A Quick Look at Metro’s Newly Released Measure R2 Expenditure Plan

Metro's Measure R2 draft expenditure plan pie chart. Image via Metro
Metro’s Measure R2 draft expenditure plan pie chart. Image via Metro

At a press briefing this morning, Metro’s CEO Phil Washington released the agency’s draft expenditure plan for a potential $120 billion November 2016 ballot measure, often referred to as Measure R2.

The expenditure plan is expected to be received and filed by the full Metro board of directors at its monthly meeting next Thursday March 24. Metro will receive input on the plan in the coming months. Final expenditure language is expected to be approved at the June board meeting.

There will likely be jockeying over the next few months to adjust funding percentages and project timelines, but even within the draft there are a few details to be worked out. Metro had initially been planning a 40-year sales tax. The draft plan includes 40-, 45-, and 50-year options. Washington reported that Metro staff are recommending the 50-year sales tax, which would generate a projected additional $11 billion compared to the 40-year plan.

Here are the draft expenditures ranked by allocation amount: 

  • 35 percent – Transit Construction – includes rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), Union Station, some Metrolink projects
  • 20 percent – Transit Operations – includes Metro bus and Municipal bus operations
  • 17 percent – Highway Construction – includes freeways, toll lanes, and some port and goods movement projects
  • 16 percent – Local Return – per capita funding to municipalities for transportation projects
  • 5 percent – Rail Operations
  • 2 percent – ADA Paratransit service for disabled, seniors, students
  • 2 percent – Metro State of Good Repair and Safety Improvements
  • 2 percent – Regional Active Transportation projects
  • 1 percent – Regional Rail – Metrolink projects

The full documents include extensive lists of rail, BRT, and highway projects and how they would be sequenced. SBLA will be taking a deeper dive into this in the future. For now here are a few interesting inclusions and omissions:

  • Metro has not included pedestrian and bicycle funding in past ballot measures; this plan includes 2 percent. This is better than Measure R’s zero, but well below advocates’ demands of ten percent and less than other successful ballot measures in Alameda, S.F., Marin and Santa Barbara counties. Washington asserted that the two percent, plus some cities spending some of their local return monies on walking and bicycling, means that active transportation would get about “4.5 to 5 percent” from the overall pie.
  • Metro’s planned transit project build out includes some bicycle path projects: two sections of the Los Angeles River, and a portion of the Pacoima Wash.
  • The downtown Los Angeles Streetcar would receive funding.
  • While the expenditure plan includes two lower 710 Freeway projects, it does not include the $6 billion upper 710 Freeway tunnels project.
  • Early on, the Metro Orange Line BRT would be improved, adding several grade crossings. In later years it would be converted to rail.
  • There is an extensive plan for the Sepulveda Pass. Initially HOV lanes would be converted to tolled ExpressLanes, then toll revenue would help fund a rail-only tunnel connecting the Valley with the Westside.

SBLA is still making our way through the documents and attachments and Metro’s explainer website. We have already received various press releases responding to the plan. VICA (Valley Industry & Commerce Association) likes it. Investing in Place is disappointed. We will continue our coverage of the plan as its final shape emerges.

What do you think, readers? Would you vote for this as is? What do you like? What would you like to see changed or prioritized differently than today’s draft?


  • LAguttersnipe

    So we have 3 transit taxes already, the Blue Line is a disaster, the Red Line is a joke and you have ZERO development along both corridors, there are probably more gas stations than jobs/housing in walking distance from the stations. For pennies compared to this you can just complete street every street in LA and change everyone’s lives. With R2 we will get more of the same, super expensive rail projects in suburban areas. Wilshire/Vermont today is why I’m voting against this for the future. More parking spaces and gas stations than places to eat and live.This $120 billion does nothing to reduce our dependence on autos.

  • Jose Escobar

    They prioritized a 2nd Gold Line Foothill extension during the first 15 years, and put the Gold Line Eastside Extension in the 2nd 15 years. That’s messed up. The suburban areas of LA county get more transit than more transit-dependent and poorer communities of East LA. And the Crenshaw/WeHO line won’t even start construction until 2049! Ugh.

