Metro bus, rail and highway project summary

The above report is something that Metro CEO Phil Washington wants done on an annual basis: a single document that provides updates on Metro projects, including expected completion date, budget and any issues encountered. It’s a useful document and easy enough for Josephine Q. Public to scroll through and get a quick idea what’s happening with the agency’s many projects.

Or, as staff put it in their report to Metro’s Board:

The APE initiative is a comprehensive evaluation of Metro’s Capital Program, including Transit, Highway, and Regional Rail projects. As part of the APE process, staff reviewed and updated project costs and schedule to current conditions and challenges. Any changes to project budgets/schedules and the reasons for the adjustments are to be reported to the Board annually for approval. In addition, APE serves as a project management tool bringing greater consistency, transparency, and discipline in project managers to better manage and deliver Board-approved projects. The APE is a dynamic tool, which is updated annually as projects move towards completion and any changes approved by the Board are incorporated.



11 replies

  1. This is a great compilation. I like that it has completion targets for each of the on-going projects: e.g.October 2019 for Crenshaw, July 2021 for Regional Connector, and November 2023 for Purple Line Section 1 to La Cienega. It’s good to have an official source to provide accountability.

  2. I know I am sounding like a broken record, but there are still no details of the specific projects, namely Why, What, and When.

    When (or even Will) Metro ever provide the information? Only then will the voters know just what to expect. The benefits of each particular project need to be spelled out.

    Someone on you staff should summarize what each project entails so that the public knows what to expect and, more important, when.

    Without this information, the measure may very well fail, setting LA back many years. If that happens, Metro will have only itself to blame.

  3. Sorry to admit, but I’m voting no on the tax measure. Thanks to the politicians, with their other tax raising measures, I’m not sure how much more the public can afford. I believe that there is enough funds elsewhere to provide the expansion of the rail system. It just takes proper leadership, which may never occur…

    • The public can probably afford a lot more. Our taxes are low compared with most of the rest of the world, but where most countries hide their taxes into the price so the customer never sees them ours are transparent.

      Sales tax isn’t something that most people spend a lot of. I estimate only 10% of my annual expenditure would get hit by an LA county sales tax. Of that it is only going up .5% for this transit initiative. On my 100k income that works out to be $50 a year. Most people in the city make less but possibly pay a higher percentage on sales taxable items, maybe they pay $35 a year. Doesnt sound backbreaking.

      Sure I would love to see more of all that money I send the federal government come back and actually improve LA, but we all know that isn’t happening particularly with Trump nearly election. Would also like to see my state taxes spent better, particularly those for education, but we need better education not worse. They get plenty of money but spend it poorly. I dont know if robbing money from there will help. Without M(or another sales tax) I dont see the rail system getting expanded.

    • I’m sorry, but have you read about Measure M at all? Most of the new projects are actually IN the valley! HAHA. The main chunk of money goes directly to the 405 project.

      • That is why Metro badly needs to post more details on each on the proposed projects. These details should summarize the Why? What? and When? for each proposed project. Burying the projects a spreadsheet format is insufficient.

        How many people will have the patience to go through a spreadsheet to understand the information. The reader can easily get lost,

        For an example of what could done, see

        • This document contains brief project descriptions: Keep in mind the environmental work still must be done for some projects. Others it is underway and we have a pretty good understanding of what the projects are or the alternatives for them: Purple Line Extension, Airport Metro Connector, Eastside Gold Line, High Desert Corridor, East San Fernando Transit Corridor, South Bay Green Line Extension. There are project pages for those on

          Steve Hymon
          Editor, The Source

          • That’s better. What needs to be added is the estimated impacts and benefits of these improvements and the time frame.

            In addition, there should be links for each proposed project to take the reader to more details if they want to know more about them. I know there is more information on your site for some of them, and thus a link would be helpful.

            There are those like myself who want the West Santa Ana Branch to be a high priority and to be constructed in a single project and not as two disjointed projects. Also, it should be extended to the Orange County line to perhaps get OCTA to extend to to Santa Ana and even to Irvine with a branch along the UP right-of-way to Huntington Beach.

            We also need a one-seat ride from Union Station to the LAX 96th Street Station. As it is now, there would be a need for one or two transfers (Blue-Green, or Blue-Expo-Crenshaw). Apparently the Regional Connector will not have a Wye at the Blue-Gold Junction.