UPDATE: The item will be considered at April’s meeting of the Metro Board of Directors.
In 2010, the Metro Board of Directors approved the 30/10 plan, the idea being to build 30 years worth of Measure R projects in the next decade. Although it hasn’t yet worked out, that policy is still very much on the books — and Metro staff are still trying to advance Measure R road and transit projects.
The first part of a new acceleration strategy will come before the Metro Board at its monthly meeting on Thursday. In particular, Metro staff are recommending that the Board approve a public notice of a planned change to the Measure R expenditure plan that would allow second- and third-decade Measure R projects to begin receiving funds this decade.
If approved, the proposal would then be vetted by a three-judge panel that provides oversight for Measure R. After the judges release their findings, the plan is for the Metro Board to vote on the new dates for the expenditure plan and a new acceleration plan at the Board’s May meeting.
And what will the acceleration strategy be this time around? I don’t know the details beyond what’s in the staff report issued last week (the report is below). The report shows that Metro is looking at assembling funds from a variety of sources — Measure R, America Fast Forward loans and bonds (30/10 was renamed America Fast Forward in 2011) and possibly revenues from Prop A and C, the half-cent sales tax increases approved by L.A. County voters in 1980 and 1990, respectively.
So stay tuned. As always there’s a lot of balls in the air, particularly at the federal level, where Metro is trying to lock down New Starts money for the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector while also getting getting Congress to fully adopt and fund the America Fast Forward plan.
Categories: Policy & Funding, Projects
[…] Metro Considers Changing Measure R Expenditure Plan, Start Some Rail Project Funding Sooner (The Source) […]
The R/A/C plan looks good. Hopefully this approach is adopted and they can borrow at the low interest rates. They way they segregate the A/C funds from the rail tunnels is clever. I wonder why this hasn’t been the baseline plan from the get go.
The proposal itself is great however some of the projects will cost more than what was penciled in. How will Metro pay for them even if there is a will to accelerate it is a much bigger question.
Perhaps the Metro board should have discussed this topic in conjunction with Measure J.
Agreed, In the Valley. One question is how to deal with projects in which some of the alternatives are not fully funded.
Editor, The Source
As a quasi-expert on funding please know even I at times find this stuff makes my head hurt. But this sounds like the prudent next step.
I have come to believe that all reports on multiple-source transportation funding should come with two aspirin attached. And you’ve been reading these things longer than I have.
Editor, The Source
Good to hear. Traffic isn’t getting any better, we need to get these projects built! And fast!