  • BobC

    Unfortunately this plan would fall well short of seriously addressing the tremendous environmental, health, housing and mobility challenges we face as a region. It’s not visionary. And it would lock us into an outdated and irresponsible funding model for the rest of my lifetime. Personally I’d rather wait another 4 years and hope for a better Metro board (i.e. fewer autos-uber-alles dinosaurs) than support this “plan to ease traffic”…

  • neroden

    OK, so Metro’s Sepulveda Pass plan is *finally* starting to sound sane. And they’re finally talking about rail on the Orange Lie where it should have been all along.

  • scottmercer

    Keep living in your bubble. New York City has less than 50% driving cars and it’s still a nightmare traffic wise. There are just too many people. As long as LA keeps growing (and believe me, you want to it keep growing…capitalism is like a shark, either it keeps moving forward, devouring everything in its path and growing ever bigger or it dies) we need to have transit as an option. It’s not going to reduce traffic. It’s going to keep traffic from getting even worse (I know, doesn’t seem possible but it could) while adding more residents. The adding more people is pretty much inevitable, but traffic getting worse isn’t. And if you think the San Fernando Valley is a suburban area, you’re just wrong. It has the same population density as many parts of New York City.

  • The area around Wilshire and Vermont has changed dramatically over the last 10 years. There are literally hundreds of new apartments and dozens of new shops within walking distance of that station, with a lot more in the pipeline. I’d say it’s one of the brightest spots for Transit Oriented Development outside of Downtown LA.

    The Red Line has spurred so much development in Hollywood that there is now a serious NIMBY backlash (the so-called “Neighborhood Integrity Inititative”).

    The Blue Line has the highest ridership of any of Metro’s light rail services and has spurred significant amounts development in South Park and Downtown Long Beach, with emerging projects on Washington Boulevard, and even a bit in Compton as well. Plus, it runs through areas of South LA that are already moderately dense and have large populations of people who rely on transit.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    agreed – the cost of complete streets is trivial and should have a priority. Cycling and Walking can be encouraged for pennies on the dollar.

    The key is to make the streetscape habitable rather than hellish. Complete streets is a good beginning. There is zero reason why Lincoln Blvd has to be a awful traffic sewer.

    We should also of course first eliminate all road-highway expansion in the region. The 710 extension is the poster child for wasted billions.

    of course the real answer is eliminate all driving subsidies. if Angelenos paid the full cost of their driving, they’d drive much less.

  • I feel your pain on the highway money. However, there is the old saying “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” I would argue that the 17% + 2% highway money is kind of the price of getting 2/3 support in a county that is still overwhelmingly reliant on cars. Think about Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley. They are essentially getting zero transit capital projects out of this, and honestly, given how they are built, I think that money would be better spent elsewhere. Yet they need to get something they want, otherwise why support taxing themselves more to benefit other parts of the County?

    Another way of looking at this is that it dedicates 81% of its funding to transit, active transportation and local return. Compare that to how the federal government spends transportation money: overwhelmingly on highways and air travel [1].

    19% for highways isn’t going to be a game changer for drivers. It will lead to some marginal and temporary traffic relief in a few places. 2% for active transportation (plus potentially a lot more from the local return funds in progressive cities) could be a game changer for walking and cycling because, as you say, these projects are relatively cheap to build. Active transportation projects don’t need money so much as the political will to be implemented. If we had more of the latter, the former would not be an issue. I think the net effect of this measure would be a higher percentage of people riding transit, walking and cycling to get around. Therefore, if that’s your goal and you’re willing to pay higher taxes, I’d say it deserves your support.

    [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/government_transportation_financial_statistics/2012/html/table_18b.html

  • I’d like to see this measure include dedicated funding for transit oriented development planning and subsidies for transit oriented affordable development (TOAD!). Metro needs to acknowledge the elephant in the room: land use planning, specifically putting affordable, walkable urban development near transit, is a key factor in making transit work. Plus, if we’re going to be paying higher taxes for 40+ years, those taxes need to address the affordable housing and homelessness crisis that LA County is experiencing. If things keep going the way they are, a lot of us won’t even be able to afford to live in LA County to enjoy the new transportation investments! This can improve our triple bottom line: improved environmental performance, a stronger economy and more social equity. We need transit with a side of TOAD!

