Snoble releases letter on sales tax proposal

Sales tax negotiations between local and state officials are continuing today in Sacramento. This is part of the effort to put a half-cent sales tax measure on the November ballot in Los Angeles County to raise money for road and rail projects.

As we posted last week here, Metro CEO Roger Snoble released a revised expenditure plan for the expected revenues from the sales tax. The plan attempts to pacify elected officials in the southern and eastern parts of the county that significant amounts of money will be spent in their areas -- officials have complained too much money is going to Westside rail projects, including the proposed subway extension.

In a letter dated Monday and addressed to Metro board members, Snoble wrote:

"Metro staff had promised to distribute a better breakdown of the highway program and show how the proposed sales tax revenue will be distributed throughout the various sub regions. That work has proceeded and shows a fairly balanced division of the funds as looked at from a population and jobs basis. We were ready to release this information last Friday when Assembly Member Mike Feuer asked us not to release such data as he is having continuing negotiations with key members of the Legislature in his effort to get consensus on his bill AB 2321. He has again requested that we hold off releasing any additional information for a few more days as things are at a very critical point."

Another key excerpt:

"I know this is very awkward as the Metro Board Members has a big role too in deciding the sales tax issue, however, if AB2321 is not consistent with what you approve in the ordinance or the bill does not pass the Legislature there simply will not be a sales tax measure for this November's general election. Please, hang in there with us a little longer."

I talked with aides to State Senator Don Perata, (D-Oakland) about AB 2321 on Monday, but his press deputy declined comment on the ongoing negotiations. I'm also trying to reach State Senator Alan Lowenthal, (D-Long Beach), who chairs the Senate's transportation committee and is involved in negotiations.

The expenditure plan takes pains to show that spending is not always proportional to population. For example, Metro notes that 31.7% of the sales tax revenues for road projects would be spent in the Gateway Cities, although that area would only has 19.2% of the county's population and 17.2% of its jobs.

It's also worth noting that the city of Los Angeles -- with 35.4% of the county's population and 40% of its jobs (those are 2004 numbers, says the plan) -- doesn't appear to get any sales tax money for road projects. All of its money is targeted at rail and mass transit transit improvements.

Go to the jump page to see a breakdown of how and where the money would be spent

Here is how the newly released expenditure plan breaks down spending on road projects. Keep in mind that this list doesn't include rail projects and that these are broad categories and don't include all the nitty-gritty details of particular projects and what they hope to accomplish. Once I have a publishable copy of the plan, I'll post it later.

City of Los Angeles
-- zero

Westside cities
-- zero

Gateway cities
-- $35 million on BNSF grade separations, $590 million on 605 freeway corridor hot spots, $590 million on 710 freeway projects, $265 million on 5 freeway improvements from the 605 to the Orange County line and $138 million on improving the 5 and Carmenita Road interchange.

San Gabriel Valley
-- $780 million on 710 freeway tunnel (a project that readers should note is very 'iffy'), $400 million on Alameda Corridor east grade separations.

South Bay cities
-- $906 million on 405 freeway ramp and interchange improvements.

North L.A. County
-- $33 million for study of east-west freeway in the high desert (the so-called High Desert Corridor), $410 million for 5 freeway truck lanes, $200 million for Route 138 improvements and $91 million for improvements to the 5 and 14 interchange.

Other areas
-- $345 million for highway operational improvements in Arroyo Verdugo and Las Virgenes/Malibu area and $272 million for improvements to the 5 freeway between the 134 and 170 freeways.

Comments

[Mark Jolles]

Steve,

Thanks for getting back to me this morning. I tried calling you because I wanted to be assured that you got the main points from what I was sending, especially considering it gets to the basic crux of the problems the region is experiencing.

My point is:

Why is MTA (LACMTA) giving up hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of federal New Starts funds that other metro areas get regularly. MTA did not qualify projects like the Pasadena Gold Line, Blue Line, Expo Phase I, or Orange Line for Federal New Starts money. After the fact they say they don't have enough money for mitigation and grade separations on those lines, the things New Starts is designed to fund. At the same time MTA doesn't have money for new projects like Expo Phase II or the Purple Line extension. They could've combined both Expo Phases and used the $900 million as matching for both. On the other hand they want to pass a bond measure for more local money and are begging the state for money to replace the money that they are giving up?

Specifically, because MTA pulled out of the Federal New Starts program they are spending $900 million totally local/state on Expo phase one. That project was in the pipeline to get a 50% to 80% federal match. The $900 million, if programmed properly, could have been leveraged to $1.8 billion to $4.5 billion.

At the same time, they are spending $1 billion again with no federal match, on a new carpool lane on the 405 Sepulveda Pass for more cars from the Valley to go to the Westside. The Westside roads are already over capacity or at "gridlock" as the Times would say.

