LRTP Stakeholder Input

ATTACHMENT C
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Potential Ballot Measure

Initial Stakeholder Input
October 7, 2015
REVISION #2
Potential Ballot Measure Initial Stakeholder Input

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Stakeholder Outreach Summary ........................................................................................... 5
2. Initial Stakeholder Input Submittals Summary ....................................................................... 7
3. Long Range Transportation Plan and Potential Ballot Measure Assumptions ....................... 9
4. Subregional Input
a) Arroyo Verdugo ....................................................................................................... 17
b) Central Los Angeles ................................................................................................ 21
c) Gateway Cities COG ............................................................................................... 23
d) Las Virgenes/Malibu COG ....................................................................................... 33
e) North County Transportation Coalition ..................................................................... 35
f)
San Fernando Valley COG ...................................................................................... 47
g) San Gabriel Valley COG .......................................................................................... 51

h) South Bay Cities COG ............................................................................................. 57
i)
Westside Cities COG ............................................................................................... 61
5. Regional Facilities Input

a) Bob Hope Burbank Airport ....................................................................................... 66
b) Long Beach Airport .................................................................................................. 72
c) Los Angeles World Airport ....................................................................................... 74
d) Palmdale Regional Airport ....................................................................................... 76
e) Port of Long Beach .................................................................................................. 80
f)
Port of Los Angeles ................................................................................................. 84
g) Union Station ........................................................................................................... 86

6. Other Stakeholder Input
a) Access Services ...................................................................................................... 89
b) Alliance for Community Transit Los Angeles (ACT-LA) ............................................ 93
c) Caltrans ................................................................................................................... 95
d) Central City Association of Los Angeles ................................................................. 96
e) City of Long Beach .................................................................................................. 97
f)
Community Health Councils, Inc. ........................................................................... 100
g) EnviroMetro ........................................................................................................... 103

h) Investing in Place .................................................................................................. 120
i)
LA County Department of Public Health................................................................. 129

Page i of ii
Potential Ballot Measure Initial Stakeholder Input

TABLE OF CONTENTS
j)
LA Thrives ............................................................................................................. 132
k) Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce ............................................................. 135

l)
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition .................................................................... 137
m) Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association ........................................... 141

n) Los Angeles/Orange County Building Trades Council ............................................ 143
o) Live Ride Share ..................................................................................................... 144
p) Local Transit Systems Subcommittee .................................................................... 150
q) Metrolink ................................................................................................................ 151
r) Move LA ................................................................................................................ 153
s) One LA .................................................................................................................. 166
t)
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber ................................................................................ 171
u) Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) ........................................................ 180

v) Tier 2 Operators .................................................................................................... 184
w) TRUST South LA ................................................................................................... 187
x) Valley Industry and Commerce Association .......................................................... 189
Page ii of ii
1. Stakeholder Outreach
Summary
Stakeholder Outreach Summary

Since the October 2014 Metro Board action on the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
Update and potential ballot measure schedule, Metro staff has participated in over 190
meetings with stakeholders throughout Los Angeles County to ensure their input in the process.
The Mobility Matrix was the first step in the LRTP update and potential ballot measure. The
effort considered unmet transportation needs throughout the county based on a bottoms-up
process that gathered extensive and ongoing input from subregions, councils of governments,
cities, the County, and other stakeholders. Over the eight-month effort Metro staff facilitated
over 100 meetings with local jurisdictions, Councils of Governments and transportation
agencies to establish subregional goals, objectives, and performance measures as well as
identify project/program costs and schedules.
Following the completion of the Mobility Matrices Metro staff organized and facilitated both
group and one-on-one meetings with representatives from all nine subregions and all seven
regional facilities to support the identification of specific project and program priorities from
each of the subregions and regional facilities. Metro staff provided information on materials
that Metro had developed as resources for this effort including, the potential ballot measure
funding structure, optimal subregional funding targets for multi-modal capital improvement
projects, and the results for the general public opinion survey. In addition to the subregional
and regional facility meetings, Metro staff coordinated meetings with targeted stakeholders
including:
Access Services
Active transportation/public health
Business
Caltrans
Environmental
Industry
Labor
Local transit operators
Metrolink
Throughout the Mobility Matrices and LRTP update/potential ballot measure process Metro
staff has participated in meetings with over 60 local community groups to provide updates and
take input on the respective planning processes. These groups have included local community
councils, chambers of commerce and boards of trade. Metro staff also organized and held
monthly meetings with a special working group of the standing Technical Advisory Committee.
The stakeholder input as presented in the Initial Stakeholder Input Submittals Summary has
been received by Metro in response to Metros formal request for initial input by September 1,
2015 and includes communication from all nine subregions, all seven regional facilities and
twenty three other stakeholders.
2. Initial Stakeholder Input

Submittals Summary
Potential 2016 Ballot Measure

Initial Stakeholder Input Submittals Summary
Formal Submittal Date
Subregions
Arroyo Verdugo Cities
Central Los Angeles
Gateway Cities COG
Las Virgenes/Malibu COG
North County Transportation Coalition
San Fernando Valley COG
San Gabriel Valley COG
South Bay Cities COG
Westside Cities COG
8/27/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015 and 9/18/2015
8/31/2015
9/1/2015
7/28/2015
8/24/2015
8/28/2015
8/20/2015
Regional Facilities
Bob Hope Burbank Airport
Long Beach Airport
Los Angeles World Airport
Palmdale Regional Airport
Port of Long Beach
Port of Los Angeles
Union Station
8/7/2015
8/31/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
8/31/2015
9/1/2015
Others
Access Services
ACT-LA
Caltrans
Central City Association of Los Angeles
City of Long Beach
Community Health Councils, Inc.
Eco-Rapid Transit
EnviroMetro
Investing in Place
LA Thrives
LA/OC Building & Construction Trades Council
Live Ride Share
Local Transit Systems (LTSS Motion)
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association
Metrolink
MOVELA
One LA
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE)
T.R.U.S.T. South LA
Tier 2 Operators
VICA
7
9/1/2015
8/31/2015
07/2015
8/31/2015
9/2/2015
9/1/2015
9/15/2015
8/31/2015 and 10/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
2/26/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/8/2015
8/20/2015
8/27/2015
9/1/2015
9/23/2015
6/19/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
3/24/2015
9/8/2015
3. LRTP and Ballot Measure

Assumptions
Burbank
Glendale
La Crescenta-Montrose
La Canada Flintridge
Pasadena
South Pasadena
Santa Clarita
Palmdale
Lancaster
North County Subregion Includes:
Arroyo Verdugo Subregion Includes:
Subregional Potential Ballot Measure Planning Areas
10
Long Range Transportation Plan and Potential Ballot Measure Assumptions
Augment, Extend, and Sunset Assumptions

The 2017 LRTP is currently assumed to cover the time period from 2017 2057 (forty
years) and incorporate projects funded by the Metro Board in the 2009 LRTP that
sunsets in the year 2039 with Measure R. The three principle alternatives to this
assumption revolve around these decisions: extend the existing tax or not; augment the
existing tax or not; and, place a sunset on the new tax or not.
SB 767 (de Len) provides the Metro Board maximum flexibility for all three of these
alternatives. For example, the Metro Board could alternatively elect to propose an
extension only, like Measure J, or it could elect to propose only an increase, without an
extension, like Measure R. Finally, the Metro Board could change the sunset year of
the tax (now tentatively assumed to be 2057) or eliminate it altogether, like Proposition
A and Proposition C.
Three considerations led staff to the 2057 LRTP augment, extend, and sunset
assumption, as follows:
Unmet transportation infrastructure improvement needs: The Mobility Matrix

process concluded that the entire inventory of needs for transportation capital
improvements countywide was between $157 and $273 billion (in 2015 dollars).
Shorter sunsets did not provide enough resources to develop the necessary level
of consensus given this need;
Market research indicates public support for transportation improvements: Past

statistically reliable quantitative surveys conducted found no significant
advantage to including a sunset clause in a Los Angeles County transportation
sales tax ballot measure; and,
Alameda County super majority: In November 2014, 70% of voters in Alameda

County approved a ballot measure that augmented an existing cent
transportation sales tax while at the same time extending the original cent
transportation sales tax when it expired.
As a result of these considerations, the LRTP Framework assumes an augment and

extend approach similar to the Alameda County strategy, as shown in Table 1, below:
11
Augmenting Metros existing transportation sales taxes for at least a 40 year period
(through the year 2057) and also extending an existing sales tax (Measure R) expiring
in 2039 will provide the best opportunity to secure the necessary resources to address
the publics desire for transportation improvements. Prior to making a final decision
next year, the results of further market research will be provided to the Metro Board.
Project Cost Inflation and Sales Tax Revenue Growth Assumptions
The SB 767 (de Len) expenditure plan requirement to schedule projects and show
approximate completion dates raises the need to assume the impact of inflation over
time on project and program costs. The initial project costs were requested in 2015
dollars and our cost inflation assumption is 3% per year.
The sales tax revenue growth assumption is 3.8% per year through 2040 and 3%
thereafter. The difference between inflation cost growth and revenue growth through
2040 is primarily economic growth from the UCLA Anderson School Forecast of taxable
sales for Los Angeles County. Countywide Planning staff has found the UCLA
Anderson School Forecast to be the best available for our long term planning needs.
12
Optimal Subregional Target Assumptions

The transparent process required by SB 767 (de Len) and the bottoms-up process
directed by the Metro Board required Countywide coordination of subregional revenue
assumptions. To prioritize the enormous unmet transportation capital needs identified
in the Mobility Matrix process, the subregions needed to know roughly what they could
expect for capital improvements from the assumed augment and extend approach to
the potential ballot measure.
Staff worked with the subregions to develop subregional revenue targets they could use
for their priority setting process. To divide revenues into subregional targets, staff
considered prior discussions with the subregions before developing a new approach.
The purely current population and employment approach in Measure R led to later
disagreements about extending that approach beyond 2039 in Measure J.
Representatives from high population and/or employment growth areas felt the 2005
data used for Measure R was inequitable for taxes that would extend well beyond 2039,
as proposed in Measure J.
To respond to these very valid concerns, staff interpolated Southern California
Association of Governments 2008 population and 2035 employment information to
establish 2017 and 2047 population and employment data points, as shown in Table 2:
13
As one can see from the data in Table 2, at least one subregion had a credible
argument to use each of four differing basis for the targets. To avoid disagreements
over the basis of the targets to be used, Metro staff offered a blended approach and an
optimal approach. The blended approach added-up to 100%, but the optimal approach
would not at 112%. This meant the optimal approach would require approximately $4.5
billion in non-measure funds from existing taxes beyond the 2009 LRTP planning
horizon of 2039, but within the new LRTP planning horizon of 2057. The subregions all
preferred the optimal target approach and Metro staff found it to be workable and
concurred, making the optimal basis the consensus choice for the initial subregional
priority setting exercise.
Before calculating the subregional revenue targets, assumptions were also needed
about how much of the anticipated revenue from the augment and extend approach
might be dedicated to multi-modal capital improvement purposes. Measure R had 55%
dedicated to these purposes. It should be emphasized that for discussion purposes,
staff assumed that roughly half of the new tax, about $60 billion, could go for multimodal capital improvement purposes, though we cautioned that this was ultimately a
decision expressly reserved for the Metro Board when more information about all needs
were known.
Roughly half the tax, about $60 billion, is on a year of expenditure basis while the
project cost data identified in the Mobility Matrices is based on current year dollars
instead. This required that the value of the $60 billion, again roughly half the tax, be
deescalated before being made available to each subregion as a target on a current
dollar basis. This enabled the subregions to directly compare their target to the project
cost data they already possessed.
14
Table 3 shows the end result of the target setting consensus, subregional targets in
deescalated dollars comparable to project cost data on the same basis:
Table 3, Consensus Subregional Targets:
15
4. Subregional Input
a. Arroyo Verdugo
17
18
Glendale
Burbank
Subregional
Jurisdiction
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
First Five-year Projects
625
341
78
42.5
4.3
4.3
29
0.4
(Hwy5) SR-2 Verdugo Avenue SB On-ramp

Signalization
1.5
(TC5) Midlife Rehab Historic Depot
7.5
(ATP7) Improvements to bike/pedestrian

bridges and tunnels over SR-134
-Bridges: Louise, Geneva, Concord,
Columbus, Adams
-Tunnel: Kenilworth
(TC4) Glendale Beeline east-west transit

service on Foothill Blvd from Sunland to
La Canada Flintridge (capital)
22
(ATP5) Expand Harvey Dr / SR-134 Parkand-Ride

(ATP6) Glendale Bicycle Transportation
Plan projects; including Verdugo Wash
bikeway and bridges over LA River
15
45
469
62
8.5
25.5
25.5
12.8
25.5
22.3
25.5
48.4
42.5
Freeway Interchange Improvements;

includes I-5 Buena Vista Interchange and
Winona rail tunnel
North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit
Corridor (SR-134)
Rail Crossing Improvements; includes

quiet zone, Downtown Station Ped Rail
Crossing, and Clybourn grade crossing
Arterial Intersection Improvements
Arterial State of Good Repair; includes

resurfacing or reconstruction, repair, and
sidewalk repair
BurbankBus Transit Capital & State of
Good Repair; includes bus replacement
and expansion, transit maintenance
facility
BurbankBus Transit Operations; includes
all-day service on existing routes, new
service
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects;
implements Bicycle Master Plan and
Pedestrian Master Plan
Traffic Signal System Improvements and
State of Good Repair; includes adaptive
control implementation, signal sync,
hardware replacement
142
256
Cost
('000,000s) Subtotal
1.9
4.3
4.3
4.3
2.1
4.3
5.9
4.3
10
256

Corridor (SR-134)
Project Name
(TO3) Beeline operations funding;

including late night and weekend service
(1.5 annual)
78

Winona rail tunnel
Corridor (SR-134)


sidewalk repair
facility
service
Cost
10+ Year Projects
(TC2) Beeline capital funding; including

late night and weekend service (capital)
42.5
42.5
Second Five-year Projects

Corridor (SR-134)
2nd Five-Year
Funding Mark
(40/8)
Project Name
5.5
4.3
(TC1) Photovotaic System for Beeline

Maintenance Facility
(Hwy1) SR-2 Mountain St Interchange;
Widen NB off-ramp and SB on- and offramps
(ATP3) Cerritos Ave Complete and Green

Streets Project; including connect LZTC to
Glendale Memorial, Cerritos Park/School,
Forest Lawn, improved bike
infrastructure, lighting, wayfinding
(ATP4) Glendale Transportation Center
Bicycle access improvements; on Los Feliz
Rd and Brand Blvd
(ATP1) Bus stop zones to meet ADA

compliance
(ATP2) Glendale Transportation Center
Bus Bay improvements; including
canopies, seating, signage, real time train
signage

Winona rail tunnel
Corridor (SR-134)
2.1
4.3
5.9
4.3

10
Cost

sidewalk repair
facility
service
1st Five-year
40-year Funding Mark Funding Mark
(40/8)
Project Name
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
158
Corridor (SR-134)
MOBILITY MATRIX - ARROYO VERDUGO DRAFT September 10, 2015
19
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
La Caada Flintridge
Jurisdiction
67
8.5 Soundwalls
UNMET OPERATIONS NEEDS (TO1)

Glendale Beeline dedicated operations
and capital funding (4.2 annual)
UNPROGRAMMED
Corridor (SR-134)
(Hwy 2,3,4) SR-134 Ramp Improvements;

including EB off-ramp at Central Ave., WB
off-ramp at Brand Blvd, WB on- and offramps incl. BRT stop at Harvey Dr.
1st Five-year
(40/8)
Project Name
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
(Hwy6) SR-2/Holly Dr: Add signals at
ramps
21
8.5
0.9
14.6
0.6
Cost
8.5
78
8.5 Soundwalls

UNPROGRAMMED
Corridor (SR-134)
(Hwy 2,3,4) SR-134 Ramp Improvements;

including EB off-ramp at Central Ave., WB
off-ramp at Brand Blvd, WB on- and offramps incl. BRT stop at Harvey Dr.
2nd Five-Year
Funding Mark
(40/8)
Project Name
21
8.5
72
Cost
8.5
78
126
24
12
15
5

sidewalk repair
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
18
113
12
18
80
80
50 Soundwalls
Traffic Signal System
Improvements/replacements and State of
Good Repair

Beeline operations east-west transit
service on Foothill Blvd from Sunland to La
Canada Flintridge (4 annual Operations) 120
Increase bus service and improve
frequencies for Glendale Beeline Transit
Services (7.5 annual)
225

UNMEET OPERATIONS NEEDS (TO2)
Glendale Transportation Center
Operations; including station
ambassadors, customer service (0.8
annual)
(Hwy13) SR-134/Central Ave: Grade

separate EB and WB on- and off-ramps
between Pacific Ave and Central Ave
UNPROGRAMMED
Corridor (SR-134)
(Hwy11) Orange St: Extend over SR-134

between Doran St and Goode Ave
(Hwy12) SR-134 Frontage Road: Construct
S of freeway between Brand Blvd and
Geneva St
10
(Hwy10) Monterey Rd: Extend to

Glenoaks Blvd over Verdugo Wash
23
1.1
20
15
50
469
Cost
(Hwy 7) SR-2/Fern Ln: Add NB Off/On

Ramp
(Hwy8) I-210: Add soundwalls Pennsylvania Av to Lowell Av
(Hwy9) Glendale Ave: Add 1 NB lane from
Doran St to SR-134
(TC6) Expand Glendale Transportation

Center (GTC)
Project Name
10+ Year Projects
20
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Subregional TOTAL:
South Pasadena
Pasadena
Subtotal:
Jurisdiction
La Crescenta-Montrose
1631
82
451
203.5
Citywide Safe Routes to School
15
8
5
Transit Maintenance Facility Const.

