Pols take their victory lap for Measure R

Not the most flattering photo, I know, but that was the scene this morning at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue above the current terminus of the Purple Line subway. "Current" is the key word there. During the news conference about Measure R's passage, Metropolitan Transportation Authority chief Roger Snoble said it may now be possible to extend the line to Fairfax Avenue within six or seven years and the line could get to Westwood in 20 years.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa heard that, and super-super-quickly stepped to the mike and promised to be "aggressive" about securing federal dollars to speed that up. (Villaraigosa is flanked in the above photo by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, behind him to the left, and Assemblyman Mike Feuer,far right, both of whom played key roles in getting Measure R on the ballot.)

All this means that someone has a lot of work to do. Nonetheless, and as you might expect, the mood among the local pols at the news conference ranged between ebullience and unspeakable amounts of joy. Remember the spring of 2007 when Villaraigosa and Yaroslavsky were having a, shall we say, spirited discussion over MTA fare increases? Well, the two men lavished praise upon one another Wednesday morning, with the mayor suggesting that he and Yaroslavsky were now "joined at the hip."

With just two hours' sleep on election night, followed by a long drive to the Westside from the San Gabe Valley, the Road Sage couldn't even begin to tackle the merging of two such political organisms.

On a more serious note: Whether you voted for Measure R or not, the MTA expects to receive up to $40 billion in sales tax revenue over the 30 year life of the sales tax. That's about $40 billion more than the MTA otherwise would have had for new projects, the reason for the celebratory mood. Villaraigosa oversaw the campaign for Measure R, which captured 67.4% of the vote.

To put that achievement in perspective, the last half-cent sales tax increase for transportation in 1990 in L.A. County barely passed with 50.4% of the vote, back when the threshold was a simple majority. Villaraigosa told me later that he had a Plan B if Measure R failed -- going back to voters at a future date -- but that the high turnout for the presidential election basically made the 2008 election an all-or-nothing proposition because it was the best way to secure the needed two-thirds approval.

"That's why we had to win," he said.

A few other highlights from the news conference:

-- Snoble indicated that the Expo Line and Gold Line extensions are likely to be the first two rail projects to break ground with Measure R dollars. The Gold Line, he said, could begin as early as 2010. I know there are readers out there who don't believe that and I'm not saying you should. But that's what public officials are saying on the record. So, hit the print button.

-- Snoble also said that he thinks that new tunneling technology should make it easier to tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard without causing as many street disruptions as there were during construction of the existing subway. He indicated that some property will have to be acquired near Wilshire and Western to get tunneling machines into the ground.

I'm working on a story for tomorrow's editions of The Times looking at the votes on both Measure R and Prop 1A, indicating voters in California were in the mood on Tuesday to invest big-time in mass transit.

-- Steve Hymon

Photo credit: Steve Hymon / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Damien Goodmon]

Kym would you prefer I state: "on the brink of bankruptcy" or "on a course toward bankruptcy?"

Tell us how you would have us reference MTA's period of financial mismanagement and corruption that led to the most forceful voter rebuke of a transportation agency in the latter half of the 20th century?

And what next, shall we debate whether the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was "sexual relations" or not? Give me a break.

And Ken it's not pessimism - it's a critical assessment of MTA processes and structure and the sales tax limitations. Forgive me for not drinking the Kool-aid. A wise advocate hears the criticism and rebuts it.

Here's a tip, anyone outside the Metro echo-chamber is highly critical of the agency. It has a very bad reputation nationally and in all walks of academia. This is not some secret. It doesn't take a lot of hard work to find out. Just read the EIRs, the correspondence, or heck just pick up the phone and call someone, and it's not difficult to understand.

Broaden your knowledge base. Begin reading studies and reports that DON'T have Metro's letterhead on it.

The sensitivity of some to criticism of this public agency is very telling, especially since by no metric is MTA considered a success.

Heck, if many transit advocates criticism of MTA was half as intense as it is of the communities, organizations and people MTA is supposed to be serving we might actually see some measurable improvements. Then again metrics aren't things we create for MTA, are they?

We measure the success of our public safety agencies by our crime rates, and the success of our school district by graduation rate, but our public transit agency doesn't have to serve a percentage of the public everyday, take X amount of vehicle trips off the road, or have X percentage of on-time bus performance for it to be considered successful?

How did that come to be?

[Ken Alpern]

While I think that Damien Goodmon's statements are by far too pessimistic, the rest of us are being too optimistic to suggest that if Prop. R passes that everything will be all good.

We need more of the fees that Damien outlines, and (most of all) we need a massive federal match--and for more than a single project at a time--for the various projects this sales tax will fund.

Mr. Obama's election was and will be as critical as any local funding effort, but at least the passage of Prop. R will show the feds we mean business when we say we want more transportation/transit dollars from the federal government.

...and if/when the state gets out of its crisis in a few years, we should demand no less from the state as well.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Damien -

"... which is the reason MTA was bankrupted in the late '90s."

