Subway to Sea: Show me the money!

The Times' Steve Hymon reports on an interesting idea for funding the "Subway to the Sea," which has much political support but little financial support for the $5 billion+ project:

... does anyone out there have a plan to pay for the subway to the sea? Real estate developer Ken Kahan does and it involves the always fascinating world of tax increments. Here’s an example of how it would work: Kahan, president of California Landmark Group, recently bought land at Wilshire and Barrington on the Westside for a residential high-rise (check it out at www.californialandmark.com). He paid $5.5 million for the site, triggering an increase in property taxes from about $10,000 annually to $60,000. Kahan plans to build a 25-story residential tower. When those units are sold, Kahan expects the building will generate about $2 million in property taxes annually. Under his plan, the overall increase in property taxes would go to a fund, which in turn finances a bond to pay for the subway. In essence, this is similar to how redevelopment zones work, but currently state law would have to be changed to allow such an infrastructure along Wilshire. The downside is that the plan depends on continued turnover of properties along Wilshire and will likely invite critics who say it will bring too much density and redevelopment to Wilshire.

Comments

[Dan W.]

Newport is a listless suburb (that many peoeple like and I respect that), while mid-city is THE CITY!!!
------------

This point is key. Over several decades of the car culture people grew entitled to the unsustainable expectation that they could live quality suburban lifestyles in an urban environment. If someone really wants a car based lifestyle, that is fine, but they shouldn't expect that they can continue to do it downtown, mid-city, Hollywood or even Santa Monica. Someday even the South Valley may become car-problematic.

L.A. population is growing. We can either plan for it responsibly or not plan for it irresponsibly. We either get transit alternatives that keep the economy humming or we don't and lose out -- to say nothing of the environment and global warming.

We had a rail system. We are simply getting back what should have never been taken away.

Subways and light rail generates revenue.

People who want to hold on within their suburban lifestyles should move to the suburbs where they will able to do that unobstructed. People who live in the city should expect to live an urban lifestyle -- just like the rest of the planet.

No one in any other city just expects they can drive into urban centers easily and then find cheap parking. There will come a time when Downtown and Century City and possibly a few other hubs will be the same way. ("Oh, I'm going downtown? I better park my car at a Metrolink Station, or I should take a bus/train and transfer my way in.')

L.A.'s unique experiment in sprawl is slowly getting worse and worse. The quality of single-occupancy motoring will continue to decline within the city. NOTHING can be done to stop that. Alternatives can be and must be provided.

1) More commuter, heavy and light rail.
2) More rapid and local buses
3) More bike paths and pedestrian improvements.
4) Less roads and less single-occupancy vehicles.

That's the only sustainable future within the urban environment. Burying one's head in the sand and wishing L.A. motoring was like it was 20 or 30 years ago is pointless.

But there will always be suburbs for those who want that lifestyle.

[Jeremy R]

"Santa Barbara, Bel Air, or Newport Beach."

WTF? Those are SUBURBS!!!!! Every city has them. You cant have 100% urban. There are urban areas such as SF, and suburban areas like San Mateo. LA is a mishmash, and it isnt healthy. No one wants Newport Beach to be urban. Newport is a listless suburb (that many peoeple like and I respect that), while mid-city is THE CITY!!!

Dont compare Santa Barbara to the second largest city in America. There is no comparison.

Sheesh. Its ONE SUBWAY FOLKS. Lets not get carried away. Man, a few highrises, and people get all up in arms. Heaven forbid that skycrapers get built in one of the largest economies and cities in the world!!!

[Jeremy R]

"

What is the OBSESSION with turning LA into New York? Who cares whether or not this ever gets built? NO NEW TAXES, this discussion has become childish and ridiculous.

I hope the purple line never gets built. Trains are slow and expensive and no matter what anyone says, traffic in Los Angeles will always be massive, building a train will just create a new black hole for public money (which I think should be spent on new and better public parks and new sewers in WLA, which are starting to stink...). One train will lead to another to another, and quality of life will NOT improve, it will deteriorate, and the face of our gorgeous city will changed forever for the worse. Not a fan of subway expansion here - can you tell?
"

Here is the real problem. Whether we like it or not, after 1950 LA became a global city with explosive econmoic and population growth. Our suburban utopia began ending back then. We have just waited 60 years to do something about. Rail does work. We used to have the redcars and everyone was happy and connected. It wasnt till roads started destroying LA. We had 15 good years between 1960 and 2007, but they are short lived.