Complete Street Project
Shared Mobility - Bike/Car Share
Corridor (SR-134)
5
2
7
9.5
10 Reconfigure SR-110 on- and off-ramps at

Fair Oaks Avenue, including new hook onramp at end of State Street and widen offramp.
10
203.5
56.5
1.9
2.5
Arroyo Seco Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail
203.5
5.6
9
10
5
10.5
5
2
10
1.500
1.000

Soundwalls
Complete Street Projects
Corridor (SR-134)
Increased Local Transit Capacity
56.5 Citywide Bike Transp. Plan Projects

First Mile/Last Mile Projects
Pennsylvania Avenue; At I-210; Modify onand off-ramp intersections and traffic

signals to improve southbound to
eastbound I-210 left turn capacity.
Verdugo Flood Control Channel; New York
Avenue to Shirley Jean Street; Class 1 Bike
Path.
5.000
10
203.5
56.5
Cost
La Crescenta Avenue; At I-210; Modify

traffic signals and channelization,
construct westbound on-ramp to improve
traffic flow.
0.500
Cost
Foothil Bl Intersection Operational

Improvements
2nd Five-Year
Funding Mark
(40/8)
Project Name
56.5 Citywide Bike Transp. Plan Projects

1st Five-year
(40/8)
Project Name
(Tier 1 + Tier 2)
65
8 I-210 Soundwalls
UNPROGRAMMED
Project Name
1224
Citywide Transportation Improvements

Pasadena Ave. and Monterey Road Grade
Separation

Soundwalls
Complete Street Projects
Corridor (SR-134)
338 Citywide Bike Transp. Plan Projects

49
10+ Year Projects
35.6
21
2.5
2.9
80
10
80
20
70
30
8
40
49
49
62
1224
338
Cost
b. Central Los Angeles
21
Central Subregion - Prioritized List of Projects
9/1/2015
Category
CE-3535
Active Transportation
CE-762, 3162
& 3534
CE-3612
CE-3160
Highway Efficiency
Implement operational improvements along key high-flow arterials that

provide connections to the freeway system and major activity centers.
$5,000,000
CE-14, 15, 79
& 84
Highway Efficiency
Freeway Interchange Improvements (I10/I110, US101/I110, I10/SR60/I5,

and I5/SR110)
$200,000,000
CE-495
ITS/Technology
Traffic Signal System Upgrades: Implement traffic signal system upgrades

throughout subregion including signal controller upgrades, left-turn phasing
at key intersections, sensor loops, additional CCTV cameras.
$25,000,000
CE-3529
Modal Connectivity
CE-3595
Modal Connectivity
CE-3530
Modal Connectivity
CE-3622
CE-3610
NEW
CE-3559
State of Good Repair /

Safety, Reliability &
Quality of Services
Quality of Services
Quality of Services
Quality of Services
CE-22
Transit
CE-23
Transit
CE-25
Transit
CE-498
Transit
CE-3161
Transit
CE-3555
Transit
Project Description
Implement Los Angeles Safe Routes to School Initiative to provide targeted
safety improvements at schools with high collision rates. Improvements
may include new traffic signals, curb extensions, wider sidewalks, new
crosswalks, traffic calming measures, etc.
Implement streetscape enhancements; the Great Streets Program; and
mobility and safety enhancements that strive toward the Vision Zero goal of
zero traffic fatalities.
Completion of the LA River Bike Path project to connect Downtown Los
Angeles to the San Fernando Valley
Cost
Project ID
Implement Mobility Hubs: Install a full-service mobility hub at or adjacent

to Metro Stations & satellite hubs strategically located surrounding each
station, including secure bike parking, car share, bike share, and ride share
(including casual carpooling) to bridge the first/last mile gap of a transit
user's commute.
Establish a County-wide bike share program that interacts with the Metro
transit system (City's share).
Implement 1st/Last mile strategies including pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity improvements at every existing and planned Metro rail and
subway station.
$250,000,000
$475,000,000
$375,000,000
$65,000,000
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
Pavement preservation program.
$250,000,000
Implement pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements at and

adjacent to LRT and freight rail crossings.
$10,000,000
Program to maintain a state of good repair of the City of LA Automated

Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System.
$100,000,000
Program to maintain a state of good repair for public transit programs

including the replacement and refurbishment of transit vehicles, facilities,
and other transit infrastructure.
Crenshaw Bl Corridor Extension (beyond segment funded by Measure R) all
the way to West Hollywood/Hollywood
Metro Purple Line Extension West Hollywood Extension
Vermont Corridor Subway: Vermont "Short Corridor" from
Wilshire/Vermont to Exposition/Vermont
Restore the historic streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles servicing key
destinations.
Implement a network of exclusive bus lanes consistent with Metro's LA
County BRT Study.
Purchase new DASH shuttle buses and expand LADOT DASH operations to
enhance intra-community "first mile/last mile" transit connections to
regional transit centers.
TOTAL COST OF CENTRAL SUBREGION PRIORITIES
22
$450,000,000
$585,000,000
$600,000,000
$425,000,000
$120,000,000
$21,000,000
$260,000,000
$4,366,000,000
c. Gateway Cities COG
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
d. Las Virgenes/Malibu COG
33
34
e. North County Transportation Coalition
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
f. San Fernando Valley COG
47
48
49
50
g. San Gabriel Valley COG
51
52
53
54
Low
Medium
High
Amount of Funding Share ($)

Relative Priority
Percent of Funding Share (%)
Project/Program Category
Subregion:
Tier 1 Funding Share:
Total Funding Share:
Total =
$1,617,000,000
Total =
$198,000,000
Total =
$924,000,000
28%
Highway Efficiency
Cost ($)
Project
$99,000,000 57/60
$99,000,000 605/10 & 605/60
605 hotspots
60 hotspots
10 hotspots
210 hotspots
Accelerated Funding Projects
-SR-71
-605 Hotspots
-60 Hotspots
-10 Hotspots
-210 Hotspots
$198,000,000
$1,617,000,000
Cost ($)
Project
$1,019,000,000 First and last mile
$543,000,000 Complete streets
$55,000,000
6%
49%
Project
Gold Line Foothill
Gold Line Eastside
Bus system improve
Modal Connectivity
Transit
San Gabriel Valley

$2,300,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$3,300,000,000
2017 LRTP Update - Subregional Project Priority Submittal Form
55
$924,000,000
Total =
Cost ($)
Project
$205,000,000 Adv signal technology
$277,000,000
$73,000,000
$73,000,000
$81,000,000
$88,000,000
$127,000,000
$66,000,000
2%
ITS / Technology
$66,000,000
Total =
Cost ($)
Project
$66,000,000 HOV ext/connectors
$231,000,000
7%
$33,000,000
$231,000,000
1%
Total =
$33,000,000
Total =
$231,000,000
Cost ($)
$231,000,000
$231,000,000
7%
Cost ($)
Project
$33,000,000 Bike/ped facilities
Goods Movement
Cost ($)
Project
$231,000,000 RR xing elim/impr
Demand Based Program
$3,300,000,000
100%
Totals Check
Exhibit A
56
h. South Bay Cities COG
57
58
Attachment 1
page 1 of 2
SOUTH BAY POLICY & PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS TO METRO
Regarding the:
Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP),
Metro Call for Projects (CFP) Restructuring &
New L. A. County Transportation Sales Tax
Approved on 8/27/15 by the
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Board of Directors
SBCCOG LRTP Recommendations for Restructuring LRTP Investments

Significantly increase funding for sub-regional transit and highway projects;
Restore Local Return funding to 25%;
Replace Call for Projects with a Sub-regional subvention program in which a
competitive funding process is used to allocate more than current 3% of LRTP;
Fund current transit and highway operations and maintenance before new major
capital projects;
Reduce operating costs through public/private partnerships;
Design in funding flexibility for future innovation.
SBCCOG Metro Call for Projects Restructuring Recommendations

A.
For a new Sub-regional CFP Process
Eliminate CFP and replace it with a simpler, less bureaucratic, more timely subregional subvention process;
Re-design the CFP process to mirror current sub-regional project development
processes (such as the South Bay Highway Program) that provide funding for
discrete project development phases when lead agencies are ready to proceed; and
Allocate CFP reimbursements based on projected cash flow needs of lead
agencies.
B.
If Metro retains the current CFP Countywide Process

Ensure flexible sub-regional evaluation criteria;
Do not create a separate Complete Streets CFP category; each category should
include Complete Streets performance measures; and
Use the existing Metro Technical Advisory Committee to review ongoing policies
and issues rather than creating a new CFP Steering Committee; dont create new
bureaucracy.
59
Attachment 1
page 2 of 2
SBCCOG Sales Tax Measure Recommendations and Priorities for Metro Consideration
The LRTP should be completed prior to the sales tax;

A new sales tax measure should meet SBCCOG priorities:
o A "Neighborhoods First"- bottoms-up focus that is not a clone of the
previous A, C and R Sales Tax designs;
o A safe, clean & cost-effective transportation system in a State of Good
Repair;
o Sub-regional project selection flexibility within minimum-required Metro
eligibility guidelines;
o A flexible design that funds innovative projects that respond to changing
mobility and sustainability priorities and needs over the next 40 years; and
o Re-payment of Measure R debt service by the 2039 expiration date of the
measure.
Recommended SBCCOG Sales Tax Regional Capital Projects to be Submitted to

Metro
o Fully fund South Bay Highway Program Operational Improvements
o Restore Local Return funding share to 25%
o Add capacity / widening the I-405 South Bay Curve
o Modernize the I-405/I-110 Interchange, add HOV connector ramps & new
auxiliary lanes
o Add HOT lane on I-105 from I-405 to I-605
o Extend Green Line South to Crenshaw in Torrance with mitigation
measures comparable to those implemented in communities adjacent to
the Gold Line
o Create South Bay Slow Speed / Complete Streets Network
o Build South Bay Intelligent Transportation System Fiber-optic Network
o Create South Bay Goods Movement Rail/Hwy. Grade Separations
o Add Rapid Bus Lines to connect with Transit Centers and Rail Stations
o Build mobility improvement projects to serve regional activity centers
including but not limited to those in Inglewood, Carson and San Pedro
o Extend I-110 ExpressLane south of I-405 / I-110 Interchange
Fund sustainable project elements in the augmentation element of the new sales
tax examples include:
o Complete Streets;
o Clean-vehicle slow-speed lanes;
o Active transportation;
o Mobile source emission reduction strategies;
o Private sector transportation initiatives; and
o Other Innovative Transportation/Communication Technologies.
60
i. Westside Cities COG
61
September 1, 2015
Phillip A. Washington
Chief Executive Officer
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012-7952
Dear Mr. Washington,
In 2014, Metro Board approved the comprehensive and holistic countywide approach for
preparing Subregional Mobility Matrices to be used in the 2017 Long Range Transportation
Update (LRTP) and as a resource document for the 2016 potential sales tax ballot measure.
The Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) and representatives from its member
cities assisted Metro and the Fehr & Peers consultant team during this process and identified a
total of 433 transportation improvement projects in the Westside subregion that are consistent
with the Mobility Matrices performance measures, goals, and objectives.
On June 19, 2015, you requested the initial stakeholder input of project priorities to support the
development of a draft framework for the LRTP Update and the potential sales ballot measure.
In developing the list of project priorities, the WSCCOG considered the following:
Metro Subregional Optional Capital Improvement Funding Targets

WSCCOG 2013 Recommended Transportation Priorities
Westside Mobility Matrix Goals/Objectives
Metro Long Range Plan Issues General Public Opinion Survey Results (March 2015)
Potential Funding Sources (e.g., federal, state, and regional, including Proposition A and
C)
The WSCCOG supports an iterative process in the development of the potential ballot measure
and LRTP update, which may require the WSCCOG to amend the project priorities as more
information becomes available from Metro throughout this process, such as refined project
scope and costs, travel demand and performance measure studies, input from stakeholder
outreach, additional polling information, and the allocation of regional funding dedicated to
active transportation projects, local return, transit operations, and state of good repair.
Within this context, the WSCCOG identified the following initial list of transportation project
priorities in the Westside subregion. The projects are listed in alphabetical order and include
details such as project/program category, time period, estimated costs, and key information
pertaining to the projects description and status.
On July 20, 2015, the San Fernando Valley Council of Governments (SFVCOG) submitted its
subregional transportation priorities to Metro and listed the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project as
a high priority with a $1.4 billion contribution to the project. The WSCCOG is co-committed with
the SFVCOG to contributing funds for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project.
62
As Metro moves forward with the initial input of subregional priorities for the potential ballot
measure framework expected in October 2015, the WSCCOG will continue to provide input and
advocate for the following:
1. Support a dedicated regional funding allocation for active transportation
2. Support an equitable share of costs for joint projects with regional significance, such as
the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project
The WSCCOG will continue to engage with Metro and remain actively involved in the
development of the ballot measure and LRTP update throughout the on-going process. WSCCOG
will also work with Metro staff to collaborate on Metros future stakeholder outreach and
community workshops throughout the process.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the WSCCOG
Executive Director, Katherine Perez-Estolano, at Katherine@elpadvisors.com.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Cooper
Chair, Westside Cities Council of Governments
Councilmember, City of Culver City
CC:
Honorable Board Members of Westside Cities Council of Governments

Cecilia V. Estolano, Co-Executive Director of Westside Cities Council of Governments
Katherine Perez-Estolano, Co-Executive Director of Westside Cities Council of
Governments
63
64
Transit
Westside Subway Purple

Line Extension to Santa
Monica
High
High
High
High
High
High
Priority
Mid - Long Term

(11 yrs - 20+ yrs)
Mid - Long Term

(11 yrs - 20+ yrs)
Mid - Long Term

(11 yrs - 20+ yrs)
Mid - Long Term

(11 yrs - 20+ yrs)
Mid - Long Term

(11 yrs - 20+ yrs)
Short to Long
Term
(0 - 20+ yrs)
Time Period
$3,176,520,000
$22,449,204,600
$10,834,087,200
$7,752,460,000
$1,830,120,000
$60,000,000
$6,365,700,000
$2,117,680,000
$2,720,520,000
$1,455,280,000
$40,000,000
$2,336,400,000
Estimated Costs 1
Low Range
High Range
$2,164,207,200
$3,264,404,600
Total Low Range and High Range Costs
Includes the following subprojects: 1.) Multimodal linkage from Westside to San
Fernando Valley and LAX. Metro is considering a HOV/HOT roadway expansion to
accommodate BRT along with a rail tunnel alternative through Sepulveda Pass from
approximately I-10 to SR-101, estimated at $9 billion. Metro plans to pursue federal
funding for the project (e.g., New Starts, Cap-and-Trade). This is a joint project with
SFVCOG. SFVCOG has categorized this project as a high priority on its initial
prioritization list with a $1.4 billion contribution to the project. The WSCCOG is cocommitted with the SFVCOG to contributing funds for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor
project; 2.) Sepulveda BRT Project on Sepulveda Blvd from Wilshire to LAX with a
potential upgrade to rail in the long term.
Includes the following subprojects: 1.) Lincoln Blvd. improvements for wider bridge,
bike lanes, transit lanes, etc.; 2.) BRT from Santa Monica Blvd. to LAX; 3.) Potential
future upgrade to rail from BRT from Santa Monica to LAX; 4) Implement additional
transit facilities along Lincoln Blvd. for Transit Enhanced Network.
Reconfiguration/rationalization of the I-10 Robertson/National area on/off ramps and

arterials in the Exposition Light Rail Culver City Station area to improve circulation for
vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. City of Los Angeles is the lead on the
project.
Purple line to West Hollywood as an alternative extension. Metro and City of West
Hollywood are currently undergoing the Hollywood/West Hollywood-Crensaw/LAX
Transit Corridor Analysis Study.
Eligible for other regional/state/federal active transportion-related funding sources.