  • genjy

    That’s because Foothill 2B is the easiest and cheapest project to build. The EIR is already done, the ROW is already there, the communities all support the line, and there is leftover funding from 2A as well. It doesn’t make sense to not build it now and make that line wait 10-20 years just to make things more difficult and expensive in the future.

  • Slexie

    No it doesn’t. There is no city in the Valley that has a density of 27,500 people per square mile. The densest is Panorama City at over 18,000 per square mile, not even close.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    wondering If the “constellation of forces” will be more favourable in 2 years to a better allocation. 2% for complete streets versus 17% for increased congestion might seem like a bad deal 2 years from now.

    This is a 40 year funding plan best to take seriously

  • Slexie

    And can you afford to live in any of those places along the Red Line? Can you buy a condo at the W for $1 million? Can you afford to pay $2700-$5000 a month in rent for a studio or a one bedroom at The Vermont? Maybe you can, but most of the people using transit can’t.

  • johnsmart

    what city are you in? Are you high? The Red Line has changed EVERYTHING along it’s route. How long have you been in LA? Do you actually ever ride the Red line? Your comment is idiotic and WRONG. Vermont Wilshire, Hollywood/Vine , Hollywood/Highland, Hollywood/Western. North hollywood too. All have development, housing, and foot traffic that simply did not exist 20 years ago. Even purple line station at Vermont Western is an anchor point now to vibrant FOOT TRAFFIC centered neighborhood with urban density. Wow. I cannot believe how simply incorrect this comment is. IT IS JUST WRONG. DTLA has been revived – would this have happened without the subway and light rail? Doubtful. The Red Line has to be considered a success by any sane measure. you say “there are probably more gas stations than jobs/housing in walking distance from the stations.” HUH? You ever actually get off at say… alvarado? Vermont? Beverly? This comment is just dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

  • johnsmart

    wait. Actually i must return to the breathtaking stupidity of this comment. “Wilshire/Vermont today is why I’m voting against this for the future.” Huh? WTF? there is now a complex ON TOP of the stop with hundreds of apartments. There is now a skyscraper across the street with hundreds of dwellings. There are thousands of apartments a very short walk to this stop. Seriously…were you high when you typed this? When did you last actually SEE Vermont and Wilshire? Lordy. So dumb.

  • johnsmart

    Wait- This i cannot let go: “there are probably more gas stations than jobs/housing in walking distance from the stations. ” This is JUST WRONG. The Redline goes through the most densely populated neighborhoods on the west coast. In fact Westlake and Koreatown are more densely populated that DC or Philly. That is people…. in homes… not gas stations.

  • Slexie

    The breathtaking stupidity is your comment. How many of those apartments are for people actually riding the subway? Huh? How many domestics are paying $3000 a month to live at the Vermont? Try making an informed comment instead of being insulting.

  • Slexie

    YOU are the dumb one, I guess I’ll throw it back at you since it appears to be the only language you understand. Have you seen how crowded the bus stops are at Vermont/Western? How about at Hollywood and Vine? What does that mean? Can you figure it out? People are passing through there, not living there. Wake up. I was here before the Red Line was built. I was part of the campaign that got the Red Line built. Apartments at the W that are $1 million are not being bought by people taking transit to and from work every day. Those people and students trying to get around are priced out. And whoever is buying those places isn’t taking 3 buses to get across town, they are driving. Whatever foot traffic you’re talking about is to the next bus stop.

  • Slexie

    Those are people passing through to get to the East side or the West side. Not everyone on transit starts in Koreatown or Westlake.

  • Herbie Huff

    No. I would not vote for this as is. With the regressiveness of the sales tax, I would need to see a serious dedication to transit’s core riders, to systemwide improvements (like BRT, 8-80 bike networks, and pedestrian access to bus stops and stations) and to the mobility needs of our poorest residents (equitable car share and bike share and affordable insurance). I frankly see almost none of that here – just a bunch of ribbon cutting for every corner of the county and some local return to placate any jurisdiction that didn’t get hit by a project.