Stop making up "facts" as you go. Metro has never declared bankruptcy, although it has had to halt projects because of financial problems and it has operated service at a deficit for years.

When you make statements such as the above, you lower your own credibility.

[Damien Goodmon]

David:

This sales tax will be used for bonding. Only it won't be big enough to build the projects large enough in scale to capture significant savings to off-set the interest cost or reduce the first 10-15 years of the project's operating costs.

It's a vicious cycle that leads to more borrowing and debt, which is the reason MTA was bankrupted in the late '90s. It had nothing to do with the bond, it was financial mismanagement and construction firms treating MTA like a blind generous uncle with dementia.

And do you have any clue how many transportation related activities are not being taxed or are being undertaxed?

Tack on $5 on every airline ticket into/out of LAX, Long Beach, Burbank and Palmdale and that's at least $375 mil a year alone.

Then there's port fees, trucking fees, car rental fees, hotel fees. Small modest fees that are actually far less regressive, have far more potential, and are far easier to adjust than a sales tax. For example, you don't need 2/3rds vote to increase airline ticket fee from $5 to $5.50. It doesn't even go on the ballot!!!

I think the lead will hold up. But if it fails, it might actually force our politicians to be creative both in the way MTA builds and in the financial mechanism to build these things.

[David Bradley in SoPas]

Floating bonds without enough of a revenue source is one of the reasons that prevented the subway from getting extended anyways. We were bankrupting the county.

What new revenue sources would floating this large bond come from and how can you acheive that consensus with only one area getting that funding politically?

The argument makes no sense

[kint]

Did you people even read the measure before you voted?? That's why I voted no. An increase in registration fees is better..

[lsm]

Apparently Mayor Villlaraigosa has been invited to join President-elect Obama's economic transition team. Let's hope Mayor V. persuasively makes the case that investing Federal matching funds in transit infrastructure now will return economic benefits many times over.

[Damien Goodmon]

Not one serious comprehensive article - let alone series of articles - in the paper from anyone either pro-rail expansion, anti-rail expansion or anti-MTA for 4 months, and the day after it passes the Times happens to report on one of the major criticisms of using the sales tax to finance the projects. Got to love the Times.

By the way Paul, if this had been a bond as opposed to a direct sales tax MTA would have been able to cut a couple billion and about 15-18 years off the projected 2036 Wilshire/Westwood opening date.

Ladies and gentlemen, now the fun begins...

[Dan W.]

"ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 20 YEARS? I voted for this to get subway constructions started in 2013. Yet by the time I'm 50 years old it will still only be in Westwood? I want my vote back. Villaraigosa is a weasel."
---------------------------

If more funding comes from the Federal Government, then the Purple Line will be built quicker. Villaraigosa isn't a weasel. He acknowledged that more money is needed to move this along faster.

The good news is that the Expo Line should be to Santa Monica by 2015.

Urban areas and infrastructure in general have gotten the shaft over the last eight years. Now that we have a President who is familiar with urban life and an urban-friendly Congressional majority, I am hopeful the Feds will kick in more money.

The Purple Line will be extended in stages -- first to Fairfax, then to Century City, then to Westwood and finally to Santa Monica. Then there is the Santa Monica Blvd. connection between Hollywood and Century City at some point.

[Dana Gabbard]

I appreciate Damien Newton's comment, but my attitude is I am less interesting in who gets the credit than in making sure the right thing happens.

OK, I am about as tireless a supporter of the Wilshire subway as there is, and have been so for my 14 years as a transit advocate. And realistically my hope was to be able to sit in the Westwood subway station about when I started drawing social security. I am 46, so 20 years is about what I expected. Big projects don't happen fast. New York after almost 100 years is finally getting the second avenue line. Remember we have several light rail lines including the key downtown connector that will also be funded by R lined up to be done. Plus lining up the funds for Wilshire will be a massive challenge. There is a reason why RTD general manager John Dyer has a plaque in the Wilshire/Vermont Red/Purple Line station—at one point he was spending half his workweek walking the halls of the Capitol Hill seeking funds for MOS1 of the subway. It is good R can provide local match, but now we stakeholders along with the electeds have to get the rest. Passing R is just the beginning of the beginning.

[Damien Newton]

Out of curiosity, did the pols take a moment to thank groups like So.CA.TA and Bruins for Traffic Relief, who's tireless efforts on Measure R's behalf probably had more to do with the Measure's passage than their deceptive advertising and stealth pr campaign?

[Ken Alpern]

Relax, all you guys who presume the Subway will take 20 years. Proposition R just gave us the local matching money; our battle, however, is not ending.

We need to make sure that we have a federal government that isn't afraid to throw $1 billion every 1-2 years at our county for its own contribution to all of our transportation projects.