Metro has yet to determine the percent allocation of the new sales tax and Measure R
Extension revenues dedicated to active transportation projects. WSCCOG supports
dedicated regional funding for active transportation.
Includes the following subprograms in the Westside: Bicycle Program, Citywide Bicycle
Master Plan, Livable Boulevards and Streetscapes Program, Mobility Hubs,
Education/Encouragement Program, 1st/Last Mile Program, Pedestrian Program, and
Safe Routes to School.
Notes
Footnotes:
1. Based on rough order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates derived from the 2014 Westside Mobility Matrix. These costs under represent O/M costs due to the limitation of data availability. Costs are reported in 2015 dollars.
Transit
Sepulveda BRT/Rail Program
Modal
Connectivity
I-10 Robertson/ National

Area Multimodal Circulation
Improvement Project
Transit
Transit
Crenshaw Line Extension to

West Hollywood/ Hollywood
Lincoln Blvd BRT/LRT
Active
Transportation
Category
Networks and 1st/Last Mile
Connections
Project/Program
Initial List of Westside Transportation Priorities (As of September 1, 2015)
5. Regional Facilities Input
a. Bob Hope Burbank Airport
66
67
68
69
70
71
b. Long Beach Airport
72
Low
Medium
High

Relative Priority
Subregion:
Project
Total =
$0
Total =
Cost ($)
$0
$0
Project
0%
0%
Cost ($)
Modal Connectivity
Transit
$0
XXXXXXXXXXX
$0
$0
2017 LRTP Update - Subregional Project Priority Submittal Form
73
$0
$5,000,000
3138-Bellflower Blvd./
Spring St. Improv.
$2,450,000
$5,000,000
Total = $27,775,000
9094-Willow St. (23)

signals from I-710 to
I-605
3082-Wardlow Rd. /
Cherry Ave. Intersect.
widening.
9078-Lakewood Blvd./
$10,325,000
Rosemead Blvd. (59)
signals from San Gabriel
Blvd. To Stearns St.
Cost ($)
$5,000,000
Project
3137-Lakewood Blvd. /
Spring St. Improv.
$0
0%
Highway Efficiency
Project
Total =
$0
0%
ITS / Technology
$0
Cost ($)
Project
Total =
$0
0%
$0
Cost ($)
Project
Total =
$0
0%
$0
Cost ($)
Goods Movement
$0
Cost ($)
$0
0%
Totals Check
Total =
$50,000
#REF!
9659-LGB Bicycle access

$50,000
improv. to airport for safety, accessibility and connectivity to
Project
0%
c. Los Angeles World Airport
74
75
LAX-Interstate
Connect
LAX-Interstate
Connect
LAX-Interstate
Connect
LAX-Interstate
Connect
CTA Transit
CTA Transit
Emp. Transit
Emp. Transit
Emp. Transit
Gateway LAXpress Employee IT Platform: Develop webbased/app-based platform that includes Reserve-A-Seat, mobility
service options for Gateway to LA BID/LAX employees to
access Gateway LAXpress services
Gateway LAXpress Employee Transport: Partnership with Metro
for capital cost of existing/new transit vehicles for employee
transit (no operating cost)
Gateway LAXpress Employee Transport: Mobility Hubs at

Regional Transit Centers (includes parking, transit connector
service within key area employee residential areas in LA County)
Project Description
Regional Facility: Highway LAWA
Regional Facility: Highway Caltrans, LAWA
Regional Facility: Highway Caltrans, LAWA
I-405: Construct LAX Expressway parallel to I-405 between State

Route 90 (SR-90) and I-105/El Sequndo Boulevard
Interstate 405 (I-405) Direct High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
Connector to LAX
Connection from Manchester Square to I-405 southbound and I105 eastbound ramp
Provide an on-ramp to I-405 northbound from northbound La
Cienega Boulevard
Automated People Mover (APM) system connection to the

LAWA, City of LA regional Metro Rail System at 96th Street/Aviation Boulevard
Metro Station, Intermodal Transportation Facilities (ITF)
Automated People Mover (APM) system connecting to the
LAWA, City of LA
Central Terminal Area (CTA)
LAWA, Gateway
to LA BID,
Various Local
LAWA, Gateway
to LA BID,
Various Local
LAWA, Gateway
to LA BID,
Various Local
Regional Facility: Highway Caltrans
Regional Facility: Transit
Regional Facility: Transit
Regional Facility: TDM
NonPrioritized
Project ID
Project/Program Category Jurisdiction
Los Angeles International Airport
$805,000,000
$960,125,000
27%
$585,100,000
25%
$45,000,000
$115,000,000
$45,000,000
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$25,000,000
$50,000,000
$25,000,000
$400,000,000
$0
$100,000,000
$0
$100,000,000
$55,125,000
$25,000,000
$125,000
$30,000,000
Agency Maximum
Cost
$50,000,000
$50,000,000
$35,100,000
$15,000,000
$100,000
$20,000,000
Agency Minimum
Cost
Regional Facilities Consolidated Project List

Los Angeles World Airports
100%
$2,355,200,000
$1,155,000,000
$60,000,000
$195,000,000
$100,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,125,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$125,000,000
$75,200,000
$25,000,000
$200,000
$50,000,000
Estimated Minimum
Cost
100%
$3,595,250,000
$1,795,000,000
$90,000,000
$450,000,000
$135,000,000
$1,120,000,000
$1,675,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$175,000,000
$125,250,000
$50,000,000
$250,000
$75,000,000
Estimated Maximum
Cost
8/31/2015
d. Palmdale Regional Airport
76
77
78
79
e. Port of Long Beach
80
81
Low
Medium
High
Relative Priority
Project
Total =
$0
Total =
Cost ($)
$0
$0
Project
0%
0%
Cost ($)
Modal Connectivity
$0
Transit
$0
$0
PORT OF LONG BEACH
Subregion:
82
$0
Project
Total =
$0
0%
$0
Cost ($)
Highway Efficiency
$0
Total =
Port Area Advanced

Transportation Management
and Information System 2.0
Project
0%
ITS / Technology
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
Cost ($)
Project
Total =
$0
0%
$0
Cost ($)
Total =
Gerald Desmond Bridge

Replacement Project (unfunded
need; project of regional and
national significance)
Port Access Road

Improvements
$160,000,000
Pico Avenue Freight Corridor

Street Improvements
$1,089,725,000
$200,000,000
$50,015,000
$66,000,000
$440,000,000
$173,710,000
Cost ($)
Project
Rail Efficiency Improvement
Project at Pier B
Rail Efficiency Improvement at
Pier G South Rail Yard
Terminal Island On-Dock Rail
Efficiency Improvements
$0
0%
Goods Movement
$0
Total =
Coastal Trail Gap Closure

Projects (Regional Connectivity)
Project
0%
$21,800,000
$21,800,000
Cost ($)
#REF!
$0
0%
Totals Check
83
f. Port of Los Angeles
84
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Port of Los Angeles Active Transportation Program

Ped/bike bridge provides grade-separated connection between worst
economically-disadvantaged community in S. CA (Wilmington) &
waterfront, over Alameda Corridor terminus freight rail line
Ped/bike path for major regional destinations (Catalina Ferry, World
Cruise Center, Battleship USS Iowa Museum, Ports O Call)
Container Movement Efficiency Program
Port of Los Angeles Container Movement Efficiency Program (Terminal improvements to increase cargo velocity)
6.1
Terminal Island Rail Support Yard
5.2
Needed for seismic upgrades & to accommodate containerized cargo

demand efficiently as possible; POLA comprises largest container
seaport in North America (19% of all U.S. waterborne containers move
through the POLA)
New Terminal lsland On-dock railyard
Eliminates movement of containers to/from off-dock railyards; reduces

truck trips, truck miles, delay, emissions, and potential for accidents
on streets/freeways (including on I-710, I-110, & SR 47)
Port of Los Angeles National Highway System Improvement & Truck Reduction Program - Intermodal Rail Element, Phase 2
California Coastal Trail - Ports O' Call Promenade (30-foot wide public promenade/Class I bike
path)
Alameda Corridor Terminus/California Coastal Trail Extension Grade Separation

(Pedestrian/Class I Bicyle Path bridge)
GM
GM & HWY
ATP
383,000,000
383,000,000
50,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
29,000,000
15,000,000
44,000,000
$ 1,200,000,000
41,000,000
HWY
41,000,000
$
Improves motorized/non-motorized mobility to/from major destinations
(Catalina Ferry, World Cruise Center, Battleship USS Iowa Museum,
Ports O Call, & Cabrillo Beach/Marina)
San Pedro Waterfront Regional Access Improvement
San Pedro Waterfront Regional Access Improvement: Widening/restriping of Harbor Blvd

between SR 47 ramps & 7th Street to one lane in each direction; realignment/widening of
Sampson Way between Nagoya Way & 22nd St. to add one lane in each direction
50,000,000
5,000,000
ITS
25,000,000
80,000,000
4,000,000
86,000,000
5,000,000
20,000,000
35,000,000
75,000,000
12,000,000
170,000,000
45,000,000
452,000,000
Reduces vehicle delay/emission by diverting traffic to unblocked

routes
Alameda Corridor Terminus/SR 47 Rail Crossing Advanced Warning System.
HWY
Reduces delay, potential for accidents, & emissions on I-110, SR 47,

& Front St (all of which are NHS routes); existing/future peak pd. LOS
will improve from LOS F to LOS C or better; At SR 47/Navy Way
under Year 2030 conditions, 1,900 vehicle-hours/day and 144 truckSR 47/Navy Way Interchange: Construction of interchange at SR-47/Navy Way to eliminate
traffic signal and movement conflicts; this project was a S.CA Trade Corridor Tier II TCIF project hours/day of delay will be eliminated; commensurate delay reduction
as submitted to the CTC in 2008; project removes last signal on SR 47 between Desmond and V. expected at SR 47/Harbor Bl.
Thomas Bridges; NHS Intermodal Connector Route; on USDOT PFN
Goods
Movement
(GM) &
Highway
(HWY)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Estimated Maximum
Cost
Port of Los Angeles National Highway System Improvement & Truck Reduction Program - Highway Element, Phase 1
Eliminates movement of containers to/from railyards outside the ports;

maximizes on-dock rail use, which is a goal in the USDOT Strategic
Plan; reduces over 6,000 trips/day on streets and freeways within the
region, including on the I-710, I-110, SR 47/103, and several other
NHS routes; truck trips reduce: 256,000 passenger-car-equivalent
(PCE) miles-traveled per day, delay, potential for accidents/nonrecurrent congestion, and emissions
Program
Category
SR 47/V. Thomas Bridge/Harbor Blvd. Interchange: New Westbound SR 47 off-ramp; realigned

EB SR 47 on-ramp, weave and SR on-ramp merge; Front Street is NHS Connector Route; V.
Thomas Bridge is a State-owned bridge; on the USDOT "Primary Freight Network" (PFN)
Terminal Island Container Transfer Facility Expansion (additional loading track)

West Basin Container Terminal Automated/Electrified On-Dock Railyard
nd
Alameda Corridor Terminus - West Basin Track (West Basin 2 Mainline Track)
Alameda Corridor POLA/POLB Access Rail (Thenard Junction Connection)
Pier 300 On-Dock Railyard Expansion (2 additional loading tracks)
Pier 400 On-Dock Railyard Expansion (2 additional loading tracks)
Pier 400 Second Lead Track
Alameda Corridor Terminus - Cerritos Channel Bridge
Alameda Corridor Terminus-West Basin Railyard Expansion (additional tracks)
5.1
4.2
4.1
Benefits/Notes
Port of Los Angeles Prioritized Project List - LA METRO 2016 Sales Tax Measure & LRTP
Port of Los Angeles National Highway System Improvement & Truck Reduction Program - Intermodal Rail Element, Phase 1
Priority Project Description
85
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2014
CFMP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2016
RTP
2019
2025
2025
2017
2019
2021
2020
2022
2020
2018
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2021
2020
Const.
Start
2023
2028
2028
2019
2021
2024
2022
2025
2023
2019
2021
2022
2022
2021
2021
2021
2024
2023
Const.
Finish
g. Union Station
86
$114,000
$1,452,260
Total =
$12,000
$106,260
$770,000
$150,000
USMP Enabling
Development and Open
Space Network (Stage 2E
and 2F)
USMP Enabling
Development (Stage 2C)
USMP Relocated
Patsaouras Bus Plaza
(Stage 2B)
Los Angeles Union
Station-40 year
component State of
Good Repair Cost
Southern California
Regional Interconnector
Project
$300,000
Project
Total =
Cost ($)
$0
$0
Cost ($)
0%
0%
Project
Union Station Master
Plan (USMP) Stage 2A
Multi Modal Passenger
Concourse
Modal Connectivity
$0
$0
$0
Transit
Regional Facility-Los
Angeles Union Station
Costs are in thousands

* Project included in the Subregional Mobility Matrix Central Los Angeles
Low
Medium
High

Relative Priority

Subregion:
2017 LRTP Update - Regional Facility Project Priority Submittal Form
87
$0
Project
Total =
$0
0%
$0
Cost ($)
Highway Efficiency
Project
Total =
$0
0%
ITS / Technology
$0
Cost ($)
Project
Total =
$0
0%
$0
Cost ($)
Project
Total =
$0
0%
Goods Movement
$0
Cost ($)
Total =
Union Station Linkages