  • I agree that the lack of affordable housing is a problem. It’s a problem that has to be solved by increasing the supply of market rate housing and subsidized affordable housing at a rate that matches population growth. However, the high rents in new apartments are an EFFECT of the housing shortage, not a CAUSE of rising rents overall. New apartments mean more competition for my landlord, which is something that I appreciate. I live in a much cheaper apartment a bit farther out from Central LA. Thankfully someone in the 1970s allowed my building to be built! I think we should do the same favor to people in future by allowing new housing to come online today.

  • LAguttersnipe

    I go thru Vermont/Wilshire everyday, on the bus on the subway on foot and on bike. What you got is extremely expensive places to live on top of MASSIVE PARKING STRUCTURES! And a gas station across the street, or the auto repair place on 6th and shatto. Wilshire Vermont is AOD(Automovite orentated developement) All the people living there are not using the subway or the bus, they get 4 parking spaces for each apartment. 8 stories of parking at the new 4th and HIll development ON TOP OF Purshsing Square station. So until City of LA ends its parking minium requirments we are never going to have the transit oriented development that will make our Rail system successful.

  • Steve Taylor


    So by your comments I think I can safely assume is that you believe only poor people take transit.

  • Steve Taylor


    And you’re conflating Manhattan with New York City. Manhattan has very high population densities but most of the other boroughs do not. In fact, the majority of New York City is single family, townhouse and low-rise apartment dwellings.

  • neroden

    The breathtaking stupidity is, in fact, in your comment. Do you seriously think that only “domestics” take the subway? Get out of your house sometime. People of all social classes take the subway. Even people who own cars take the subway!

  • Slexie

    Really? People who own cars take the subway? Can it be true? No way!

    There is a large portion of transit riders, since before we were born, who trek from East LA and south LA to the west side and back every day. You may not believe me, but I’ve experienced it and some high school social classes make that journey as a learning experience about incomes and ethnicity. Yes there are other people who use public transit, but the core group will always be the working class and poor immigrants. LA is not like NY when it comes to public transit. It’s not a mix of all different incomes.

    No one is going to give up their car for the joy of using transit. Because if that were true, Uber and Lyft would not be a success. With ridership down 10% since the 80s, there is no surge of people using transit. People would rather pay for an Uber and get to their destination in half the time it takes using transit in LA. There simply isn’t an equal mix of incomes and I have no idea why you would think that unless you have not been on much transit in LA.. Because there are not a lot of rich people using transit.

    I take the subway and I have a car. Gasp.

    And yet you never addressed what I said. Do you think…never mind, I already asked.

  • Slexie

    No I’m not. This is the average density of all 5 boroughs, not just Manhattan. Most of the boroughs do not have high population densities? Really?

    Manhattan 69,468 pop sq/mi
    Brooklyn 35,369 pop sq/ mi
    The Bronx 32,903 pop sq/mi
    Queens 20,553 pop sq/mi
    Staten Island 8030 pop, sq/mi

    The number I gave as 27,000 is the average density for NYC, which isn’t just Manhattan. Got it?

  • Slexie

    I’m kinda done with you considering you make assumptions and are wrong. Quote me saying only poor people take transit.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    Panorama City is a neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles, as is Studio City–which is also in the San Fernando Valley. You made a comparison of the population density of a neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles to the city of New York, then you gave population densities of boroughs in New York City. Panorama City is neither a borough or a city.

  • Slexie

    “And if you think the San Fernando Valley is a suburban area, you’re just wrong. It has the same population density as many parts of New York City.”

    That’s what I was responding to and it’s flat out not true. I’m sorry you don’t understand that the density of NYC is over 27,000 ppsm and the most populous part of the SFV is Panorama City with 18,000 ppsm. Now, do you understand that the whole of the SFV doesn’t have a ppsm more than NYC, because it’s densest area is still way less than the average of NYC? Do you see how that statement above is not true?

    Then someone said I was only talking about Manhattan and tried to tell me most of the other boroughs do not have high densities. If I was only using Manhattan the density there is over 69,000 ppsm. The 27,000 is the average for NYC, not Manhattan alone. The other boroughs listed, except Staten Island, have densities way over Panorama City. So to say the SFV is as dense as parts of NYC is not true. The average density of the SFV is 6,394 ppsm.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    “It has the same population density as many parts of New York City.”

    The meaning of “parts of New York City” was not defined. That doesn’t state a borough, nor all of New York City.

