Short Line. Vermont really should be a subway, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. Santa Monica BRT may make sense as an interim; once Crenshaw is extended to WeHo and Hollywood and the Purple Line reaches Century City, I think it would be too duplicative. There’s also the problem of Beverly Hills, which is in the middle of redesigning SMB and refusing bike lanes, still less bus lanes. La Brea might be too narrow and not have heavy enough ridership to justify it, although again it might work as an interim until Crenshaw’s extended – I think an E-W corridor along Olympic (high ridership) or maybe Pico (Rimpau terminal hub) makes more sense as a long-term bus lane than N-S ones.

    Your lines are also quite Westside-centric. At least if the West Santa Ana branch is likely to be delayed several years, some kind of BRT or enhanced express bus service to the absurdly underserved Gateway Cities is probably a higher priority too.

  • Fakey McFakename

    I’d guess a mixture. Light rail is quick, and assuming Metro’s finances are OK and the federal govt remains willing to guarantee bonds, Metro should be able to sell bonds to be repaid with the future tax revenue and get building very quickly – probably finishing the light rail portions within about 10-15 years. That’s especially true if they can get the environmental stages done over the next year using the small amounts of Measure R funding allocated to some of these projects – that way, all that’s left is to actually get building.

    The Sepulveda tunnel will be very, very slow – my guess would be that the first phase would be 2030s at the earliest and an LAX connection (which would require a lot of grade separation because of narrow, congested streets) shortly after hell freezes over.

  • Fakey McFakename

    All in good time. I don’t think the votes are there for this yet (the Westside’s done pretty well out of Measure R, and the goodies need to be spread around the county to get votes), and I don’t think they will be until the extension to VA actually opens.

  • LAifer

    While I get the political rationale for dedicating 20% to highways, I don’t get why a transit-focused group would just assume this into their starting proposal, meaning that out the gate they’re starting with a baseline that is the same level as Measure R.

    What are we getting for that 20% in highways that wouldn’t be better spent elsewhere? And when we’re then only committing 30% to new rail and BRT, which is LESS THAN what we got as a share of Measure R in 2008? What a crying shame.

    If Move LA wants to continue to be on the forefront of a sea change in LA’s transportation network, they need to do better than this. At a time when nearly 90% of LA’s new residents are in low- and no-vehicle households, and when urban centers like Hollywood, Koreatown, and Downtown can’t build quickly enough to satisfy the demand for transit-oriented housing, this starting proposal seems like a complete failure. These new residents aren’t locating in areas known for their great access to highways. They’re locating in areas that have thriving urban amenities, with walkable neighborhoods and access to a range of transportation options – not just vehicles.

    I know that Move LA was instrumental in making Measure R a reality in 2008, which came with a LOT of backroom negotiating and expending of political capital all across the county. But this proposal just seems like the lesson that Move LA has learned in the past 5 years is to back off your principles and let your political opponents push you over.

    If this proposal is what ends up on the 2016 ballot for LA County, I’ll be one bicycling and transit advocate, who also drives on the streets and freeways too, who seriously reconsiders his support for this.

  • DrM

    So the half-of-20% to be spent of fwy improvements seems to burn some of the readers. Look closely at the conceptual drawing of the Sepulveda pass tunnel. The fwy portions of that could easily cost $10B+, and may be backhanded mechanism to spend “fwy dollars” on “rail projects.”

    I’ve lived and worked on both sides of the proposed Sepulveda pass tunnel. Adding another freeway there would be disastrous to both communities, and will only serve to displace traffic from the 405 to the 101 and the 10 (or wherever the new freeway terminates.) A “rail only” tunnel would be far less disruptive, more useful, and less expensive that the combo tunnel.

  • Sean

    Doesn’t data show that the amount of people driving is down overall? Why is funding for highways staying consistent? Is this to pacify the wealthy who are usually the first to go up-in-arms about any cuts in highway spending?

  • The Wilshire lanes have to be open for about a year before the impact (hopefully positive) can be used to advocate for lanes along other major streets. Funding will be a problem so maybe that is something the new measure can facilitate. Early May SO.CA.TA is touring the about to open sbX BRT in the inland empire. I hope it encourages us to consider stations and other upgrades as BRT is rolled out in L.A. and environs. The Famima hub proposal with Bike Nation and zipcar by FAST I saw presented at the MOVLA Conference last week and Sierra Club Transportation Committee last night may be a step in that direction if it gains traction.

  • hjt123

    What’s the point of the Burbank Airport 5-Freeway Connector and Glendale-Pasadena Connector? Why not extend the Orange Line to Pasadena with a spur down to Union on what seems to be the Metrolink RoW? Having to transfer twice from the valley to get to old town pas (and 3 times to proceed east of there) will seriously hinder ridership.

  • ProTrain

    Any funding for protected Dutch inspired bake lanes in this?

  • ubrayj02

    You know what I love about Metro apologists?

    Somehow, you think that Measure R2 is such a slam dunk but the things I’ve mentioned are “politically impossible”. I am not pulling this stuff, de novo, out of my head – the world has seen functioning stations making money for the agency that runs them. The world has seen the results of divesting in wasteful car-only subsidies.