Program (Connect US
Action Plan)*
Project
USMP Perimeter
Improvements (Stage 1)
$0
0%
$57,111
$26,000
Cost ($)
$31,111
#REF!
$0
0%
Totals Check
6. Other Stakeholder Input
89
90
91
92
!
!
!
August!31,!2015!
!
Phillip!A.!Washington!!
Chief!Executive!Officer!!
Los!Angeles!County!Metropolitan!Transportation!Authority!
One!Gateway!Plaza!!
Los!Angeles,!CA!90112!
!
Via!email:!washingtonp@metro.net!!
!
RE:!Initial!Stakeholder!Input!for!Potential!2016!Los!Angeles!County!Transportation!Ballot!
Measure!
!
Dear!Mr.!Washington,!
!
The!Alliance!for!Community!TransitTLos!Angeles!(ACTTLA)!is!a!coalition!of!25!organizations!
from!throughout!Los!Angeles!that!strives!to!create!community!transit!!just,!equitable,!
sustainable!transit!systems!and!neighborhoods!for!all!people!in!Los!Angeles,!placing!the!
interests!of!lowTincome!communities!and!communities!of!color!at!the!forefront!of!our!
journey!towards!a!more!sustainable!city.!Our!vision!is!a!transitTrich!Los!Angeles!where!all!
people!have!access!to!quality!jobs,!affordable!housing,!necessary!social!services,!ample!
transportation!options,!and!a!voice!in!decisionTmaking.!
!
The!unprecedented!expansion!of!the!public!transportation!system!is!dramatically!
impacting!our!city,!not!only!by!increasing!access!to!transit!but!also!by!attracting!additional!
investment!and!development!around!transit!hubs!via!transitToriented!development.!
Researchers!have!documented!transits!impacts!in!many!areas!around!the!nation.1!The!
research!is!clear:
!
LowTincome!workers!are!transits!core!riders;!
TransitToriented!development!of!market!rate!housing!alone!often!decreases!transit!
ridership;!
Residential!displacement!and!instability!can!have!profound!impacts!on!families,!
including!negative!health!consequences.!
!
Nowhere!are!the!stakes!as!high!as!in!Los!Angeles.!Within!the!U.S.,!L.A.!County!has!the!
highest!poverty!rate!of!any!major!metropolitan!area,!has!the!least!affordable!housing!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
!See:!http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wpTcontent/uploads/2011/12/TRN_Equity_final.pdf!
1!
93
!
!
!
!
market!when!factoring!in!income!levels!and!has!one!of!the!highest!levels!of!income!
inequality!in!the!nation.!Approximately!1.2!million!people!T!the!majority!low!income!T!live!
within!a!halfTmile!of!existing!and!planned!rail!station!areas!in!the!City!of!Los!Angeles!alone.!
People!living!in!these!areas!are!more!likely!to!depend!on!transit!and!have!lower!incomes!
than!the!rest!of!the!City!and!about!75%!of!residents!living!within!a!half!mile!of!transit!are!
renters.!As!such,!L.A.s!core!transit!users,!currently!living!in!areas!of!focused!development!
pressures,!are!particularly!vulnerable!to!displacement.!Without!strong,!citywide!equity!
tools!and!deep!investment!in!protecting!and!producing!affordable!housing!and!communityT
serving!benefits!near!transit,!core!transit!riders!are!likely!to!be!displaced!to!furtherTflung,!
transit!poor!areas,!furthering!the!instability!and!marginalization!of!lowTincome!
communities!of!color!in!Southern!California.!!!
!
However,!enabling!core!transit!riders!to!remain!living!near!quality!transit!can!expand!
economic!opportunity!for!lowTincome!communities!and!reduce!greenhouse!gases.!Quality!
transportation!access!can!have!a!profound!impact!on!a!familys!economic!wellbeing.!In!fact,!
initial!published!findings!from!a!large,!continuing!study!at!Harvard!University!has!found!
that!transportation!and!commute!times!are!key!factors!for!upward!economic!mobility.2!
Additionally,!transit!rich,!lowTincome!communities!own!fewer!cars!and!are!three!times!
more!likely!to!use!public!transit!or!alternative!forms!of!transportation.!!!
!!
We!need!to!ensure!that!transit!investments!lead!to!economic!mobility!and!core!transit!
riders!can!afford!quality!housing!near!transportation.!Building!out!transit!without!planning!
for!equity!will!exacerbate!the!growing!inequities!of!the!region!and!create!further!
instabilities!for!lowTincome!communities!of!color,!and!potentially!lead!to!decreased!
ridership.!!As#such,#equity#must#be#at#the#forefront#of#any#transit#planning.#This#
planning#should#include#intensive,#authentic#engagement#with#residents#and#
community#organizations#that#are#committed#to#addressing#equity#in#development#
and#implementation#of#tools#and#investments#to#stabilize#low=income#transit#riders.!
Only!then!can!transit!investments!help!us!arrive!at!our!vision!of!Los!Angeles!as!a!cleaner,!
greener!city!with!greater!opportunities!for!our!citys!majority:!renters!and!workers.!
!
Sincerely,!
!
Laura!Raymond!
Campaign!Director!
Alliance!for!Community!Transit!!Los!Angeles!
lraymond@allianceforcommunitytransit.org!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
!See:!http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/upshot/transportationTemergesTasTcrucialTtoTescapingTpoverty.html?_r=0!
2!
94
95
7/24/15
245
246
247
248
249
243
244
241
242
236
237
238
239
240
I-5 North Capacity Enhancements including Truck Lanes -- Extend truck lanes from Pico Canyon
towards Kern County line. Extend Manage lane lanes from 5/14 towards Kern County Line and
connect with the L.A. County HOT network. (CALTRANS Project Description)
LA138-Widening Project From Jct. 18 to San Bernardino County line
Add HOT Lane on 105 from 405 to 605
Rte405/110 HOV Direct Connector
Rte91/110 HOV Direct Connector
SR-14: Widen to provide at least three mixed flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction from I-5
to Ave L
US-101/Hayvenhurst Ave: Add new WB on-ramp and EB off-ramp
Extend I-405 from I-5 to SR-14
Recommend: Corridor Study (to include at least I-5/SR-14 to I-405)
SR-710 NORTH EXTENSION (TUNNEL) (ALIGNMENT TBD)
SR-71 Highway to Freeway Regional w/ Transit - (Phase I - Mission Boulevard to Rio Rancho
Road/State Route 60)
Project Name: I-210 Connected Corridors Pilot (Phase 1) Rte 134 to Rte 605
I-10: Rte 405 to Rte110 HOV
I-10: From Rte 405 to Maple Street remove and replace the median island and add aux lanes
I-10: Add #5 lane to EB through LA Brea Av interchange
North County
High Desert Corridor Project Route: HDC N-S. SR-14 to HDC SR-138 Add 2 lanes, Phase 2 - Design
and construction of the multi-purpose corridor including highway, high-speed train, green energy,
235 and bicycle elements. Assumes P-3 delivery method. (CALTRANS Project Description)
Same as #97 SFV MM

Not on any list
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
San Fernando Valley

San Gabriel Valley
San Gabriel Valley
San Gabriel Valley
Westside Cities
Westside Cities
Westside Cities
Same as #202 Westside MM
Same as #2 & #142 "LRTP" & SGV MM

Not on any list
Same as #26 "LRTP", not in MM
Not on any list


Same as #39 North County MM
Same as #185 South Bay Cities MM
1
2
1
3
2
Same as #32 & #33 North County MM
Same as #87 LVM MM
Not included in MM (Gateway Strategic Plan. We do not have info)

Same as #77 Central LA MM

Same as #21 "New Projects", not in MM
Same as #22 "New Projects", not in MM
Notes
North County
North County
South Bay Cities
South Bay Cities
South Bay Cities
San Fernando
Valley/North County
San Fernando Valley
Las Virgenes/Malibu
1
2
3
1
2
3
Central LA
Central LA
Central LA
Gateway Cities
Mobility
Matrix/Subregion
Gateway Cities
Gateway Cities
Project
Extend north from current terminus into Downtown Los Angeles via Central City west area. The
Adams/Figueroa flyover study, PSR, will investigate how the construction of a new structure
connecting the I-110 northbound HOV lane off-ramp directly to Figueroa Street.
I-5 HOV: Rte2 to Rte134
I-5 HOV: Rte10 to Rte2
Rte605 to Eastern Ave
Subregional
Priority (of
Regional
Significance)
230 I-605 CORRIDOR "HOT SPOT" INTERCHANGES IN GATEWAY CITIES

231 EasternAve to Rte710, 5/710 Interchange
US-101 Corridor: Add carpool lane in each direction between SR-27 (Topanga Canyon Bl- and SR-2 in
Downtown Los Angeles and restripe for HOV/mixed-flow lane in each direction between SR-27 and
232 Ventura County Line
226
227
228
229
CALTRANS Top 3 List by Subregion

as submitted by CALTRANS Jan. 2015, with revisions to priority July 2015
August 31, 2015

Mr. Phillip A. Washington
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Initial Stakeholder Input for Potential 2016 Los Angeles County Transportation Ballot
Measure
Dear Mr. Washington:
As the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) considers placing a
sales tax measure on the November 2016 ballot, the Central City Association (CCA) is
requesting that Metro include Caltrans project #0700000556 on the northbound (N/B) US-101
northwest of Downtown Los Angeles in the discussion a potential new sales tax measure.
This project, as detailed in the 2013 Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR), proposes to add a
new auxiliary lane on the N/B US-101 between the junction of N/B US-101 & SR-110 (PM1.5)
and Echo Park Avenue/Glendale Blvd. Off-ramp (PM 2.4), which would reduce the confluence of
weaving vehicles that cause congestion throughout the downtown region and freeway network;
eliminate the need for all vehicles to merge; reduce queuing on the connectors and mainline.
The PSR determined that the geometric components impede access to an area with significant
employment, residential and recreational opportunities, and it affects the entire freeway system,
as the congestion overlays an area where several freeways intersect. Moreover, the congestion
diminishes the efficiency of the freeway network, hinders the mobility of people traveling through
Los Angeles and threatens the economic growth of Downtown.
The addition of approximately 2700 linear feet of new auxiliary lane, with an 8-10 foot wide
shoulder, was estimated in the PSR to cost $23-$34 million at that time, all-inclusive. And it
predicted a mitigated negative declaration for the environmental documents.
This project would represent a tiny portion of the estimated $75 billion in revenue created by a
40-year sales tax adjustment to pay for transportation projects. However, Caltrans analyses
indicate that this project will reduce queuing and congestion for commuters, visitors, residents
and the goods movement industry; improve mobility; and positively affect the Downtown
economy. These are significant benefits.
We look forward to discussing how CCA can assist Metro in placing this important project in the
project list for a potential new sales tax measure. The positive impacts will be felt by all County
taxpayers who come to or through Downtown Los Angeles.
Thank you,
Carol E. Schatz
President & CEO
96
97
98
99
September 1, 2015
CEO, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
cc. Metro Board of Directors
Re: Proposed framework for potential 2016 Metro sales tax ballot
measure
With a fourth countywide transportation-revenue sales tax potentially
available on a November 2016 ballot for Los Angeles voters, Community
Health Councils (CHC) welcomes the opportunity to submit our vision for
a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
ballot measure framework. As a non-profit community-based health
education and policy organization serving South Los Angeles and other
disadvantaged communities since 1992, CHC has witnessed the laudable
initiatives from Metro in the past 20+ years. We are excited to contribute to
the potential future of transportation in the region and particularly
optimistic about a smarter, more sustainable and equitable system for Los
Angeles future. As an engaged community partner with other public health
and social justice-minded stakeholders, we strongly support the proposed
equity framework spearheaded by Investing in Place. This letter provides
more specific recommendations that support that high-level vision of a
Metro system that recognizes the important impact transportation systems
have on vulnerable populations.
Below we outline several recommended projects for a future investment
framework that we believe are beneficial to improving transit ridership,
creating quality transit-oriented communities, and introducing innovative
strategies for transportation demand management.
1) Prioritize extension of the Crenshaw Line with a Phase 2
northern route connecting to the Purple and Red Lines
The revolutionary transformation of Crenshaw Boulevard into a multimodal corridor for light rail should not terminate in South Los Angeles at
the intersection of the Expo Line. While the project promises
unprecedented rail transit access to Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX), it fails to deliver on its full potential of providing a mid-city
north/south rail connection that would link multiple rail lines and some of
the densest, most job- and destination-rich neighborhoods in the region. A
second phase of route planning and construction should be prioritized that
would continue the line north from Exposition through Mid-City,
connecting to the Purple Line on Wilshire, and then through the Fairfax
100
District and West Hollywood, terminating at the Hollywood and Highland

Red Line station..
South Los Angeles currently yields one of the highest commute rates by
transit in Los Angeles with a 19% mode sharei as well as a high rate of zerovehicle households (11% compared to 5% for LA County). While bus service
is heavily utilized in the neighborhood, it makes sense to provide a citywide
connection for future Crenshaw Line riders without requiring one to two
transfers.
2) Implement system-wide adaptive ramp metering (Smart
Freeways) connected with expanding the ExpressLanes program
to HOV on-ramps.
Los Angeles County has over 1,000 freeway ramp meters and the vast
majority of are monitored and controlled remotely in real time. However
according to Caltrans staff, we do not yet use this system to combat
congestion. Implementation of Smart Freeways would mean that ramp
metering lights would adjust their timing to slow the flow of traffic onto the
freeway in order to reduce congestion "downstream", and conversely, speed
the flow of traffic onto the freeway when traffic is flowing smoothly all in
real time response to real time data regarding traffic conditions.
Aggressive implementation of Smart Freeways would enhance efforts to
promote alternative modes. Immediately, the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
on-ramp lanes (the typical on-ramp has one metered lane and one HOV lane)
would now be more valuable and thus more effectively promote transit,
carpools and all-electric vehicles. But more importantly, having established a
relatively congestion-free condition on the freeways, Metro could expand its
highly successful ExpressLanes demonstration project to include HOV ramp
lanes, and thus provide drivers with better options to avoid congestion as
well as generate a revenue stream for alternative modes
By diverting small fraction of the projected freeway improvement funds, we
could eliminate freeway congestion, leverage that investment into a revenue
stream for alternative modes, and highlight Los Angeles as a world leader in
the smart, innovative use of data to solve problems.
3) Include a comprehensive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Network Plan

and prioritize transit on all Grand Boulevards.
As Metro looks to expand transit ridership it should diversify strategies by
improving the quality of service for bus as well as increase the miles of rail. A
regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network plan with bus line standard
features such as quality stop amenities, signal prioritization, and all-door
boarding could cost-effectively bring rail-like transit service within walking
101
distance of nearly everyone in Los Angeles County. While a BRT network

would require sharing the road with cars and potentially transforming vehicle
lanes to bus-only lanes, a quality BRT experience would provide more
travelers with convenient and effective options for trips that dont require a
private automobile.
A Grand Boulevards component in the sales tax funding framework should
make sure that the proposed boulevards become a unified network of
connected BRT corridors as opposed to a disconnected array of beautiful
and walkable streetscapes accessible regionally only by car. Although local
officials must of course determine the details of how a Grand Boulevard will
be implemented in their respective locales, Metro needs to ensure that the
corridors become a multi-modal connected regional network.
Efficient, connected BRT lines can serve as the backbone of communitycentered corridors. Transit riders dont require parking amenities at their
destination and become pedestrians once they alight, supporting a land use
composition that is more pleasant and community-oriented. Further, transit
riders can add to a bustling and thriving sidewalk culture, stimulating the
local economy and activating public space. While Grand Boulevards should
also consider infrastructure and facilities to support safe, accessible travel by
bike, scooter, foot and other active modes, prioritizing transit also supports
active transportation users by providing connections to further destinations.
As Metro moves forward with gathering community input for a future
framework of the regions potential fourth sales tax revenue generator, CHC
is appreciative of the opportunity to support the agency in defining priorities
and projects that can mutually meet agency sustainability goals and needs of
Metros core ridership and disadvantaged communities. We look forward to
continuing conversations in how Metro and the riders it serves can partner in
shaping an equitable, effective transportation system for a healthy,
prosperous Los Angeles County.
Sincerely,
D. Malcolm Carson
General Counsel and Policy Director of Environmental Health
i
Plan for Healthy Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2013. Figure 34,
p. 111.
102
October 1, 2015
Re. Suggested Project Performance Measures and Metro Policy Reforms
Dear Metro Board Members:
On behalf of EnviroMetro, we are writing to provide input into Metros policies that will guide spending
from the next transportation sales tax measure. EnviroMetro is coalition of over 70 public interest
organizations that envision a more sustainable, healthy, and livable Los Angeles for all. We seek to
reduce emissions, enhance equity and public health, integrate natural assets, and incorporate green
infrastructure along our transit corridors. We are advocating for infrastructure that integrates these
planning objectives in a forward-thinking way, investments that brings together transportation, water
protection, open space and biodiversity similar to other world-class metropolitan areas such as Chicago,
New York, and Portland. We can no longer afford to design and implement infrastructure systems in
silos. We need to be smarter about how we make public infrastructure investments.
To help guide Metros progress in this direction, we propose that Metro implement a number of specific
performance metrics/targets and policy reform suggestions, as listed below.
Reduce Emissions
Reduce per capita VMT by 15% below 2010 levels by 2030.