    Now you state that the whole of the San Fernando Valley, which is not a city, doesn’t have a population density of the city of New York. You keep comparing apples and oranges.

  • Slexie

    SHE said the Valley and NYC. There is no part of the Valley that has a density the same as parts of NYC. There is no city in the Valley that has a density like any part of NYC. I’m sorry you don’t understand that, maybe someone can explain it to you.

  • M

    Personally, I get the whole perfection enemy, blah, but at the same time, unless we stop playing these stupid games and wasting massive amounts of money on these types of stupid project.

    Honestly, this type of Measure honestly makes me want to leave LA. You keep building incomplete crap and playing stupid games and you wonder why you still have some of the worst traffic and air quality? Study after study comes out about the pollution from the freeways killing people through heart & lung diseases and stress, the noise pollution causes problems, people need exercise and to move. Our environment is warming up. We have insane weather. We kill and injure thousands of people every year. Come on. Sometimes it feel like Los Angeles is way too big to help itself because it’s still always pandering to stupidity. I’ve been living right next to the LA River for 12 years hearing about the bike lane and it STILL DOESN’T EXIST!!! A friggen $27 million dollar bridge to get people from one side of Lankershim to another has been build in that time though and the 405 freeway has been widended, but there’s still not SIDEWALKS on a major street like Ventura and immediately next to elementary schools/freeway exists. What the hell are we doing? Really, WTF is going on?

  • Joe Linton

    It’s unfair to count that 16% local return as anything but mostly pro-car spending around the county. Even in L.A., the lion’s share of local return goes to car capacity.

  • Joe Linton

    that Universal ped bridge is up to $30M now!

  • M

    What a deal!!!!

    Seriously, if it takes now $30 million to get people across the street next to a train station, I give up.

    It seems like this hazy weather crap means some people were driving even faster than normal on Cahuenga a little distance from the bridge this morning. I managed to get a photo of someone going 51 in a 35mph area as well as many others going 40+ only during a single light cycle.

  • Mike

    you should move to Arizona… Why do you always defend motor transit? It’s objectively the worst form of mobility within cities, yet you reject every initiative aimed at alleviating the woes of car-dependency.

    Rich people might not take the metro now, but as the most effective means of transit is given priority to do it’s job of moving people, it will have greater appeal to ALL incomes because of added safety, speed and convenience.

    Seriously, what makes you so blind to this reality?

  • Mehmet Berker

    I’ve been frustrated by not being able to figure out if basic tools of a well-functioning system will be included in the R2 proposal, specifically two: all-door boarding, and real-time connections information at rail stops. I wonder if anyone here knows if either is included in either the Bus System Improvement Program or the Transportation System and Mobility Improvement Program.

    I know that we’re talking billions here and as such maybe either is too small potatoes to be line-item, however from Metro’s own All door boarding (ADB) pilot report, it seems like an implementation plan to say, install readers for ADB on all Rapid buses would be $2-5 million. There are projects for that amount called out in the draft, so I have to assume that IF ADB, and real-time connections info implementation plans were planned to be part of R2, then they’d be part of the aforementioned programs, but I can’t seem to find a list of projects to be completed under those programs.

    What worries me is that we already approved billions in measure R and those of us who ride the true backbone of the system, the bus, still wait forever at the usual suspect stops on the 704, 720, 754, etc. Instead of a pilot program followed by a targeted implementation plan for ADB for example, why didn’t we get a dedicated program to pay for something that is a demonstrated service improvement. If we couldn’t allocate the money to do system-wide service improvements the first time, what faith should I have that they will be included the next time?

    I probably don’t know enough about Metro’s funding for sure, but as a rider this is the most frustrating thing. Why should I choose to fund a regressive tax when some of the most persistently un-customer friendly aspects of our system, that include — lack of all-door boarding for Rapid lines; lack of real-time connection info at all major rail and bus stations, especially rail; lack of shelters (which I know is tied up with all the JCDecaux crud, but still); sheriffs being used as ticket control and not as public safety, and definitely nowhere near the bus system; nightly single-tracking; etc — remain unchanged? Am I crazy? Is Metro seeking to fund these improvements and I just can’t see it because I don’t know how to properly read or research these documents?