And MTA has just spent $1 or $2 billion (I can't keep track) on a gridlocked 405 widening to move even more traffic into the gridlocked West Side surface street system. Leveraged with the Federal New Starts matching funds, paid by our Federal taxes, this money could've built transit lines to the valley and the sea. Other metro areas do it successfully. The LA Times is not asking, why not MTA?

As a more complex yet subtle point, the federal government invests in transportation projects for future demand, not current demand. USDOT paid up to 90% matching for the existing Los Angeles freeway system, primarily for land acquisition and to "grade separate" and build interchanges for eight lanes of traffic all over the region. That system is now full. Why would USDOT not pay 50% to 80% for a grade separated two track transit system in the Los Angeles region for future travel growth? Add to that, our filthy air violates Federal standards which would give our government even more desire to help out.

For six years the USDOT/Federal Transit Administration tried to participate financially on Expo Phase I. Yet they were rebuffed by MTA. Why?

FYI - Future or unmet current travel growth is sometimes referred to in economic as well as transportation terms as "latent, potential, or forecasted" demand. This demand is clearly forecasted for this region. LACMTA is continuing to make the same mistakes they've made since the 1960's, trying to patch a dam that has long since broke. This instead of building a more reliable much higher capacity "dam". How is this not news? It's news for other metropolitan areas and it is news here. The LA Times may or may not get it, but the public who pays by sitting in traffic with bad air and high gas prices everyday surely wants to know.

http://reports.manta.com/icon/customercare/functionhelp/concept_latent_demand.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=latent+demand+transportation&btnG=Search

In the end, this is not just a transportation problem, this is an economic problem. And it is not being reported clearly. If the region does not provide enough transportation capacity for future demand, (it does not even meet current "latent" demand) than economic growth moves elsewhere. This growth has moved, it is moving, and it will continue to move. As the Pacific Rim has exploded economically over the last decade, how did downtown Los Angeles stay so underdeveloped? Why do so many redevelopment areas exist in Los Angeles and continue to struggle, even with public subsidies? This economic urban phenomenon was originally described in the 1960's as the "donut effect" and it has been happening here.

"In the US, the "doughnut effect" has combined with widening income gaps and industrial restructuring to create city centre replicas of the Third World surrounded by a ring of more affluent suburbs. While this process is not -- yet -- so apparent in Australian cities, the "doughnut effect" is having a serious effect on the urban environment."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1992/57/3186

Thanks again for beginning to shine some light on this subject with your blog and reporting. Please shine it brighter and more clearly.

Mark Jolles
mjolles@pacbell.net

[Alan Fishel]

How can this proposed half cent sale tax increase be called a “Transit Tax” it I not a transit tax but a highway improvement tax. We have been spending 90 plus percent of “transit tax” money in the last 50 years for highways, not busses, not rail, not transit operating funds but highway construction, upgrades and maintenance. Even money that is designated for non highway transit by the MTA still works its way to HOV lanes and other highway projects. Maybe in order to get the required 67 percent to passm, some highway projects needs to be part of the bill. But look at Snoble’s recommendations and from your own sense, how many of his highway projects are really needed to help with traffic flow and opening up bottlenecks. The idea of adding the 710 tunnel will be a deal killer for me and I know many others.

With so many really needed rail projects including the extending the Gold Line Foothill extension east, building the “Downtown Connector” , completing the Expo Line to Santa Monica, The Subway to the Sea, The Crenshaw Line to the Airport, extending the Green line at each end and much more. With theses urgent needs no more than 20 to 30 percent of the funds brought in by this tax should go to highways including HOV lanes (which may soon be changed to toll lanes)

How can the 710 tunnel be taken off this new tax? Is this whole sales tax proposal already planned to fail in order to continue to keep the needed rail lines from getting built?

As I understand the bill now and as much as I know that we need the top rail projects, I could not vote for it with the 710 tunnel and such a high percentage of the funds going to more highways instead of the needed rail lines.

[TonyR]

Dana -

I realize that in order to get 67% of the votes on anything you have to be willing to broaden your spectrum and make deals to get things done. Politics is politics. I mentioned a few days ago on one of the previous postings about the transit tax that I was surprised and dismayed at the amount of money that would be spent on roads, freeways, and maintenance (80% at my quick estimate). The reason why I was surprised was because this tax is being sold to the public as an investment in non-automoblie mass transit. You seemed to infer in your post that the inclusion of road projects would be necessary to ensure passage of the tax proposal. I find it odd that the proponents of the sales tax would load it down with 80% road projects to garner support and then neglect to tell anybody about the road projects when promoting the tax.
It is my opinion that there is wide support for mass transit investment in L.A. It is also my opinion that many people would be surprised to find that their previous votes for sales tax increases were going to fund anything other than building non-automobile mass transit. I think it is far more likely that the proponents of this tax are using the support we have for mass transit to fund road projects that have little support instead of trying to pass a transit tax with support from those who favor road projects. I think that it is also likely that politicians' constituents are starting to notice the lack of infrastructure spending and that money has been stolen from transportation funds to pay general fund expenses for years. Now these politicians have a solution - use bond money to replace the money that they have "borrowed" for general spending purposes.
67% is a very difficult number to achieve in difficult economic times, but I would be really interested to see what kind of support a public-transit only sales tax increase would get on the ballot. I am also interested to see what kind of support would be added by including the road projects. The MTA's early research said the current proposal had 73% support. Unfortunately, the goal of that report was not to break down the data to determine the support for certain projects or classes of projects so I guess it's of little help to my questions. Dana - you may very well be correct that the road projects are necessary to ensure passage. The problem is people like me. I would grab a shovel and volunteer to help dig trenches for mass transit if the MTA asked me to. However, I will not vote for a transit tax that spends 20% of the money on mass transit. I agree with you that making diplomatic concessions is part of getting things done. 80% is not a concession, it's a rip-off.