o This is likely what is needed to achieve 50% petroleum reductions statewide, and is less
ambitious than Caltrans Strategic Management Plan target of 15% reductions by 2020.
Increase per capita transit ridership & bike/ped mode share to a combined 50% mode share by
2035.
o This is consistent with the City of LA pLAn, which calls for 50% combined mode share by
2035 (up from 26% in 2012), and only modestly more ambitious than Caltrans targets
for 2020, namely to triple bike mode share (which was 1.5% in 2012), double walking
(which was 16.6% in 2012), and double transit (which was 4.4% in 2012) for a combined
mode share of 46.5%.
Reduce total GHG emissions from transportation to 18% below 2010 levels by 2030.
o This is an extension of the SB 32, CARB, and Caltrans targets of 15% reductions below
2010 levels (return to 1990 levels) by 2020.
Reduce per capita GHG emissions from transportation to 16% below 2005 levels by 2035.
o This is consistent with SGAGs RTP/SCS, meets CARBs regional target, and in 2012 the
Metro Board adopted a resolution that it would try to meet this goal.
Reduce GHG emissions per passenger mile on all transit modes, including vanpool.
o This could either be structured as a 15% reduction below 2006 efficiency levels by 2020,
as AC Transit (Alameda-Contra Costa) has aspired to, or a 5% annual improvement, as
SEPTA has set its goal to be. Currently vanpool vehicles are not subject to any clean
vehicle requirements.
1
103
All projects are GHG net neutral or negative over the lifetime of the project.
o We are not aware of any precedence for this, but encourage Metro to be a leader in this
area. The UC Davis Study entitled Prioritization of Transportation Projects for Economic
Stimulus with Respect to Greenhouse Gases begins to lay a framework for approving
projects based on lifetime GHG emissions.
Enhance Equity & Public Health
Keep transit fares fixed. If they are to be increased, the increase should be no more than half the
rate of inflation.
Any funds allocated towards the movement of freight should be for zero emissions technology.
Prioritize investments in the top 10% of disadvantaged communities in these areas:
o Maintain or improve high frequency bus or rail service;
o Address the urban head island effect through tree canopy, bus shelter cover, cooling
pavement solutions, and stormwater management techniques to prevent flooding.
Create and host a Transportation Equity Task Force that includes:
o Relevant Metro department personnel;
o Mission-related, community-based organizations;
o Leading research and academic institutions;
o Technical experts.
Work with the Equity Task Force to develop a Transportation Equity Policy and framework for
future Metro funding programs (i.e. Call for Projects, Open Streets Grant Program, ExpressLanes
Net Toll Revenues Re-Investment Grant Program, future ballot measures, etc.) that:
o Defines transportation equity in the context of, but not limited to mobility needs for
vulnerable road users, environmental sustainability, public health and safety, economic
prosperity, low-income levels, transit-dependence, underfunding in geographic areas,
cost effectiveness, affordable housing, and access to jobs, education and transit.
o Sets funding goals based on the approved definition of transportation equity.
o Establishes evaluation criteria for future funding programs based on a Board-approved
Transportation Equity Policy.
Authorize the Equity Task Force to:
o Participate in the review process of recommended projects for each future funding
program.
o Support the creation of an equity toolbox that includes, but is not limited to an equity
calculator, mapping tools, infographics, messaging campaigns, and marketing materials.
o Coordinate and host a Transportation Equity Summit within two years of creating the
Equity Task Force.
o Partake and share ideas with the Declining Ridership Task Force.
Report back by summer 2016 with a status update and early action plan for implantation of the
Transportation Equity Policy.
Integrate Natural Assets
Design and implement a comprehensive 500-mile network of waterway active transportation

trails within 20 years, aimed at reducing congestion and providing safe route alternatives for
commuters.
Complete a study and implement a robust Transit-to-Trails initiative to connect residents and
visitors to our publically managed lands.
2
104
Implement elements from the new Metro Green Places toolkit at each station and complete
1st/last mile access improvements within a 1-mile radius of each station.
Green Infrastructure:
Assess the priority of projects based on the following criteria:

o Amount of dry weather and stormwater runoff captured/mile along Metro project
o Reduced pollutants loads and exceedances, especially for Total Suspended Solids, and
Oil & Grease
o Number of miles Metro project runs along park poor neighborhoods (with the potential
for Green Infrastructure)
o Number of shade trees supported by captured runoff within a quarter mile of Metro
project
o Number of miles Metro project runs within a quarter mile of Greenways
Maximize cooperation with other municipal and industrial stormwater permittees in the region.
Adopt the standard 2% or more of tax revenue dedicated to Green Infrastructure, such as in
Orange County.
To guide the implementation of the above-named Green Infrastructure performance measures, we

additionally suggest that Metro adopt the following policy reforms:
Water Use and Conservation
This policy is entirely focused on the use of first-run potable water, whereas federal, state, and regional
policies recognize all water, including dry weather and stormwater runoff, as a potential water supply
serving multiple purposes. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently announced that their funding
program prioritizes projects that address stormwater through natural means, avoiding impacts to water
quality, and providing benefits like groundwater recharge, brownfield redevelopment, and stormwater
mitigation including green infrastructure. The California Water Action Plan incentivizes the
transformation of localized single-purpose projects into regionally-significant projects that provide
multiples benefits, such as water supply and quality improvements, as well as greenways that improve
air quality and reduce the heat island effect. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is
requiring all 84 municipalities to coordinate the capture of dry weather and stormwater runoff
regionally through Watershed Management Plans that include green streets throughout at least 50
percent of impervious areas.
In concert with federal, state, and regional counterparts, we encourage Metro to amend its policy to
provide for Water Use, Reuse, and Conservation. The policy should also be amended to include the
following Best Management Practices (BMPs):
Retain all dry weather runoff and all stormwater from the 85th percentile 24 hour storm
on MTA properties using control methods such as (but not limited to)galleries, cisterns,
barrels, or bioswales as appropriate
Reuse capturedwater at stations, terminals, and yards for surrounding irrigation needs
and cleaning/washing equipment in non re-circulating systems
Capture excess runoff from irrigation and cleaning for storage and pollution control
Monitor and assess captured runoff for quantity and quality
Evaluation of the above BMPs should be assessed based on:

3
105
Connection to non-Metro Greenways (refer to LA Bureau of Sanitations GRASS tool)

Capacity to capture at least 6 AF/mile of dry weather and stormwater runoff
Reduction of pollutant loads and exceedances, with particular attention to Total
Suspended Solids, metals, as well as Oil & Grease
Number of miles within park poor neighborhoods
Number of shade trees supported by captured run off along and w/in a quarter mile of
transit corridors
Green infrastructure elements that create a sense of place within urban communities
such as stormwater collection parks and bioswales with native trees
Additional BMPs and assessments can be found in the City of Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Manual.
Green Construction Policy
While we applaud Metro for the air quality benefits from it constructions projects and equipment, this
policy is missing a water element. Metro has dozens of construction sites, both terminated and active,
that contribute to dry weather and stormwater runoff regionwide. Like air quality, we encourage Metro
to amend its Green Construction Policy to recognize opportunities for runoff mitigation thereby
providing water quality and supply benefits.
The policy should be amended to include the following Best Management Practices:
Improve the Metro Group Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to include stormwater
retention galleries along railways countywide
Prevent runoff from construction sites
Use BMPs (such as elevated equipment, oil pans under equipment, and holding tanks) to
prevent release of pollutants such as oil, grease, and other solvents on site
Capture all water used for construction purposes for proper disposal or reuse
Train all employees on sites about proper handling of equipment to prevent pollution or runoff
of dry weather and stormwater
Furthermore, in its Green Construction policy we encourage Metro to adopt a Regional Advanced
Mitigation Program (RAMP) to meet its regulatory mitigation requirements. Project construction
budgets already include funds for environmental review and for mitigating biological impacts. To date,
Metro has used an inefficient project-by-project approach. With a front-loaded RAMP, however,
expedited permitting saves time and money, and acquisition and restoration are more biologically
meaningful. Through comprehensive mitigation and reduced regulatory costs, RAMP provides multiple
additional benefits for people and nature. We recommend the following BMPs:
Institute a robust and comprehensive Regional Advance Mitigation Program, such as those used
successfully in Riverside, San Diego, and Orange Counties and in the 9-county Bay Area.
Coordinate with relevant regional planning entities like the Southern California Association of
Governments in the creation of a regional GIS green infrastructure database and plan, known as
a greenprint, that includes transportation projects, county-wide habitat assessment, open space
and parks, water resources and stormwater management, air quality, climate mitigation, urban
forests, and heat island effect
Review, score, and prioritize projects for funding and implementation based on alignment with
the greenprint to ensure a balance of grey and green infrastructure
4
106
Environmental Liability Assessment & Reporting Program

Metros Environmental Liability Assessment and Reporting Program provides direction for department
heads to coordinate with the Environmental Compliance and Service Manager on compliance with
liabilities, but fails to lay-out a clear protocol. Insofar as water compliance is concerned, department
heads should:
Develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for all sites, not just terminals and yards, to be
approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Take samples of water quality at multiple, downslope, locations at each site
Process samples at a certified laboratory
Report findings quarterly
Metro stands to save up to $37,500/day per pollutant exceedance by implementing the Green
Infrastructure recommendations provided above.
We hope that you find the above recommendations useful and motivating, and we very much welcome
the opportunity to partner with Metro to incorporate these performance metrics and policy reforms
into its standard practices. If you have any questions, you are encouraged to contact Bryn Lindblad by
email: blindblad@climateresolve.org / phone: 213-346-3200 x303.
In collaboration,
EnviroMetro Los Angeles Coalition for Green, Equitable & Healthy Transportation
5
107
Dear Metro Board and staff,

The attached Environmental Policy Priorities letter from the EnviroMetro coalition is the result of a
collaborative process that began at our first meeting back on May 4, 2015. We continue to develop our policy
recommendations through technical advisory committees (TACs) in each of the four priority areas outlined
in the letter, and very much welcome the opportunity to work with Metro in the months ahead.
The 61 organizations that have signed on to the attached letter represent a combined constituency of over
434,842 people. These people care deeply about this issue, and are highly engaged in the political process.
Our coalition aspires to work with Metro to craft a 2016 ballot measure that not only wins over their support,
but also galvanizes them to garner additional voter support.
In collaboration,
The EnviroMetro coalition steering committee, composed of:
Jonathan Parfrey
Executive Director, Climate Resolve
Fernando Cazares
LA Regional Coordinator, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Claire Robinson
Managing Director, Amigos De Los Rios
Wesley Reutimann
Executive Director, Bike San Gabriel Valley
Belinda V. Faustinos
Interim Executive Director, Council for Watershed Health; San Gabriel Mountains Forever
Daniel Rossman
California Senior Regional Representative, The Wilderness Society
Tori Kjer
Los Angeles Program Director, The Trust for Public Land
Robert Garca
Founding Director and Counsel, The City Project
108
EnviroMetros Environmental Policy Priorities for

2016 LA Metro Transportation Sales Tax
AUGUST 2015
We, the undersigned representative organizations serving the Los Angeles region, support the
EnviroMetro coalition in its efforts to urge Metro to prepare a transportation sales tax measure
that will reduce emissions, enhance equity, incorporate green infrastructure and integrate a
network of waterway trails.
Over the next year, the Board of Directors of the LA County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) will consider bringing forth a transportation ballot measure in 2016 for a sales
tax that will inform the update of the regional Long Range Transportation Plan, last updated in
2009. The specific ballot measure will include a set of proposed projects and expenditures for
funds over a 3045 year period with up to tens of billions of dollars to be collected. Approved in
2008, Measure R has improved the transportation network landscape in the region with over a
hundred miles of fixed rail and bus rapid transit service serving San Fernando Valley and soon,
Azusa and Santa Monica. Additionally, as a self-help region, 70% of LAs transportation funding
comes from three existing sales taxes (Measures A, C and R) that support our infrastructure and
services.
We encourage Metro, as the Countys transportation commission, to embrace its role as the
planner and administrator of the existing and growing modes of transportation, including public
transit and active transportation. According to the latest data, nearly 75% of all trips in the region
are done by private vehicle (shared ride and drive alone) while 17% are done walking, 5% through
public transit, and 1.4% through biking.i A future transportation sales tax measure should have an
explicit goal of increasing public transit and active transportation and lowering drive alone trips.
In doing so, it should be creative and aggressive in piloting first/last mile solutions like active
transportation corridors (Class I & IV bike paths) or ridesharing (bike- and carsharing). We
support building a large network of public transit as an important first step in shifting the regions
transportation mode use.
We also believe that transportation plays a critical role in land use, public health, and
environmental outcomes in the region. Metro has an opportunity not only to transform the
regions transportation system but also to help the region reduce harmful emissions from private
and cargo vehicles, make streets safer to walk and bike, connect more people to jobs and
recreational places, and make green infrastructure enhancements that will help address current
and future climate and drought challenges. We are excited about the opportunity to work with
Metros staff and board to capitalize on the environmental, public health and placemaking benefits
of transportation and transit projects.
109
Vision for 2016 Transportation Sales Tax

1. REDUCE EMISSIONS
Consistent with state climate policy objectives, we believe that a future transportation
sales tax measure should be guided by the explicit goal of reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the transportation sector relative to 1990 levels (1990 levels by
2020, 40% below by 2030, 80% below by 2050). Preference should be given to
transportation projects that reduce GHG, are GHG neutral or enhance the regions
multimodal network. Projects that increase the efficiency of our existing infrastructure
such as converting freeway lanes to HOV or express lanes, bus rapid transit, dedicated
bikeways, grand boulevards and complete green streets are acceptable. However, no
projects that induce additional vehicle travel, such as most new freeways or additional
roadway capacity projects, should be funded
Guided by AB 32, California is on its way to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Governor Browns Executive Order (April 2015) set a target of 40 percent GHG reduction by
2030. Additionally, Governor Brown declared that California must cut its petroleum use by 50
percent by 2030 in order to meet federal air quality standards and climate goalsii. The Air
Resources Board (ARB) includes reduction in the growth in vehicle miles traveled as a critical
policy strategy as well as fuel efficiency and smart land use planning as tools to achieve the
petroleum use reduction goal.
According to ARB, the transportation sector the system for moving people and goods is the
States largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG). In 2012, ARB found that transportation emits
37 percent, far outpacing the runner up (industrial sector)iii. More recently, a UCLA report
showed that transportation is LA Countys second largest GHG emitter (33.5%)iv. The South
Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) provides a starker statistic showing that the
transportation sector accounts for up to 85 percent of criteria and ozone precursor emissions
(VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM 2.5) in the South Coast Basinv. Much of LA County is within the
South Coast Basin, thus its residents are heavily impacted by these statistics and policies in
response to them.
The regions largely outdated auto-centric transportation system created a culture of single
occupant vehicle travel that chokes Angelenos in endless traffic congestion and air pollution.
According to the LA County Asthma Coalition: Asthma rates have gone up over the last decade
for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black children. Black children have the highest rates of
asthma (25%) compared to Hispanic children (8%), non-Hispanic White children (7%), and
Asian/Pacific Islander children (4%). Among adults, non-Hispanic Blacks have the highest
rates of asthma (10%), followed by non-Hispanic Whites (8%), Hispanics and Asian/Pacific
Islanders (5%).vi. As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) unequivocally states, exposure to
traffic emissions has been linked to many adverse health effects including: premature mortality,
cardiac symptoms, exacerbation of asthma symptoms, diminished lung function, increased
hospitalizationvii
Not surprisingly, the CDCs recommendations to improve air quality include greater investment
in public transit and strategies to boost transit ridership, encouraging transit oriented
development, implementing congestion reduction initiatives, reduction of vehicle miles traveled,
110
expansion of multimodal transportation resources including investment in pedestrian and bike

paths, dedicated bus lanes and cleaning up diesel vehicles, among several other ideasviii. Elevating
the importance of expanding the multimodal transportation system in LA County, a report by the
University of California and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy found that
a significant shift to public transit and active transportation coupled with a decrease in road
construction, parking garages, and other ways in which car ownership is encouraged can reduce
urban passenger transportation CO2 emissions by 40 percent and save over $100 trillion in
operation costs by 2050 even as urban population growth continues.ix We believe that Metro is
headed in this direction and strongly encourage you to shift your efforts into high gear. We are
excited about the launch of the bike share program, deployment of Zipcars on ten Metro stationsx,
and your implementation of the award winning First/Last Mile strategy.
Emissions Reduction from Clean Goods Movement
Furthermore, ARB recently underscored the urgent need to transition to a zero emissions freight
systemxi. While current regulations and clean air programs will reduce statewide NOx and PM
2.5 emissions from the freight sector by over 50 percent by 2020, those benefits will be short
lived as growth in freight activity is expected to gradually overcome the benefits of current
controls (Ibid, 11-12). Moreover, in the South Coast AQMD regionhome of the largest port
complex in the nationmeeting upcoming federal clean air standards for ozone and PM 2.5 will
require significant additional emissions reductions over the next fifteen years (Ibid, 13). To
achieve these goals, California must take effective, well-coordinated actions to transition to a
zero emission transportation system for both passengers and freight.(Ibid, 1) Further, new health
science indicates that infants and children are 1.5 to three times more sensitive to the harmful
effects of exposure to air toxics, like those emitted from freight equipment, than we previously
understood(Ibid, 2). Therefore, we believe that a future transportation sales tax ought to target
funds for deployment of existing zero or near zero emissions freight technology, explore local
pick up/delivery at the ports, and investments to existing freight technologies such as on-dock rail
and grade separations to the existing freight rail system.
Metro value Sustainability: We commit to reduce, re-use and recycle all internal resources
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.xii
2. ENHANCE EQUITY & PUBLIC HEALTH