  • LAguttersnipe

    Gas station across the street from Vermont/Beverly, Vermont/Wilshire and Vermont/SM blvd. My point is the Red Line is not as successful as it could be if the city of LA fixed its zoning laws. 25 years of terrible land use along Vermont ave, Washington ave(Blue line) and if R2 passes then there will be more SUPER EXPENSIVE rail projects built where the density is low and land is zoned for parking and gas stations.

  • I think it would be interesting to look into that in detail. How have the 80+ cities and the County spent their Measure R local return funds so far and what does that say about how this ballot measure should be crafted? Part of the reporting on this should be an evaluation of how well Measure R has worked so far.

  • calwatch

    The land is not zoned for gas stations but for a higher purpose. But in a free country, you can’t just tell someone to shutter their existing legally conforming business and change it to something else, not unless you buy the property and pay them fair market value (and for a purpose for which eminent domain is legally permissible, which is not transferring it to another private entity).

  • Slexie

    Because the city is so poorly managed when it comes to public transit. Period.
    There is no overall plan.
    None of the agencies work together.
    Few services run all night.
    People who do use transit who are largely poor and working class get punished for doing the right thing by idiots demanding they pay to park at a metro station.
    Since the Red Line opened I’ve seen a deputy in a subway car once and never seen one on the platform.
    The bike movement demanding to be on the road with cars has done nothing but pit drivers and bikers against each other.
    The bike lanes are not safe and the bike lane by the Orange Line is in the door zone thanks to brilliant planning yet again.
    Bike lanes are put on thoroughfares to freeway entrances and exits and are not safe.
    There are few residential dwellings available that the average person can afford near transit stations, mostly it’s all luxury high rises.
    The LA buses are unreliable and cannot be trusted to get one to work on time.
    Unless you live right by a station and your destination is right by a station you are stuck with buses that are unreliable.
    Road diets are put, yet again, on thoroughfares to the freeway and make traffic worse while the bike lane sits empty (because some of them are in the door zone so who wants to use those lanes like that?).
    “Take the lane” has done nothing to improve safety and created more animosity between drivers and cyclists.
    No city plan has a goal of reducing traffic commute times, they only want to make everyone’s commute slower for some God forsaken reason.
    The TAP card system is the dumbest and least efficient payment method in the universe, it illustrates the cumbersome and overall ineptness of transit planning in LA.
    Metro spends money creating commemorative and fancy TAP cards while transit problems persist, why am I paying for that?
    People are choosing Uber over public transit if that’s any indication about how abysmal transit in LA has become.
    You have no idea what I have or haven’t voted for in the past. But I’m tired of voting for transit measures that seem to go nowhere. The Expo Line is fine, but it’s still on the same light system as cars, so it’s not saving any time. Combine that with paying to park and most people will continue to drive. There is nothing wrong with owning a car. And there is nothing wrong with not wanting to double one’s commute time by taking the bus. And I use transit and I bike and I have a car, so I know what I’m talking about.

  • Mike

    you sound like a disgruntled customer of an agency that’s been fighting an uphill battle since its nascence in Los Angeles. I’m sure your concerns are justified, but LA is undergoing a serious shift that will better utilized an agency that’s been neglected for so long. This is not the time to turn your back on the solution to the areas problems.

    You spout off your complaints (that aren’t exclusive to LA, but common among all transit agencies) but you offer no solution to the very real problems our city faces.

    -There is no overall plan. Wrong.
    you’re commenting on the release of Metros draft plan for the next 40 years.

    -none of the agencies work together. Wrong
    24 of the counties transit agencies are unified by TAP and have schedule alignments to ease transfers (I agree it’s FAR from perfect, but it’s remarkably useful)

    -Few lines offer 24 hour service. Correct.
    LA Metro has a small number of 24 hour bus services, making it one of 6 cities nationwide to offer any sort of late night service. Only Chicago and New York have 24 hour rail

    -TAP is the dumbest and least efficient payment method in the universe. Wrong
    Outside of Chicago, LA has one of the best fare systems and most affordable in the Western World. NYC, DC, Boston issue paper tickets, Philly still has coins…

    -[the city] only want to make everyone’s commute slower for some God forsaken reason. Wrong.
    The city is exploring options that have been proven elsewhere in the world, while encountering problems unifying multimodal transit in a landscape that has prioritized automobiles for WAYY too long. The city depends on mobility and economic prosperity for the pay checks and offices. It would only hurt them to do something as stupid as worsen traffic intentionally…. seriously listen to yourself, reread your diatribes.. insane.