There are only two opionts
1) Transit ALTERNATIVES
2) No ALTERNATIVES

In section 1) at least we have the choice to walk or take rail. In Section 2) traffic hell is unavoidable and that is where LA is headed. Of course people like you vote down all of the projects that we need, and then in 2020 when you cant drive your precious car anymore, you leave! Do us all a favor, have some vision, and just leave now before ruining this place for the rest of us.

[Jeremy R]

"There is something else we should also be talking about and that is the economic impact of NOT building it. The answer is clear, we can't afford not to build this line to santa monica!!"

It takes money to make money. NYC subway cost about 10 billion in todays dollars, yet it is the single most important reason NYC has a 1 TRILLION dollar ecnomoy. Yes I said trillion. Take away all of the subways and NYC "may" be barely keeping up with Los Angeles at 540 million. Subways bring development, jobs, taxes, etc. Unlike other things, they MAKE money!

[David]

Tokyo is also in earthquake country, so subways shouldn't be a problem in Los Angeles either.

[Jon]

Those who say don't build the subway are ignorant and selfish. There is no more room for freeways or mor cars. Yet the population is projected to keep groing not only in LA but the Nation, 400 million by approximately 2050.

Yes, LA is not NY but LA is a mega city and the growth cannot continue to be forced farther and farther out in a massive urban sprawl.

Trains don't reduce traffic, that is ignorant. Trains give the millions more an alternative to driving. Traffic in Tokyo is still massive even with the most extensive train system in the world. But without it, the city would not move.

Everyone who lives in LA is obligated to contribute to mass transit whether they use it or not. If you don't like it, then move to Elko, Nevada.

[dobiegee]

What better corridor than Wilshire?
Build it and run it 24/7. Give poor suffering angelinos (and angelinas) a break from their tyranical auto worshipping delusional culture.
There's a whole world out there that you can't access with two tons of steel and plastic surrounding you.

[Wright Concept]

Jason,

I absolutely agree with you that this kind of funding scheme will actually hurt the subway. In addition corridors like that need a 1/4 mile radius catchment with loads of dense development along the line to even make a dent in the costs and make them feasiable.

Along the Wilshire Corridor there are at least 3 large zones where there is ZERO dense development potential: Hancock Park, Between La Cienega and Robertson Blvd and Wilshire Country Club west of Santa Monica Blvd.
That is at least 4 miles or 33% of the extension to Santa Monica. 50% if they built the subway to where it's most needed like to UCLA/Westwood.

[Jason]

I hate to be a nay-sayer to this interesting idea, but using tax increment as a source to finance a subway is full of holes. First, tax increment financings are intended to be used for redevelopment purposes; to upgrade blighted urban areas. Building a subway doesn't really fit this ideal. Second, it generally takes several years for tax increment to accrue (or at least several property sales within a redevelopment area) so, bonding against these revenues would likely fall far short of generating the up-front funds needed for the initial project construction. Finally, when an area is turned into a redevelopment area, it has the effect of generally holding tax revenues constant for the underlying City/County/School/etc. for the life of the project area, while the taxes generated from increasing property values are diverted to the redevelopment project. In other words, tax revenues are diverted from local governments to pay for improvements in the project area, which can cause a cash crunch at the local government level. All these issues will likely prevent the use of tax increment from ever being more than a partial solution.

Trying to find a more appropriate funding source for light rail or a subway without re-writing large sections of the CA municipal code would likely include an increase in the gas tax or a toll on local freeways. Since the gas tax hasn't been increased in decades this might be a better option. Moreover, since a viable subway network would alleviate pressure on local roads, motorist should really pay more for benefit of reduced traffic.

I wish the detractors of subways and light rail would take a trip to some of the first class cities of Europe, to see how effective these options are.

[Dan W.]

What is the OBSESSION with turning LA into New York? Who cares whether or not this ever gets built? NO NEW TAXES, this discussion has become childish and ridiculous.

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

What is "childish and ridiculous" are people who have a sense of entitlement that because they've had a certain quality of motoring for the past five decades, that this will be able to and should continue for the next several decades, and all government resources should be spent on road improvements to try innoculate them from any inconveniences arising from increasing urbanization that might motivate them to modify or alter their preferred lifestyle. That's childish and ridiculous.

Not building transportation alternatives that will keep this city economically and environmentally viable because NIMBYs want to pretend that we are still in the Los Angeles of several decades ago. That's childish and ridiculous.

Burying one's head in the sand and pretending as if urbanizations isn't going to happen and can be stopped because they want Los Angeles to be what it has been for the last several decades and don't want the future to arrive. That's childish and ridiculous.

Not building needed public transportation projects because someone wants their individual taxes to be lower no matter what the cost to everyone else and to future generations. That's childish and ridiculous.