Enhance Equity and Improve Health Outcomes of Regions Transportation System,
in particular for Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Target Funding,
Prioritize Multi-benefit Projects, and Avoid Substantial Burdens.
Consistent with the state legislation (SB535) directing funding to DACs, we believe that
Metro should have a specific policy to target funding to the most impacted communities
in the county.
Identify top disadvantaged communities (DACs) for transportation investments based on
CalEnviro Screen 2.0s calculations.
111
As Metro considers the project package to be included in a future measure, it is important that
communities most impacted by localized air pollution from highway and high volume roadway
traffic as well as pedestrian and biking accidents not be additionally burdened by the many known
health risks of such exposure.
We concur with Manuel Pastors (et al.) definition of transportation equity having equitable
access to quality, affordable transportation options to employment, recreation, school, services,
and cultural/natural destinations; sharing the benefits and burdens of transportation system and
investments; and being a partner in the planning process leading to shared decision-making and
equitable outcomesxiii.
Ridership & Transportation Impact Demographics
Metros rider survey shows that a majority of transit riders are people of color whose median
incomes are below the countys medianxiv. While this is true for both modes, a higher portion of
bus riders (86%) are people of color compared to rail riders (77%). Additionally, bus riders have
lower incomes and lower levels of car ownership than rail riders. As Metro expands the public
transportation network and seeks to attract new riders, we believe that it should also strive to
improve service, including maintaining low fares and increasing operations, for its current
ridership, 75 percent of whom ride buses.
In Los Angeles County, low-income communities and communities of color are exposed to the
highest rates of transportation-generated pollution and consequently suffer from higher rates of
asthma, COPD, obesity, and other chronic illnesses. Ozone concentrations, diesel Particulate
Matter (PM) emissions, and traffic density are three of the pollution burden indicators used in
CalEnviro Screens score for a communitys level of exposure to cumulative localized air
pollutionxv. Many of the census tracts in LA County are among the top 25% of the states
disadvantaged communities as defined by California EPA, including regions not served well
by public transit such as the San Gabriel and San Fernando valleys as well as East LA and South
East LA county.
Target Spending to Decrease Localized Air Pollution, UHI vulnerability, and Increase Access
Current predictions show that LA County residents will experience more days with extreme heat,
both raising the threat of urban heat island (UHI) effect and increased ground level ozone levels
from transportation and other sources. Given its extensive network of bus stops in the region,
Metro should prioritize multi-benefit projects such as cool pavements and coatings, increased tree
canopy, and shaded transit stops which will help cool down entire neighborhoods, reduce UHI,
and improve air quality. According to data from the National Weather Service, on average, heat
kills more people annually than any other weather disaster.xvi Thus, projects that lower the heat
index have the potential to reduce the number of heat related mortalities and hospitalizations.
We believe that Metro should require that every new transportation project demonstrate how it
will lower, not add to, the localized air pollution in DACs. Furthermore, future projects should
mitigate against the displacement of local businesses or people of color and low-income residents
(e.g. affordable housing set asides for transit-oriented development). Displacement protections
have a clear GHG-reduction nexus. A recent ARB report found investing in sustainable
112
communities, including affordable housing near transit, yields high environmental, health, and
economic co-benefits.xvii
Low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately lack access to green space
in the county, and transportation is a significant barrier for many residents to access existing state
and national parks in the region. Metro has the opportunity to connect many underserved
Angelenos to the regions incomparable natural resources such as the San Gabriel Mountains
National Monument and Santa Monica Mountains, and to enhanced employment and healthy
recreational opportunities by providing low cost public transit and active transportation options.
We encourage Metro to work with local governments in building out a comprehensive active
transportation network, including safe routes to schools plans for each school district within
Metros service area, required pedestrian safety plans for every city, and low cost/time efficient
Transit to Trails program public transit to community, regional parks and national recreation
areas. Los Angeles needs a multimodal transportation system that works on Saturday, Sunday and
holidays not just weekdays.
Metro value Service Excellence: We commit to provide safe, clean, reliable, on-time,
courteous service for our clients and customers.
3. INTEGRATE NATURAL ASSETS INTO FIRST/LAST MILE STRATEGY

The regions urban river corridors are strategically located to serve as key non-vehicular
transportation, safe routes to school corridors and first/last mile connections providing a multiobjective green infrastructure network for the benefit of millions of residents throughout the
basin. Located within close proximity to all major transportation stops, they connect schools and
businesses to public transportation networks and hubs and are complementary to the public transit
system. Systematically developing non-vehicular transportation along urban river corridor
infrastructure presents an opportunity to advance active transportation in a space that was
previously underutilized, where there is essentially no competition with other modes of
transportation. We call on Metro to commission a comprehensive plan for implementation of a
Los Angeles basin-wide active transportation network inclusive of a waterway network of trails
along the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Rio Hondo Rivers, Tujunga Wash, Arroyo Seco and
Wide Waterway Trail Network, which we advocate completing within the first 20 years of the
transportation measure funding. This trail network will be complementary to proposed metro line
extensions and also serve as key access to connect urban residents to public schools, community
centers, workplaces, natural lands, and local, state and national parks and forests. Urban River
transit corridors are a backbone hallmark of most great metropolitan areas of world.
4. INCORPORATE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Incorporate Green Infrastructure & Biological Mitigation for Metro & Local
Return Projects
California is experiencing an historic drought, leading both Governor Brown and LA Mayor
Garcetti to issue significant water conservation mandates. Should voters approve a transportation
sales tax, Metro will have the opportunity to continue the largest public works construction
campaign in the nation. In 2011, the Metro Board became a national industry leader when it
113
unanimously approved its green construction policy, signaling its leadership to tackle air
emissions from Measure R construction related activitiesxviii. In consideration of Metro half-cent
sales tax initiative, the EnviroMetro coalition is looking at myriad community benefits
opportunities that could come from transit expansion plans. Two benefits are water quality and
water supply improvements.
In LA County, stormwater runoff carries metals, bacteria, pesticides, fertilizer, grease, and trash
across 3100 miles of street surfaces and 5500 miles of stormwater pipelines. The discharges
plague the waters surrounding us such as the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, their many
tributaries, creeks, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean daily.
In recent years, stormwater runoff has been recognized as a potential supply, particularly for
outdoor irrigation. With the proper capture and filtration devices, studies show that LA County
could capture a little more than 150,000 AF in dry years and up to 700,000 AF in wet years.
Especially during drought years when every drop counts, it makes perfect sense to capture as
much stormwater runoff as possible.
It should be noted that a stormwater element in transportation plans is not unprecedented in
Southern California. The Orange County Transportation Authority incorporated stormwater
funding into the renewal of transportation funding measure. In 1990, OC voters approved
Measure M, a 20-year program for local transportation improvements funding by a half-cent sales
tax. In 2006, OC voters approved a continuation of Measure M, extending the conclusion of this
sales tax another 30 years. Two percent (2%) of gross revenues (estimated at $327 million over
30 years) will be set aside to help OC municipalities improve water quality, including capital and
operations improvements. Additionally, all new transportation projects will include water quality
mitigation as part of the project scope and costs. Not only is it imperative for us to save water but
also extremely important to design and build public projects that will capture and manage
stormwater to recharge groundwater sources and increase the supply of water for some of our
non-potable needs, making our region more drought resilient.
Therefore, we believe that Metro should amend its Green Construction Policy to incorporate
integrated water management features such as stormwater runoff capture and management as well
as permeable surfaces into the design and construction of all rail, bus rapid transit, arterial or
highway improvements and other projects such as TOD, joint development projects, maintenance
facilities, and parking lots. To assist Metro, the Board should cooperate with and require local
municipalities to capture and infiltrate stormwater based on analysis of permeable soil per their
legal duties.
While we recognize the importance of allocating funds for local government use (Local Return),
we believe that Metro should establish the goals of stormwater runoff capture and management
as guidelines for the expenditures of Local Return. Additional goals should include active
transportation investments, first/last mile investments including bike sharing and car sharing
programs, complete streets infrastructure, safe routes to school or public demand response
systems. Programs like complete streets have the added benefits of incorporating stormwater
retention practices and contributing to shaded passage ways which reduce the heat island effect
and improve air quality.
Protecting Natural Habitats from Construction Impact
114
Similarly, transportation construction will impact natural habitats and Metro should be proactive
in mitigating this. We recommend instituting a robust and comprehensive Regional Advance
Mitigation Program, such as those already used successfully in Riverside, San Diego, and Orange
County transportation sales tax measures. In the context of the Metro Long Range Transportation
Plan and related funding measures, we propose that Metro coordinate with relevant regional
planning entities like the Southern California Association of Governments in the creation of a
regional GIS Green Infrastructure database and plan inclusive of following county-wide data
layers: Transportation Projects, County-wide Habitat Assessment, Open Space & Parks
Networks, Water Resources & Stormwater Management, Air Quality, Climate Mitigation, Urban
Forest and Heat Island. Subsequently every project should be reviewed, scored and prioritized for
funding and implementation based on alignment with the Basin-wide Green Infrastructure Plan.
The goal of this process is to facilitate alignment between key Public Agencies responsible for
long term planning and implementation of infrastructure throughout the LA Basin to ensure a
balance of grey and green infrastructure.
Metro value Sustainability: We commit to reduce, re-use and recycle all internal resources
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We look forward to working with the Metro Board and Committee members to craft a
transportation measure that will help meet CA's strong GHG and air quality goals, as well as our
aspirations for public health, equity, and green infrastructure development, to improve the quality
of life for all residents and create a more sustainable, healthy and livable Los Angeles County.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Parfrey
Executive Director, Climate Resolve
Fernando Cazares
LA Regional Coordinator, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Claire Robinson
Managing Director, Amigos De Los Rios
Wesley Reutimann
Executive Director, Bike San Gabriel Valley
Belinda V. Faustinos
Interim Executive Director, Council for Watershed Health; San Gabriel Mountains Forever
Daniel Rossman
California Senior Regional Representative, The Wilderness Society
Tori Kjer
Los Angeles Program Director, The Trust for Public Land
D. Malcolm Carson
General Counsel and Policy Director of Environmental Health, Community Health Councils
115
Jessica Meaney
Managing Director, Investing in Place
Caryn Mandelbaum
Fresh Water Program Director, Environment Now
Dan Silver
Executive Director, Endangered Habitat League
Tamika Butler
Executive Director, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Laura Muraida
Research Coordinator, SCOPE
Jill Sourial
Urban Strategies Program Director, The Nature Conservancy
Alina Bokde
Executive Director, Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
Maria Camacho
Director of External Affairs, LA River Revitalization Corporation
Will Wright, Hon. AIA LA
Director, Government & Public Affairs, American Institute of Architects/ Los Angeles Chapter
Viviana Franco
Executive Director, From Lot to Spot
Mike Meador
CEO, California Greenworks, Inc.
Christy Zamani
Executive Director, Day One
Luis Gutierrez
Senior Associate, Leadership for Urban Renewal Network (LURN)
Graham Hamilton
Executive Committee Chairman, Surfrider Foundation, West LA/Malibu Chapter
Will Allen
Vice President, Conservation Planning and Integrated Services, The Conservation Fund
Krista Kline
Managing Director, Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action & Sustainability
Bert Ball
Executive Director, L.A. SHARES
116
Veronica Padilla
Executive Director, Pacoima Beautiful
Deborah Weinstein Bloome
Senior Director for Policy, TreePeople
Sandra McNeill
Executive Director, T.R.U.S.T. South LA
Wendy Butts
Chief Executive Officer, LA Conservation Corps
Jack Sahl
Executive Director, Friends of the Angeles
Scott Chan
Program Director, Asian and Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance (APIOPA)
Bill Sadler
Southern California Regional Policy Manager, Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Miguel Luna
Executive Director, Urban Semillas
Timothy J. OConnor
Senior Attorney / Director, California Climate Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund
Johng Ho Song
Executive Director, Koreatown Youth and Community Center
Nancy Mahr
President, League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County
Daniel Oaxaca
Executive Director, San Gabriel Valley Conservation Corps
Robert Garca
Founding Director and Counsel, The City Project
Anabella Bastida
Executive Director, Consejo de Federaciones Mexicanas en Norteamrica (COFEM)
Francisco Moreno
Communities Director, Consejo de Federaciones Mexicanas en Norteamrica (COFEM)
Blair Miller
Leader, Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition
Roxana Tynan
Executive Director, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE)
Sharyn Romano
117
CEO/Founder, Los Angeles Beautification Team

Carlos Vasquerano
Executive Director, Salvadoran American Leadership and Education Fund (SALEF)
Antonio Gonzalez
President, William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI)
Bonnie Holmes-Gen
Senior Director, Air Quality and Climate Change, American Lung Association in California
Andy Mannle
VP Strategic Development, Promise Energy
Mark Masaoka
Policy Director, Asian Pacific Policy & Planning Council (A3PCON)
Jesse N. Marquez
Executive Director, Coalition for a Safe Environment (CFASE)
Chuck Mills
Director, Public Policy & Grants, California ReLeaf
Tim Brick
Managing Director, Arroyo Seco Foundation
Dennis Arguelles
Los Angeles Program Manager, National Parks Conservation Association
Lewis MacAdams
President, Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR)
Scott Thach
Vice President of Education, Alliance to Save Energy
Jeanie Ward-Waller
Policy Director, California Bicycle Coalition
Rita Kampalath
Science and Policy Director, Heal the Bay
Fabiola P. Lao
Deputy Policy Director, Coalition for Clean Air
Michelle Kinman
Clean Energy Advocate, Environment California
Melanie Winter
Director, The River Project
Darrell Clarke and Jerard Wright
Transportation Co-Chairs, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter
118
Ryan Wiggins
Cap and Trade Campaign Manager, TransForm
Safe Routes to School. Analysis Brief Travel in LA County. Website accessed June 12, 2015
https://saferoutescalifornia.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/travel-in-la-county_nhts2009.pdf
ii
California Air Resources Board. Californias 2030 Climate Commitments Cutting Petroleum Use in Half
by 2030. Website accessed June 8, 2015. http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/petroleum_reductions.pdf
iii
California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Website accessed June 7, 2015
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory_current.htm
iv
Mark Gold, Stephanie Pinceti, Felicia Federico. 2015 Environmental Report Card for LA County. UCLA
Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.
http://www.environment.ucla.edu/perch/resources/report-card-2015-energy.pdf
v
South Coast AQMD. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Site accessed July 14, 2015.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2012-airquality-management-plan/final-2012-aqmp-(february-2013)/chapter-3-final-2012.pdf
vi
Los Angeles County Asthma Coalition. Asthma Fast Facts. Website accessed June 8, 2015.
http://www.asthmacoalitionla.org/
vii
U.S. Centers of Disease Control. CDC Transportation Recommendations. April 2010. Website accessed
June 7, 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/recommendation.htm
viii
Improve Air Quality section, Page 3. Ibid.
ix
Michael A. Replogle & Lewis M. Fulton. A Global High Shift Scenario: Impacts And Potential For More
Public Transport, Walking, And Cycling With Lower Car Use. Executive Summary (P.5). Institute for
Transportation & Development Policy and UC Davis. November 2014. https://www.itdp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/A-Global-High-Shift-Scenario_WEB.pdf
x
LA Metro, The Source. More Zipcars coming to Metro stations.
http://thesource.metro.net/2015/05/29/zipcar-adds-more-car-sharing-locations-near-metro-station/
xi
California Air Resources Board. Draft CARB Sustainable Freight: Pathways to Zero and Near-Zero
Emissions (April 2015)
xii
LA County Metropolitan Transit Authority. Who We Are: Vision, Mission & Values. Website accessed
June 8, 2015 (http://www.metro.net/about/agency/mission/)
xiii
Vanessa Carter, Manuel Pastor, Madeline Wander. An Agenda for Equity: A Framework for Building a
Just Transportation System in Los Angeles County. Commissioned by the California Endowment, USC
Program for Environmental and Regional Equity. November 2013
xiv
LA Metro. Results for Metros biannual onboard survey. May 6, 2014
http://thesource.metro.net/2014/05/06/results-for-metros-biannual-onboard-survey/
xv
Matthew Rodriguez (CA EPA Secretary) & George V. Alexeeff (OEHHA Director) California Communities
Environmental Health Screening Tool, Version 2.0. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
October 2014. http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/CES20FinalReportUpdateOct2014.pdf
xvi
Natural Weather Service - Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services. Weather Fatalities, 20042013. Website accessed July 14, 2015. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml
xvii
California Air Resources Board, Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds: Benefits of Investments in the
Proposed Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget (CARB, 2014).
xviii
Steve Hymon. Metro Board approves green construction policy. LA Metro Source. Website accessed
June 10, 2015. http://thesource.metro.net/2011/08/04/metro-board-approves-green-constructionpolicy/
119
September 1, 2015
One Gateway Plaza
Via email: washingtonp@metro.net
CC: Metro Board of Directors
RE: Initial Stakeholder Input for potential 2016 Los Angeles County
Transportation Ballot Measure
As the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
considers putting forward a fourth regional transportation revenue sales tax,
we welcome the opportunity to work with your agency to develop an equitable
framework to inform transportation investments. The undersigned organizations
and individuals represent the fields of public health, social and economic justice,
active transportation, environmental policy and planning, and business. Our
diverse group is excited for the opportunity to work with Metro to develop a
transportation investment framework that would facilitate increased transit
ridership, enable better public health outcomes, and produce a fair return on
investment for Metros core transit users. As stakeholders, we are committed to
equity and will work with Metro to ensure that all Los Angeles County residents
benefit from a safe and just transportation system. We also strongly support a
robust community engagement strategy to assist in planning, developing,
implementing, and tracking outcomes for the proposed framework. This
engagement strategy should employ the strength of local community and civic
organizations, leveraging their expertise to provide Metro with culturally
appropriate and competent outreach and technical assistance. Only by
resourcing community groups to engage residents in organically identifying their
priority needs will the sales tax expenditure plan address those needs.
Los Angeles County voters have historically been willing to raise transportation
funds through regional sales taxes (Proposition A-1980, Proposition C-1990, and
Measure R-2008). Local residents have made it possible for the region to pursue
large-scale transportation projects without relying heavily on federal and state
resources. Now, as Metro considers asking voters to approve another
transportation sales tax measure, the agency must convince residents that their
dollars will be invested wisely. To demonstrate this, Metro should deploy a data
driven framework that allocates revenues in a manner that helps address the
disproportionate burden that sales taxes impose on low-income residents. The
120
www.investinginplace.org
County cannot afford to put forth another sales tax measure without ensuring
residents that a robust social equity and public health policy will guide the
allocation and expenditure of tens of billions of dollars.
Investing in Place, a new project under the non-profit Community Partners,
employs a collaborative model to help stakeholders deploy funding in a
manner that achieves social equity, public health, and environmental policy
goals. In its first year, the organization has conducted multiple convenings with
elected officials, policy makers, public agencies, and community-based
organizations across the Los Angeles region. Through these engagements,
Investing in Place and its partners have developed strategies to help Metro
guide its proposed transportation investments. These strategies, reflected in
the following recommendations, prioritize enhancing public health and fostering
more socially equitable outcomes.
1) Develop a data-driven framework that prioritizes funding for projects that
advance social equity, enhance public health, and achieve environmental
goals.
To advance these goals, Metro should deploy sales tax revenues in a manner
that addresses the mobility needs for our most vulnerable populations (i.e.,
low-income communities of color, individuals with disabilities, youth, and seniors).
Likewise, Metro should prioritize investments that enhance safety and ease
access for the most vulnerable users of our transportation network, including
people who walk and bike. By prioritizing investments to help address the needs
of these vulnerable groups, Metro stands to promote social equity, enhance
public health, and advance environmental goals. To demonstrate the regions
commitment to advancing these goals, Metro should invest funds to achieve the
following outcomes:
Reducing the number and rate of traffic injuries and fatalities for all
travelers in Los Angeles County, with an emphasis on improving safety for
the following groups: seniors, youth, individuals with disabilities, and
people walking and bicycling
Ensuring robust funding for transit operations, high frequency transit
service, and low transit fares, especially on bus service, which constitutes
the overwhelming share of Metros transit system
Increasing transit ridership
Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Investment and development without displacement
In short, Los Angeles County needs an investment process framed by
transportation equity.
For agendas, attendees and meeting recaps please go to http://investinginplace.org/events/
Quality of life scores run along racial lines in California, Los Angeles Times 1/22/15
3
A Portrait of California, Measure of America: A project of the Social Science Research Council 12/9/14
1
121
2) Create prioritization investment areas based on income levels and race/