    We get it, you’re not a fan of biking in LA, it’s the result of two community groups clashing (literally) One values speed over everything, the other values the planet, safety, health and general well-being.

    -And I use transit and I bike and I have a car, so I know what I’m talking about. Wrong. Just because you have a kitchen and some pans doesn’t make you a cook. You’re using the wrong tools for the wrong occasions and based on your sentiments, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. As always, I sympathize for you because if I was in your shoes, I’d probably be equally as disgruntled. It honestly seems like you’re the perfect storm, combining all the pitfalls of the agency with shortcomings of the valley’s poor land use AND the irregularity of your commute.

    Enjoy Arizona!

  • calwatch

    Unfortunately nothing about Measure R2 amends previous measures like Proposition A and Proposition C to make them more effective. For example, Proposition A could be amended so that all local return services which use Prop A funds must take the TAP card. This would cover the 20 or so local systems which heretofore do not accept TAP (i.e. West Covina, La Puente, Glendora, El Monte, Alhambra, Lynwood, Cudahy, Monrovia) and all of the dial-a-rides, but they don’t. It could more strictly define the streets that can be paved with Proposition C funding, which currently funds paving of almost all arterials because they are streets “heavily used by public transit”, where one bus a day meets the requirement.

    While I understand the political considerations of not messing with old propositions, it tells me that money could be used better. Rather than putting all these strings on local return and having different pots, I would take all local return funds and block grant it to cities for any transportation purpose, but with a requirement to use the money for public transit and active transportation. Otherwise the city would declare at a public council meeting that there are no needs for public transit or active transportation that are required to be met in that jurisdiction (which might be the case for gated or mostly gated cities like Bradbury, Hidden Hills, or Rolling Hills).

  • Mike

    great points, it’s worth it to reach out and share your suggestions. I’ve contacted Metro a number of times and they’ve been very receptive to feedback, one purpose of releasing the draft was to allow for community input and feedback. Fulfill your duty as a concerned resident, a revised plan might align better with your needs.

  • Phantom Commuter

    Funding Metrolink operations would help gain support in suburban areas, including Lancaster and Santa Clarita. Imagine having frequent service, including nights and weekends for a small fraction of the funding in the proposed measures. All large cities have a robust regional rail system. Ours continues to be ignored.

  • Phantom Commuter

    The door is open. Go. I’ll be right behind you. You’ll be a lot happier. L.A. is not going to change much. I grew up here and figured it out years ago.

  • Phantom Commuter

    You could probably afford a place in Compton, Long Beach or the Valley. Houses in Whittier are only around $2k per month. Apartments can be had for less.

  • That would be cool. The Bay Area has BART which is high capacity, high frequency and all electric whereas we have Metrolink, which is high capacity but low frequency (except weekday commute hours) and not electric :(

  • Slexie

    No idea where that’s coming from.


Metro Measure R2 Expenditure Plan Meetings Start Tonight

Tonight in Agoura Hills, Metro kicks off a series of community meetings to receive input on the agency’s draft expenditure plan for a likely November 2016 half-cent sales tax ballot measure. There are nine face-to-face meetings throughout April, and a final on-line forum April 30. SBLA reviewed the overall outline of Metro’s expenditure plan earlier. There […]

Metro CEO Announces Revised November Sales Tax Proposal

In a press briefing this afternoon, Metro CEO Phil Washington announced the latest changes to Metro’s planned November sales tax ballot measure. The proposal, which Washington calls “the most comprehensive in the country,” will be voted on by the Metro board in late June. The biggest change today is that sales tax will have no […]

This Week In Livable Streets

Metro wants your input at a series of community meetings regarding its draft sales tax expenditure plan. Re:code L.A. goes to Northridge. Great Streets makes Pacoima safer. And much more all this week! Tuesday 4/19 – L.A. City Councilmember Felipe Fuentes and L.A. Great Streets host a community meeting to discuss safety improvements on Van Nuys Blvd […]