I don't see our new President and Congress being so cruel to the cities the way we saw over the past decade, and I envision this Subway reaching Westwood (or at least Century City) easily within 10 years if we continue to work hard (no easy, smooth sailing here!).

The biggest efforts over the next decade will probably be with the projects already on the table, such as the Expo Line to the beach, the Foothill Gold Line to Azusa and beyond, the Green Line to LAX, the Alameda Corridor East, and the Downtown Light Rail Connector.

Still, it shouldn't be too much to ask for the Subway to reach the Westside (Century City being my personal goal) in ten years.

Why only Century City? Well, this subway clearly needs to go to Westwood sooner and not later, but the big question of how it would interact with the mythical Sepulveda/405 Corridor rail line is nowhere near to being answered, and that's more an issue of outreach, studies and planning rather than funding.

The San Fernando Valley would probably be helped more in the short run by throwing in the Santa Monica Blvd. Red/Purple Line link while simultaneous driving hard to get the Purple Line to Century City.

[Justin Walker]

This sales tax provides ~$40B over THIRTY YEARS. The money will stream in at just over $1B per year. Clearly, not every project can be first in line to get funding. And the Wilshire subway happens to not be one of the first ones.

I do hope it gets built in far less time than 20 years, though.

[lsm]

On election day, I was in the Bay Area with a couple from Spain. During a quick sight-seeing tour, I took them to the Marin Headlands overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge. Among other things, I told them how during the Great Depression the people of the Bay Area shared the foresight put up their homes, farms and businesses to back bonds to finance the bridge that brought them and their children and their grand children great prosperity.

Our half-cent sales tax may pale compared to the stake they risked. Our transit projects may lack the majesty of the Art Deco span. Our financial panic may (hopefully) fall far short of the Great Depression. But our willingness to invest in our future, although perhaps less heroic than the example set eight decades ago in the Bay Area, makes me proud today to live in LA County.

Thank you to all who made this possible.

[calwatch]

I don't see the provisionals bringing down the margin. Right now, the Times reports 566,000 late ballots (provisionals, write ins, and absentee ballots turned in at polls). Measure R is leading by 27,000 votes. This is a high hurdle to climb. If the margin of victory was in the hundreds or low thousands, then more caution would be in order. The other thing is that late absentees and provisionals tend to trend Democratic, so that bodes well for the measure.

[Darrell Clarke]

See Steve Hymon busy at the press conference this morning at http://lavisions.blogspot.com (third photo down).

And what can you tell us about the provisional ballot situation? I heard it briefly on KPCC today.

[Steve]

if we can rebuild the 10 freeway in 3 months after the northridge quake how come it takes 20 yrs to build a subway?This is nuts.Fast track the construction.

[David Galvan]

. . . Seriously? 20 years just to get to Westwood? I was imagining that it would be built to Westwood within 10 years. . . and potentially to Santa Monica within 15. Are Snoble's timing projections consistent with what you all were thinking as well?

I mean, the Westside Extension Alternative Analysis Study (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/community_presentation_2008_0827.pdf, pg. 33) implied that the Environmental Impact Report and Final approval and design planning would take about 3 years, and construction (presumably through Westwood) would take another 7. So that's 10 years to Westwood. . . not 20. What gives?

[Donna]

I hope the MTA will include the San Gabriel Valley in its near term plans.

[Paul]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 20 YEARS? I voted for this to get subway constructions started in 2013. Yet by the time I'm 50 years old it will still only be in Westwood? I want my vote back. Villaraigosa is a weasel.

And a big thumbs down to the Bottleneck Blog for pushing this idea of 2013 over the entire summer, convincing me to vote for this nonsense.

[Brent]

This is great news. I was keeping my eye on this one early and it wasnt looking good; but, the voters in LA county really came through on this one. It may take 20 years to get a train here in Westwood; but, when it does finally get here it is sure to be a great success. As the traffic congestion and polution have long been a problem for us Angelinos, actions such as that of Measure R will begin benefit all of us in the Southland sooner than later!

:)

[andy]

Is there anyway that uncounted provisional ballots could overturn this? I don't want to get my hopes up if the measure could still end up failing.

[Jose]

WOO HOO !!! I wondered if LA county had it in us to pass this, or if we were going to continue to spiral down the drain. Now we just might have a glimmer of a chance.

[Gokhan]

Thank you to everyone, all the transit advocates who have fought hard, volunteered, campaigned, and blogged for so many years and changed the public opinion and perception by doing so, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, who threw $1 million into the campaign, those Metro politicians and staff with good vision, the rain that messed up the traffic in the election morning, and so on. This was so close that it wouldn't have passed if it was not for all of these. Despite what's said in the popular media, Measure R is much more than subway to Century City and Westwood; it is what will turn the entire Los Angeles County into a completely different, much livable and people-friendly Metropolitan area, with a comprehensive light-, heavy-, and commuter-rail network. We have now achieved what a few transit advocates have been trying to achieve for half a century.

[jeremy]

yippy!