ethnicity.
The Los Angeles metro area has the states worst income inequality, and the
significant gap between the regions wealthy and low-income communities
manifests itself spatially. In Los Angeles County, where you live can greatly affect
educational attainment, job access, health outcomes, public safety,
environmental quality, mobility, and more. Simply put, place matters. Regional
inequities are apparent in our transportation network, with a Metro bus riders
annual household income averaging $15,000. In Los Angeles County, carless
households are overwhelmingly located in communities of color.
A focus on transportation equity requires an understanding of how class, race,
and ethnicity can have profound effects on social, socioeconomic, and health
outcomes. It also requires an acknowledgment that policy decisions regarding
the allocation of funding can exacerbate or ameliorate existing inequities. During
our research and through our partner convenings, we consistently find race and
ethnicity matters to address social equity. Therefore, we recommend that Metro
establish criteria for investment priorities based on income and race, as these
characteristics are well-established indicators to quantify health and resource
disparities in the region. While Los Angeles County is one of the strongest
self-help regions in the nation, with close to 70 percent of all transportation
investments paid for through three existing county sales taxes, it is important to
highlight that sales taxes are a regressive form of revenue generation imposing
a greater burden on the poor than the rich.
3) Better serve transit-dependent populations by maintaining low fares,
ensuring funding for transit operations, increasing frequency of service on
high-ridership lines, enacting policies that enable development without
displacement, and supporting integrated housing and transportation
initiatives.
Today, the County is experiencing unprecedented transit construction, largely
due to the most recent transportation sales tax Measure R (2008). We applaud
Metro in its current undertaking of one of the largest public works programs in
the country, delivering 12 major transit projects and numerous highway projects
over the next several decades, all while operating and maintaining the nations
third largest bus and rail system. Yet, we also note that these investments have
not translated into mode split increases: from 1980 - 2012 Los Angeles transit
Why Place Matters, PolicyLink 2007

Addressing poverty and pollution: Californias SB 535 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil
Liberties Review, Vien Truong.
6
Metro 2015 Ridership Survey, http://thesource.metro.net/2015/08/05/results-of-metros-latest-customer-survey/
7
An Agenda for Equity: A Framework for Building a Just Transportation System in Los Angeles County, USC Program for
Environmental and Regional Equity. November 2013.
8
Metro 2015 Ridership Survey, http://thesource.metro.net/2015/08/05/results-of-metros-latest-customer-survey/
9
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Tax Fairness Fundamentals
http://www.itep.org/pdf/guide1.pdf
10
Why do Voters Support Public Transit? (Michael Manville and Benjamin Cummins, 2014)
4
122
use as the share of commute trips has remained around seven percent.
Metro can demonstrate its success serving transit-dependent populations by
showing increases in ridership and by demonstrating that transportation
investments are reducing total vehicle miles traveled. Further, by collecting data
for non-work transit trips, our region will have a clearer understanding of the
overall demand of the transit system, particularly for users who have few travel
options other than public transportation. We want to ensure that the potential
2016 sales tax measure will maintain and grow transit ridership, and put the
county on course for achieving greenhouse gas reduction goals by reducing
auto dependency.
4) Increasing funding for Active Transportation and other travel options for
low-income and carless households.
As discussed above, the combination of Propositions A and C and Measure R
provide close to 70 percent of the countys transportation funding, giving Metro
significant control over transportation investment decisions. Despite broad
transportation planning responsibilities, Metro has historically limited itself to
large capital projects, often overlooking fine-grain investments like
first/last-mile access to transit, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and safe
routes to school --investments that make our communities more livable and
directly impact vulnerable communities. Since 2000, several California counties
have set aside as much as 11 percent of sales tax revenues for walking, bicycling,
and safe routes to school projects and programs, providing a potential model for
Los Angeles County as Metro again considers an additional sales tax measure.
Based on best practices and existing research, we recommend that Metro
allocate at least 10 percent of any future measure to active transportation.
Future transportation investments should aim to advance new and innovative
mobility options. These investments should help meet the demands of
low-income, aging, and carless households. As socioeconomic and
demographic trends point to a future with diminishing reliance on private
automobiles, Metro may consider options such as low-income bikeshare and
car share programs to address growing needs.
5) Support Meaningful and Authentic Community Participation during this
process.
Through our research and listening sessions on this framework we find a
consistent theme: meaningful stakeholder engagement is critical to successfully
Transportation Finance in Los Angeles County: An Overview February 2013, Safe Routes to School National Partnership
and Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition.
12
The relationship of pedestrian injuries to socioeconomic characteristics in a large Southern CA County, Chakravath,
Bharath et al. 2010 University of California Irvine.
13
Policy Brief: Funding for Active Transportation in Los Angeles County Advancing Health and Social Equity in Metros LRTP
and Expenditure Plan - June 2015, Investing in Place and Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition.
14
An Agenda for Equity: A Framework for Building a Just Transportation System in Los Angeles County, USC Program for
Environmental and Regional Equity. November 2013.
11
123
adopt and implement these policies. Engaged partnerships and collaborations

arise from a shared distribution of power, willful information sharing, meaningful
incorporation of feedback, and a deliberate analysis of outcomes. We believe an
underlying principle of stakeholder engagement is that stakeholders have the
chance to influence the decision-making process. Metro must develop
stakeholder engagement strategy that enables that process, a strategy that
improves decision-making and accountability for both the potential 2016 ballot
measure expenditure plan and the subsequent Metro LRTP update.
Next Steps: Creating a Disadvantaged Communities Framework for Los
Angeles County to prioritize investment areas and stakeholder
engagement
We propose starting with two key metrics of low-income households and
communities of color to begin mapping priority areas for investment at the
census tract/urbanized zone area (UZA) level. These criteria acknowledge the
socioeconomic and racial composition of 80 percent of Metros ridership, but
also race and income are strongly correlated with other characteristics of
disadvantaged communities. These other characteristics include health
outcomes, employment, mortality and morbidity rates, vehicle access and
housing cost burden.
Metros countywide transportation system needs to yield meaningful and
sustained growth in transit ridership and support safe and accessible walking
and bicycling in Los Angeles County, while avoiding harms (e.g. displacement)
to vulnerable populations. State and federal transportation funds prioritizing and
evaluating investments based on identified need are growing. Metro should
focus making targeted investments in projects, programs, and initiatives where
goals are well-defined and outcomes are measurable. These investments should
be intentional, data-driven, and systematically geared toward communities
where there is a demonstrated need and/or unique opportunity. By making these
strategic investments and codifying them as part of Metros long-term planning
efforts, the agency will demonstrate good stewardship and will ensure that its
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) will be relevant in a funding environment
that values needs-based prioritization.
While the State of California and numerous regional authorities have adopted
policy goals that prioritize disadvantaged communities, this has not yet
happened at Metro. With so much of Metros funding locally generated and
locally controlled, the agency has a tremendous opportunity to impact equity
and health outcomes through intentional and targeted investment in high-need
communities.
There are several examples Los Angeles County can learn from as well as align
with to be consistent with State goals:
124
State of California: SB 535 - Funding opportunities from state Cap-and-Trade

auctions, California Climate Investments (previously Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund), prioritize Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) based on the
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 methodology. SB 535 (2012) requires that at least 10
percent of Cap-and-Trade funds be invested within DACs and at least 25
percent benefit DACs, which are identified and ranked statewide at the census
tract level. The criteria for DAC definition is calculated from metrics of exposure
and environmental effects (pollution burden) and vulnerable socioeconomic and
population characteristics.
State of California: The Active Transportation Program funding opportunity
requires at least 25 percent of funds benefit DACs, and the guidelines say that
the project must be in a DAC and justify how it provides meaningful benefits to
disadvantaged residents. Offers multiple ways to define DACs for project
applicants, including income, CalEnviroScreen 2.0 ranking, and student
free/reduced lunch eligibility.
City of Los Angeles: 2012 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Plan, which
relies on four metrics to prioritize need among the Citys 495 public schools.
Metrics are: number of vehicle-pedestrian/bike collisions, number of students
who live within a quarter-mile from school, number of students eligible for
Free-Reduced Price Meals, lack of prior state/federal SRTS funding.
Summary
A diverse and organized movement is growing in Los Angeles County to
prioritize social equity and public health in the allocation of transportation
investments of public funds. The movement is inspired by the understanding that
where you live determines social outcomes, including access to resources. We
aim to address this by supporting a transportation finance social equity and
public health framework that is developed and implemented with a strong
stakeholder engagement strategy for both the potential 2016 ballot measure
expenditure plan and the subsequent Metro LRTP update.
As we have outlined above, Metro is in a prime position for a context-sensitive,
data-driven framework led by social equity and public health outcomes for future
transportation investments. Race and income are strong indicators to direct
transportation resources towards populations of the highest need, heaviest
reliance on Metros transit system, and most burdensome relative contribution
towards generating transportation funds from sales tax revenue. Utilizing an
equity framework for potential sales tax revenues and to guide the Metro LRTP
update would also make Metro more competitive for increasing state and
federal transportation funding opportunities as well as lead to agency goals of
increasing transit ridership by focusing on Metros core customers.
125
Investing in Place and our partners seek to develop a policy definition for
prioritizing investments based on social equity and public health criteria,
believing that prioritizing the needs of residents most in need (already using
transit, walking and bicycling options) will most effectively increase use of these
modes and safety for vulnerable road users. We look forward to working with
the Metro Board, staff and fellow stakeholders to develop a framework for the
potential ballot measure in 2016 that will achieve outcomes such as: increasing
transit ridership, reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing collision rates for all
- especially people walking and bicycling, improving our air quality, supporting
development without displacement, and improving mobility options so
community members can age in place and more.
Please contact Investing in Place Managing Director Jessica Meaney at
jessica@investinginplace.org or (213) 210-8136 for more information. We look
forward to working together with Metro to support an even better Los Angeles
County for all.
Sincerely,
Advancement Project
Megan McClaire
Director of Healthy City
AIA Los Angeles

Will Wright
Director, Government & Public
Affairs
Asian Pacific Policy & Planning

Council
Mark Masaoka
Policy Director
Bike the Vote L.A.

Marc Caswell
Steering Committee Member
Bikecar101
Kayla and Mike Kaiser
Co-Founders
BikeSGV (Bike San Gabriel

Valley)
Wesley Reutimann
Program Director
C.I.C.L.E.
Vanessa Gray
Managing Director
California Bicycle Coalition

Jeanie Ward-Wallter
Policy Director
California Pan-Ethnic Health

Network
Sarah de Guia
Exectuive Director
California Walks
Caro Jauregui
Southern California Policy
Manager
CALO YouthBuild
Antonio Bautisa
Director of Community
Programs
CityFabrick
Brian Ulaszewski
Executive Director
Climate Resolve
Jonathan Parfrey
Executive Director
Community Health Councils

D. Malcolm Carson
General Counsel and Policy
Director for Environmental
Health
Community Intelligence, LLC.

Dr. Stephen Randal Henry
Founder/Chief Intelligence
Officer
126
Day One
Christy Zamani
Executive Director
East Yard Communities for

Environmental Justice
Mark Lopez
Executive Director
FAST (Fixing Angelenos Stuck

in Traffic)
Hilary Norton
Executive Director
Fleet Street Inc

Dana Sherman
Executive Director
Investing in Place
Jessica Meaney
Managing Director
Joel Epstein Communications

Strategy
Joel Epstein
Owner
Kendall Planning + Design

Alison Kendall
President, Architect
L.A. Trust for Childrens Health

Megan McClaire
Director of Healthy City
LA River Revitalization
Corporation
Maria Camacho
Director of External Affairs
Little Tokyo Service Center

CDC
Rmy De La Peza
Los Angeles County Bicycle

Coalition
Tamika Butler
Executive Director
Los Angeles Organization of

Ultimate Teams
Alison Regan
Director, Government Relations
Los Angeles Walks

Deborah Murphy
Executive Director
LURN (Leadership for Urban

Renewal Network)
Rudy Espinoza
Executive Director
MoveMonrovia
Nancy Bond ONeal
Co-Chair, Board Member
Multicultural Communities for

Mobility
Betty Avila
Board Chair
National Health Foundation

Kelly Bruno
Executive Director
Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC)
Fernando Czares
LA Regional Coordinator-Urban
Solutions
Pacific Asian Consortium in

Employment (PACE)
Kerry N. Doi
President & Chief Executive
Officer
Pacoima Beautiful
Veronica Padilla-Campos
Executive Director
Pasadena Complete Streets

Coalition
Blair Miller
Board Member
Physicians for Social

Responsibility-LA
Martha Dino Arguello
Executive Director
PolicyLink
Chione Flegal
Director
Pomona Valley Bicycle Coalition, Chapter of LACBC

Sarah Nielsen
Chair of Chapter
Prevention Institute
Manal Aboelata
Managing Director
Ryan Snyder Associates

Ryan Snyder
President
Safe Routes to School National

Partnership
Bill Sadler
Southern California Regional
Policy Manager
127
Santa Clarita Valley Bicycle

Coalition, Chapter of LACBC
Nina Moskol
Chairperson
Santa Monica Spoke, Chapter

of LACBC
Cynthia Rose
Director
Southeast Asian Community

Alliance (SEACA)
Sissy Trinh
Executive Director
Strategic Actions for a Just

Economy (SAJE)
Joe Donlin
Associate Director
T.R.U.S.T. South LA
Sandra McNeil
Executive Director
Transform
Ryan Wiggins
Cap and Trade Campaign
Manager
Trust for Public Land