    How much money and time is going to be wasted on R2? You don’t think a little lobbying in Sacramento to allow Metro to divert the millions spent on highways is going to cost more do you? Because we could close the fare gap if we stopped wasting money on auto subsidies that violate common sense, ethics, and (sometimes) the laws that authorized the collecting of that money in the first place.

  • Matt

    It is going to take more than a little lobbying in Sacramento to completely change our national transportation policy, which is heavily focused on the interstate system. You’d have to completely change Congress and then hope rural lawmakers somehow vote against their own interests and fund public transportation more and highways less. Could it theoretically happen in a few decades? Maybe, but not likely.

    Metro is just an intermediary in the highway system. I am not an apologist for them at all, but they are a small part of the overall transportation policy and you have to realize that instead of being overly naive.

  • Joe Linton

    Nothing specifically dedicated to protected bikeways. The 4% ($3.6B) for Active Transportation would be eligble for all kinds of bike and ped projects. In theory, the could also be part of grand boulevards, rail right-of-ways, and even local return (which goes to cities and county to spend on transportation projects as they see fit.)

  • Joe Linton

    One reason is that per-capita miles are down among teens and 20-somethings. The voting base and the elected officials are older and still rooted in 20th-century car-centric outlooks. It’s up to you to make some noise – tell your elected officials what you want to see.

  • Joe Linton

    There isn’t any implementation timeline I am aware of. The overall proposal is still taking shape – and won’t go to voters until 2016.

  • calwatch

    Actually Metro receives 1.75 cents of sales tax, because there is the state TDA quarter cent that goes to all counties. So now after R2 we will have 2.25% of every purchase going to transportation, the highest amount in the country by far.

    Overall I think the appetite for additional sales tax is wearing thin. While urban advocates like to increase transit and active transportation (and so do I), you have a lot of voters in the outlying parts of LA County which aren’t getting that much. Sure the Gold Line to Montclair and the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor are good for those parts of the county, but the westside is getting their subway and the South Bay is getting their Green Line extension from original Measure R.

    Most people in LA County still drive to work alone in their car. Measure R2 does very little for them. The solution is things like Metro Expresslanes, which is generating $20 million a year within those corridors, a gas tax increase to fund operations and maintenance of the existing system, tolling ALL new capacity constructed, and possible value capture of property value increases following construction of rail projects. Not a sales tax that is only going to get continually eroded as we shift towards a service economy and away from goods purchasing.

  • ubrayj02

    OMG, you are the definition of a Metro apologist! You conflate my argument to absurdity instead of questioning the b.s. that Metro shovels about how constrained it is with its fare increases and ability to do anything about it.

    Do yourself a favor and find out how much time and money Metro is going to spend selling Measure R2.

    That same amount of money can be spent rallying locals, visiting California State Assembly and Senate offices to have numerous laws changed that will allow money that now goes to car-only subsidies in Los Angels can go to Metro operations.

    I think that, like most Metro apologists, you argue from your own sense of personal weakness. I don’t accept that perspective.

    Measure R2 is never going to pass.

    Here is an example of something none of you choo-choo train and accordion bus fanboys never get around to talking about: Metro’s got a huge stake in retail sales but I can’t find any studies showing Metro’s impact on retail sales in LA County. Do they even analyze this data around their bus line stops, train stations, or freeway projects? No. They build based on the whims of some invisible mass motoring voting block – not on any real understanding of how their revenue base grows or shrinks in a real world study. How do they get this sales tax data? Well, the California Board of Equalization has been collecting the Bradley Burns Sales Tax for over 40 years and has records stretching back to the beginning. How does Metro get this incredibly valuable information? By lobbying some people in Sacramento to free it so they can analyze the impacts of their past projects to find the fastest way to grow retail sales tax dollars using the tools they have at hand.

    The same goes for their corporate-friendly advertising program. Your local dentist, car mechanic, or cafe need not apply. Only big money advertisers are allowed to place ads with Metro – and why? I believe it is because they don’t have anyone working their ad department who gives a crap about growing revenue through leg work, phone calls, and studying what their best route to increased revenue is – instead they view their clients like just another cash cow like the State or Federal government. The only people who can roll with a lazy ad team are the rich corporate types.

    Ditto for the real estate management and station design. How much money does Metro piss away by grabbing a stake in the areas around its stations? Two Gold Line stations in my community have parking lots that bleed money out of the system instead of real estate projects that feed money back into it. A problem of local zoning – perhaps, but variances for a project that can defray its costs or bring a wider benefit to an area are granted all the damn time.

    Why do bathrooms matter at Metro stations? They matter because the elderly and the young can’t make it 40 minutes without a pee break sometimes – and the lack of these facilities means that we are forced to live with piss and poop from the able bodies on stairways and elevators at Metro stations or around popular bus stops. Talk to me now about “cleanliness” at the stations and vendors selling at stations!

    I could go on, but I doubt any of this will make it through your deflector shields, Commander Worf.

    Patronize someone else with your self defeating nonsense.