[Donny Hunter]

At least the people actually making the decisions are accountable to taxpayers. Most of the people here pushing a sales tax have never held an elected post in their life. This is not money falling from the sky--it comes from taxpayers, and if the taxpayers want more accountability and equity in how the money is spent, that's perfectly acceptable.

LA City wants how much for transit? And transit is 2x the pot than highway?

[Dana Gabbard]

Tony, lead a crusade and tilt at windmills if you want. The rest of us have to deal with the world as it is, imperfect as that often is.

[Daniel - The California Highway Guy]

Here are some insights on some of the road proposals that aren't obvious:

"$590 million on 605 freeway corridor hot spots..."

Unclear what this is: part of it could be improvements to the 605/10 interchange. It could be the addition of HOV lanes: I last saw them planned in 2002, but have seen nothing since.

"$265 million on 5 freeway improvements from the 605 to the Orange County line and $138 million on improving the 5 and Carmenita Road interchange."

This is the long awaited widening of I-5 in LA County. Many of them are long awaited TCRP projects (more details at my site) that have probably just seen an increase in construction funding.

"$33 million for study of east-west freeway in the high desert (the so-called High Desert Corridor),"

This is a project that keeps getting funding for study, not construction. I talk about it with Route 138. In March 2007, officials sought $23M in federal funding for the HDC. There were plans to seek an additional $26M in FY08-09. It got $4.8M in the SAFETEA-LEU act.

"$272 million for improvements to the 5 freeway between the 134 and 170 freeways."

These are the HOV lanes between the 134 and 170. The CTC in March just split this into four projects because of the increased costs: 170 to Buena Vista, Buena Vista to Empire, Empire to Burbank, and Burbank to the 134.

As this space is limited, you can find more details on the pages for each highway at www.cahighways.org

[Tony Fernanez]

So because the public doesn't know any better we should continue to waste their money? I think they would listen if we told them that continuing to gve freeways money is a process with no end in sight.

[Dana Gabbard]

Sorry, Tony, if we put on the ballot a measure that didn't include money for roads we might as well fold the tent and drop the effort. 2/3 is too high a barrier to exclude motorist from supporters. That is the blunt political reality. As I quoted before, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...

[Tony Fernandez]

Sure looks like way too much money being spent on the black hole alternatively known as freeways. No matter how much we spend, there will always be congestion on freeways, so why do we continue to throw money down the drain? It's like putting a paper clip in a socket and expecting it not to shock you.

So much of that money could go to more worthwhile rail projects and bus upgrades that get you a lot more bang for the buck. Maybe get the Green Line to LAX for the South Bay and improve the San Bernardino Line for the SGV? Instead, we'll get a 710 tunnel (maybe) that will be congested the second that it opens and road improvements that will do nothing to improve travel times over a long term basis.

If we continue to see the auto as the only way to get around this city, then we will continue to be forced to sit in traffic to get to our homes that will be further and further away from our jobs. Decreasing travel times by spending money on roads? It's like giving money to an alcoholic and expecting him to straighten up his life instead of just going for more booze.

[Tony Fernandez]

Sure looks like way too much money being spent on the black hole alternatively known as freeways. No matter how much we spend, there will always be congestion on freeways, so why do we continue to throw money down the drain? It's like putting a paper clip in a socket and expecting it not to shock you.

So much of that money could go to more worthwhile rail projects and bus upgrades that get you a lot more bang for the buck. Maybe get the Green Line to LAX for the South Bay and improve the San Bernardino Line for the SGV? Instead, we'll get a 710 tunnel (maybe) that will be congested the second that it opens and road improvements that will do nothing to improve travel times over a long term basis.

If we continue to see the auto as the only way to get around this city, then we will continue to be forced to sit in traffic to get to our homes that will be further and further away from our jobs. Decreasing travel times by spending money on roads? It's like giving money to an alcoholic and expecting him to straighten up his life instead of just going for more booze.