Your biggest fear that one train will lead to another is for many people their dream come true. Go to the maps section on the Transit Coalition's website or getlamoving.org for visions of what L.A. could be.

Your fear that this will change Los Angeles from being the "beautiful city" it is neglects to mention that Los Angeles is already changing. Long overdue rail projects and other public transportation projects are a late-in-coming response to changes that are already happening. More public transit will help keep the air quality of this beautiful city.

Not wanting to responsibly plan for the future or deal with the reality of ever-increasing population. Now that's childish and ridiculous!

Los Angeles may also need to create other infrastructure improvements as the sewer system and parks you have mentione. However, Los Angeles is finally growing up and dealing with reality.

I suspect many people who wish to live in their past conception of Los Angeles, a LaLaLand, where one lives a suburban lifestyle in an urban environment, will no doubt be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

[Jim]

From Beverly Hills west, except for the subject parcel, and some spots in Santa Monica and the VA ( of course), there's not much more dense that can be devleoped. The zoning in WLA from the VA to Santa Monica permits low-rise buildinga, and I sincerely doubt anyone living north and south of Wilshire wants a line of high rises blocking their sunlight the way thet the Westwood high rises has robbed the streets north and south of their light and vistas.

This guy has a very boneheaded perspective on it...he just wants to build his building, and then retreat to his place in Santa Barbara, Bel Air, or Newport Beach.

Why don't they then allow high rises in the Bel Air hills and along the Santa Barbara and Lido Island/Balboa Island coasts?

[JustinNative]

What is the OBSESSION with turning LA into New York? Who cares whether or not this ever gets built? NO NEW TAXES, this discussion has become childish and ridiculous.

I hope the purple line never gets built. Trains are slow and expensive and no matter what anyone says, traffic in Los Angeles will always be massive, building a train will just create a new black hole for public money (which I think should be spent on new and better public parks and new sewers in WLA, which are starting to stink...). One train will lead to another to another, and quality of life will NOT improve, it will deteriorate, and the face of our gorgeous city will changed forever for the worse. Not a fan of subway expansion here - can you tell?

[JustinNative]

What is the OBSESSION with turning LA into New York? Who cares whether or not this ever gets built? NO NEW TAXES, this discussion has become childish and ridiculous.

I hope the purple line never gets built. Trains are slow and expensive and no matter what anyone says, traffic in Los Angeles will always be massive, building a train will just create a new black hole for public money (which I think should be spent on new and better public parks and new sewers in WLA, which are starting to stink...). One train will lead to another to another, and quality of life will NOT improve, it will deteriorate, and the face of our gorgeous city will changed forever for the worse. Not a fan of subway expansion here - can you tell?

[mike]

There is something else we should also be talking about and that is the economic impact of NOT building it. The answer is clear, we can't afford not to build this line to santa monica!!

[Shaun]

I'm surprised no one has come up with a similar idea yet. Just as freeways spur additional development so do rail lines, except rail line spur denser, more efficient development. We should make it easy for developers to build projects along rail lines and use additional revenue from those projects to help fund it. Developers already pay traffic impact fees or other development fees that go towards traffic and parking mitigation so why should development along a rail line be any different? The city council needs to show some muscle and stop letting nitpicky NIMBY neighborhood groups oppose any development, thus driving up the costs of projects.

Development should follow rail lines and we should increase density along them to help with both our housing situation and help ridership on the rail line. ANd for this to work people will need to go multiple places on rail, meaning more than just a Wilshire subway is needed. one can only hope though....

[Dan W.]

If this works well for Wislhire Blvd., it could be used to help fund other rail corridors, such as the connector from Red to Purple Lines through West Hollywood (a.k.a. the Pink Line), and a Ventura Blvd. line.

Developers should absolutely be contributing for the necessary transit improvements.

[Dan W.]

Greater densification is coming. It makes sense to plan it around a corridor that will eventually have a major rail line and connect up the city.

We can do it planned or unplanned, but densification is coming.

Less development downtown, or in Hollywood, or along the Wilshire corridor means more sprawl elsewhere. I know which one is more preferable.

If someone really wants a car-only based, surburban lifestyle, then they should move to countless other locations in So. Cal. There is no reason anyone should be holding onto that expectation along the Wilshire Blvd. Corridor. The days of Sam Yorty's Los Angeles are over.

[manuel]

Another way that the MTA can make extra money is to have retail space avalable at the stations for resturants, coffee shos... The MTA can do percentage leasses to the retailers. This way the commuters have access to shopping, dinning.