  • andrelot

    What about the EXISTING residents of LA instead of just focusing on the new ones? Are the news of existing residents totally met (be these needs freeways, subways, light rail)?

  • EP Planner

    MoveLA should push for a Sunset Boulevard BRT, or a light rail or people mover down Sunset with a spur down Glendale Boulevard, connecting to Metrolink. There is so much density coming to Echo Park and adjacent communities that this really ought to be considered.

  • LAifer

    Census data on existing residents is a static measure – I was using “new residents” as a trend. But when you see the overall increases in ridership on the LA Metro in the past couple years, which contrasts with stagnated ridership on the buses, even with improved service on many routes, it’s apparent that people are voting with their feet and their ridership choices. Also, on the matter of roads, our existing system is so much filled to capacity that at this point adding capacity to this or that stretch of a highway just moves the problem somewhere else.

    Think the widening of the 5 (using Measure R dollars in the billions) will make a big difference? Let me know if you still think that once the project is done and all the delays and back-ups that once slogged through the Gateway cities now just moves up the road a bit toward the East LA interchange instead. All for more than the cost of a brand new rail line that could attract drivers off the roads and be a more permanent solution to highway capacity issues.

    New rail is a cheaper, more permanent solution to our transportation network capacity issues.

  • John Hanson

    You’ve hit one of my biggest complaints about Move LA’s map as drawn. The 5 Freeway corridor is mostly industrial wasteland and will not serve anyone other than commuters trying to get from Union Station to Burbank Airport. The UP/Metrolink ROW is worse since it both carries freight traffic and is slated to be used for the CA HSR (assuming that project ever reaches LA). Similarly, running light rail down SR-134 is a waste of money since I doubt the ridership will ever justify a line there in our lifetimes.

    I put together my own map in response to Move LA’s map:

  • J

    I would ride the SR-134 route every day. I hate my commute.

  • John Hanson

    If the HOV lanes along SR-134 were converted to HOT service with express commuter buses (maybe an Orange Line “express” bus running to Sierra Madre Villa station, as well as upgrades to the existing LADOT Commuter Express service) would that be worth your commute?

    (Obviously, some improvements would need to be made to prevent buses from getting jammed up at the Golden State/Ventura Freeway interchange.)

  • Caltransylvania

    This is another smoke and mirrors game to re-dress this tax as “for the good of the people”. There is 780 MILLION dollars being spent on “studies” for the 710 toll tunnel. Ask Antonovich/Molina/ where all the money is. The grift is in. Follow the money,and you will never vote for this.

  • Caltransylvania

    @UrbanLife. Don’t play your moral high card when there are too many astoundingly corrupt Republicans in Sacramento who also have plans to grift off the top of any money coming thru the door by way of taxes. For instance: 710 tunnelvision “studies” is a 780 MILLION tax dollar robbery with too many Republican hands dirty as well. We all need to purge our parties.

  • Charles Toepfer

    It’s true, but many of these studies are required by local municipalities and LA county. Look at how long it took them just to finish the environment impact reports for the gold line. Every city it crosses is going to require a slew of traffic, environmental, building, zoning, and I’m sure a handful more studies I’m not thinking of. If there was some way to bypass all this red tape, costs would be vastly lower.

  • Caltransylvania

    Sorry Charles
    Not buying. The “studies” have already been done. Check your history.(*Caltrans Audit 2012. You can contact the controller in Sacramento and they will send out up to 5 copies.) They have been “studying” the 710 “toll tunnel alternative” nonsense since at least 2006. The reason for the alternative routes for the toll tunnel to nowhere, that METRO pitches to the public, is to keep the taxpayer juice flowing right right into the greedy get rich and retire Caltrans “contractors” pockets. There are no alternative routes that need studying. That’s just for starters. Follow the money. Oh.. and just for laughs, Seattle’s tunnel is being called America’s biggest financial boondoggle..nationally. Back to 710 Toll tunnel: Even Gov. Jerry Brown told me in a private exchange “that the thing’s never gonna get built”. Then chuckled in a way that meant he knew it was a big grift. No more tax money going to phony baloney Measure R2 nonsense. It’s time we all wake up and do our homework.

  • Caltransylvania

    The smartest thing that NEVER happened in Los Angeles is to have commuter trains,with subterranean stations, down the middles of the legendary clusterfu*k of freeways. The Gold Line in Pasadena is an outstanding example. People on trains, on freeway routes…in Los Angeles..genius. Quit paying contractors to nowhere for ideas to nowhere. Follow the money. Then you will not vote for the measure R2 wolf in sheeps clothing. Don’t get fooled again. They could not pass measure J, a redressed extension of measure R. So they are dressing it up again, and giving it a smaller margin of votes to pass it.
    We don’t get fooled again.


Coalition Calls For 10 Percent of Future L.A. Sales Tax To Go To Walk-Bike

There is a new twist in the path to a 2016 Los Angeles County transportation sales tax measure, tentatively being called “Measure R2.” Investing in Place, a new policy-based organization that has examined transportation sales taxes throughout the state, just held its own conference with a coalition of more than thirty community based partner organizations. The purpose of the […]