Tori Kjer
Program Director
USC Bicycle Coalition

Alex Leavitt
Executive Director
Utopiad.org
Daveed Kapoor
Executive Director
Walk n Rollers
Jim Shanman
Founder
Wolfpack Hustle
Don Ward
President & Chief Executive
Officer
128
129
130
131
132
o
o
o
133
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
134
September 1, 2015
Mr. Phillip Washington
CEO
Metro
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles Ca, 90012
For 127 years the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce has served as the voice of business
in our region. From LAX to the ports to highways and transit, transportation infrastructure has
always been a top priority. There is little else that can do so much to support a healthy economy
and effectively raise quality for life for all Angelinos. Because the majority of sales tax
revenue comes from business to business transactions, the business community also has a
direct financial stake in any new measure.
As with Measures R and J, the Chamber will play an active and vital role in shaping a future
transportation investment ballot measure. As Metro seeks to create the broad outline of a new
measure we share the following top priorities on behalf of the Los Angeles business
community.
Relieving congestion alleviating congestion and reducing time needed to deliver goods
and people throughout our region must drive all funding priorities regardless of mode. The
business community believes we must focus on the following:
1. Investing in Projects of Regional Significance throughout the
County
2. Alleviating Choke Points on freeways and arterials
3. Promoting goods movement infrastructure
4. Promoting solutions to first mile/last mile challenges
5. Promoting an increase in volume of transit users to organically
increase fare box recovery
6. Incentivizing local jurisdictions to pool local return funds for
projects of sub-regional significance
Dedicated funding for Streets, Roads, and Highways While the business community is
an advocate for transit, a significant percentage of funding (more than provided in Measure
R) must be dedicated to streets, roads and highways in a new tax measure. Funding for
maintenance and improvement of these assets is critical to reduce congestion and to
facilitate goods movement and economic growth. Investing in roadway congestion relief
135
will assist access to transit stations by those who use their own car, car-share, rideshare and
TNC services.
Maintenance of Effort Local Return Funding must be used to augment current local
jurisdiction transportation funding. Strict language and enforcement mechanisms must be
in place to ensure that municipalities DO NOT use this funding to backfill current budgets.
Leverage for Additional Funding The measure must allow Metro to leverage alternative
sources of funding from state, federal, and private sector sources for the most efficient and
effective use of tax dollars to meet congestion relief goals.
Governance & Accountability An active citizen oversight commission must be included

in any new tax measure to ensure accountability. The commission must be created in a
way to ensure independence from political pressure and it must have powers to perform
true oversight.
Dedicated Funding Priorities Revenue must be budgeted for specific projects or at a

minimum for general project type areas. Having two general streams for operations and
capital expenditures is too vague.
Alternative Delivery Mechanisms In order to accelerate the delivery of capital projects

Metro should utilize alternative and innovative project delivery mechanisms such as
design-build and design-build-operate.
This is a broad outline of the business communitys priorities. Throughout the next several
months, the Chamber will continue to weigh in in greater detail with Metro to ensure a final
product that will give the voters confidence that their tax dollars will be used wisely and well.
Sincerely.
Gary Toebben
President & CEO
136
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

634 S. Spring St. Suite 821
Phone
213.629.2142
Facsimile 213.629.2259
www.la-bike.org
Bicycle Coalition at UCLA

Carson Bicycle Coalition
Culver City Bicycle Coalition
Downey Bicycle Coalition
Montebello Bicycle Coalition
Pomona Valley Bicycle Coalition
Santa Clarita Valley Bicycle Coalition
Santa Monica Spoke
USC Bicycle Coalition
Walk Bike Burbank
Walk Bike Glendale
West Hollywood Bicycle Coalition
September 1, 2015
Mr. Phillip A. Washington, CEO
Metro
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, California 90012
Potential 2016 Ballot Measure Framework
The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) is the largest membership-based active
transportation advocacy organization in Southern California, representing members from
throughout Los Angeles County and including chapters in each of the countys five supervisorial
districts. LACBC works to make all communities in Los Angeles County into healthy, safe, and fun
places to walk and bike, with a focus on ensuring that low-income communities of color share in
these opportunities equitably. We also recognize the role that active transportation plays in the
overall transportation system, and support a balanced framework of multimodal investments to
provide safe and reliable transportation for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes. LACBC is
particularly inspired by the City of Los Angeles recent Mobility Plan 2035, which lays the
groundwork for a layered network of complete streets that meets the needs of people walking,
biking, taking transit, and driving. We would be thrilled to see a similar approach for the entire
county.
A Balanced Framework Must Adequately Fund Active Transportation
We are enthusiastic about the potential for a new transportation sales tax measure to transform
Los Angeles County into a more walkable, bikeable, and equitable place to live, however we are
also cautious, as active transportation has been overlooked by each of the countys three previous
transportation sales tax measures (Propositions A & C and Measure R). As a result, walking and
biking, which account for 19 percent of all trips and 39 percent of all roadway deaths in the county,
currently receive less than one percent of transportation funding. Earlier this year, LACBC, along
with the Safe Routes to School National Partnership1, published findings from our research into
how other California counties fund active transportation with local sales tax measures.2 We
identified a $20 billion need for walking, biking, first/last-mile, complete streets, and safe routes to
1
The National Partnerships former Southern California Policy Director, Jessica Meaney, has since founded
Investing in Place, a new nonprofit organization dedicated to this work.
2
Best Practices for Funding Active Transportation with County Transportation Sales Taxes. Safe Routes to
School National Partnership. January 2015.
137
Page 2 of 4
school projects across Los Angeles County. Based on this funding need and best practices from
peer agencies around the state, LACBC joins our partners in recommending that Metro dedicate at
least 10 percent of any future revenue from a potential ballot measure to active transportation.
Walking and biking are both regional and local needs, and the ballot measure framework should
reflect this reality. The most appropriate model is Alameda Countys Measure BB, which was
approved by voters in 2014. It funded regionally significant active transportation projects, including
regional commuter trails, first/last-mile projects, and countywide education and encouragement
programs, as well as stipulating a set-aside for active transportation within each jurisdictions local
return allocation. Local jurisdictions must report on their spending to ensure transparency and
accountability. All projects funded by the measure are governed by Alameda Countys complete
streets policy. This three-pronged approach of regional funding, local funding, and countywide
policy would be a good fit for Los Angeles County. Within Metros discussion framework, in which
half of new revenue would go toward regional capital projects and half toward operations and local
return, a 10 percent allocation of regional funding plus a 20 percent set-aside within local return3
would achieve our overall recommendation of 10 percent for active transportation.
With our partners, LACBC has engaged stakeholders throughout the county to discuss the need,
urgency, and best practices for funding active transportation. As a result, the San Fernando Valley,
San Gabriel Valley, Gateway Cities, and Westside Cities Councils of Governments have all
supported a regional solution for active transportation funding.
The City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 calls for 20 percent of local return to be dedicated to active
transportation.
138
Page 3 of 4
Include Education, Encouragement, and Safe Routes to Schools
As the Los Angeles region builds more multimodal infrastructure, it must be matched by a
commitment to education and encouragement to ensure residents learn how to walk, bike, take
transit, and drive safely. Many of Metros peer agencies around the state offer bike safety
education through safe routes to school programs and adult classes because they understand that
education is part of operating a robust active transportation system. Metros current safety
classes are reliant on grant funding instead of sustained local funding, making them less
accessible to the public. Safe Routes to School programs around the county are likewise grantdependent with little or no sustained support for ongoing staffing. Often times, a school will receive
a multi-year grant, build tremendous momentum, and then lose that institutional knowledge once
the program coordinator loses funding. Metros Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan should
identify the level of funding needed for ongoing mobility education in every public school in Los
Angeles County. The Active Transportation Strategic Plan should identify the funding needed to
continue regular adult bicycle safety classes in perpetuity. The funding need for encouragement
programs, such as CicLAvia, should also be included. All of these should be evaluated for
sustained, local funding in any potential ballot measure.
Guarantee Benefits for Low-Income Communities of Color
Los Angeles County is one of the most ethnically diverse regions in the world, providing untold
cultural richness and creative inspiration for the countys 10 million residents. However, our region
also suffers from vast economic and environmental inequality. Historically, the benefits and
burdens of transportation have not been distributed equitably. As a result, certain communities
disproportionately suffer from worse health and economic outcomes, which ultimately hinders the
whole regions growth and prosperity.
Transportation plays a significant role in creating and maintaining inequality in our region. Our
freeways and goods movement infrastructure place disproportionate air quality burdens on lowincome communities of color, while often failing to meet the mobility needs of those same
communities. These communities are more likely to rely on walking, biking, and transit as primary
forms of transportation, yet the lack of investment in safe and accessible networks for walking and
biking generally is particularly acute in low-income communities of color, which have the highest
rates of traffic injuries and fatalities.
Any future transportation measure must seek to rectify these environmental injustices with
intentional policy to advance social equity. Sales taxes hit low-income families the hardest,
creating a moral imperative to ensure that the needs of these residents are prioritized. LACBC
endorses Investing in Places call for prioritizing investment in communities of concern, as
identified by income and race/ethnicity. We also support increased funding for transit and bike
share operations to ensure that multimodal trips are accessible, reliable, and affordable for lowincome residents.
139
140
141
142
143
144
September 1, 2015
Mr. Phil Washington
LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza Metro HQ
First off, a belated welcome to LA! We are excited that you will lead Metro through a critical
juncture for our region. Your personal story and the vision that you helped implement in Denver
inspire confidence and hope for achieving a world-class multimodal transportation network that
serves Angelenos of all racial, socioeconomic, professional, and geographic backgrounds.
Last February, we joined over 350 other Southern Californians at Live.Ride.Share1, the 1st ever
conference to explore the potential of bikesharing, carsharing, and ridehailing in helping our
region tackle traffic congestion, reduce VMT and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
expand the reach of our public transit network. As Metro implements its award winning 1st/last
mile plan, we encourage you to develop and implement a station and neighborhood appropriate
mix of multimodal transit gap services to encourage greater ridership. It is with this goal in mind
that we offer for your consideration the following recommendations.
Bikeshare
Accelerated implementation of future bikeshare systems is essential. The key to getting
more bikes on the ground sooner is funding. Future ballot measures should include
funding for bikeshare, both for capital investments of hardware and software as well as
for ongoing operational and maintenance costs, similar to Metro bus and rail. Bikeshare
is a necessary component of a balanced transit system and will help connect more
people to existing services, boosting ridership.
TAP card payment integration for bikeshare should be explored as a way to make
transition between bus, rail, and bikeshare as easy as possible. TAP cards should also
be the common fare medium for the multiple bikeshare vendors in the county.
Assuring the safety and comfort of transit users is especially important for bikeshare.
Well-placed bike facilities that connect to the countys transit network will encourage
people to use bikeshare for first/last mile connections to bus and rail. While these
facilities dont necessarily have to precede bikeshare implementation, Metro should
prioritize funding -- in any future sales tax measure, Calls for Projects, and future
1
Live.Ride.Share - So.Cals Emerging Mobility Marketplace. Co-hosted by NRDC, Move LA, FAST,
Urban Land Institute-LA, Point Grannis, Shared Use Mobility Center, and TransitCenter. February 23,
2015, Japanese American National Museum. www.liverideshare.org
145
rail/BRT line construction -- for improved low-stress and comfortable bike and pedestrian
first/last mile connections for people 8 to 80 years of age.
Funding of bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be separate from those of shared use
mobility options. Bikeshare should not compete with hard capital investment
improvements such as bike paths, protected bicycle lanes, and other projects
traditionally applied for in the Metro Call under the bike and ped modes. A separate
fund for shared use mobility, which includes funding of ongoing operational and
maintenance costs, will be the key driver to help cities, especially smaller jurisdictions,
apply for and fund the ongoing costs of shared use mobility projects such as bikeshare.
Metro should work closely with municipalities to prioritize interoperability of all future
bikeshare systems in the county. Incompatible systems risk discouraging use by making
transitioning between them confusing. Investment in creating compatible back end
software, one user interface, a shared fare structure, and compatible docking
mechanisms will be cost prohibitive for vendors. Metro should be at the forefront of
creating regional interoperability by funding the research and implementation for creating
these mechanisms.
Carshare
We applaud Metros initial partnership to place Zipcars in 10 stations, including Union
station. With nearly 100 rail and bus rapid transit stations throughout the county, we
propose a goal of incrementally increasing this program to at least 50 stations by 2025
and encourage you to expand the number of one-way or two-way carsharing vehicles
available at Metro stations and parking lots or through a partnership with adjacent
municipalities to access on-street curb parking.
Given that 75% of transit riders make incomes below $25,000, Metro has the opportunity
to take a leadership role in figuring out a carshare program for low income Angelenos.
We encourage Metro to engage the providers in identifying some of the programmatic
and service hurdles and develop potential solutions.
As with bikeshare, TAP card payment integration can be an effective bridge to help low
income (and all riders) benefit from carshare services.
Ridehailing
Ridehailing (i.e., Transportation Network Companies including Uber & Lyft) is another
popular shared mode that can serve as a complement to transit, and stands to help
make LAs public transportation expansion a success by serving last-mile rides.
Ridesplitting services offered by ridehailing platforms, such as Lyft Line and UberPOOL,
match multiple passengers headed in the same direction to share a vehicle. By
increasing vehicle occupancy, they reduce VMT and traffic congestion, while also
offering passengers a more affordable fare. Los Angeles is one of only a handful of cities
with these features currently available.
Early data from companies like Lyft and Uber suggest promising relationships with
transit in Los Angeles, whereby approximately one-in-five trips begins or ends near a
Metro station. Lyfts most commonly searched destination, after LAX, is Union Station.
146
In Metros implementation of its first/last mile plan, cross-promoting with ridehailing

partners could help reach a large population of Angelenos and incentivize them to try
leaving their cars at home in favor of multi-modal trips.
One simple way Metro can encourage multi-modal trips is by designating clear curb
space for ridehailing pickups/dropoffs at stations.
Technology
We commend your efforts to integrate technology best practices to improve the
customer experience. With the constant change and advances in technologies, Metro
should include a technology element in the next transportation sales tax measure. Apple
Pay, NFC payment, low level blue tooth (BLE) and other technologies are emerging in
the marketplace and will likely displace RFID technology (TAP) in a short period of time.
Over time, Metro should explore ways to seamlessly integrate trip planning and fare
payment across modes through smartphone-based mobile ticketing applications, to
make it as easy as possible for users to take trips bridging transit and other shared
mobility options.
As Metro pilots Wi-Fi on buses and develops an app to allow customers to load value on
to their TAP cards with their smart phones, it should also explore expediting the
onboarding process by adding TAP card readers in middle or back doors. Further, given
the fact that a majority of current transit riders are people with low and very low incomes
and many of them speak a language other than English, Metro should plan for its
technology solutions to be accessible in multiple languages and partner with transit
advocates to test and/or introduce them to core transit riders.
We encourage Metro to include in its technology workplan the development of an
advanced Emergency Broadcast System that would include the placement of realtime
message boards at all stations, EMS apps for users, dynamic wayfinding signs, upgrade
of the public address system at all stations and other forms of technologies that can
deliver information to the public. This technology element should also address best
available technologies that provide better security and safety for the entire system.
Mobility Hubs
Research shows that obstacles to transit use include the level of user-friendly
information materials and connection to major activity centers2 as well as attitudes about
transit reliability, comfort, and perceived crime3. Mobility hubs can be an effective bridge
to new transit riders by providing customer service and safety, up to date transit
Tara Bartee and Jennifer Hardin. Barriers and Impediments to Transit Use. Center for Urban
Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Research done for the Florida DOT.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_11.pdf
3
Steven Spears, et.al. Illuminating the unseen in transit use: A Framework for examining the effect of
attitudes and perceptions on travel behavior. UC Irvine.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856413001912 as reported by Eric Jaffe. Why
Correcting Misperceptions about Mass Transit May Be More Important than Improving Service. The City
Lab. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/11/why-correcting-misperceptions-about-mass-transit-maybe-more-important-improving-service/7719/
147
information, and helping them determine the most effective mode(s) to reach their
destination.
An important service of mobility hubs is that they provide safe well-lit places where
women, the elderly, and families with children can wait for their bus or rail or people can
use as meeting location for carpool trips.
Mobility hubs offer an exciting opportunity to provide integrated transportation options
such as bikeshare, carshare, on-demand ridehailing (Uber and Lyft rides), taxi rides,
safe personal bike parking, and transit connections.
There is good momentum in planning for mobility hubs at the City of LA, which we fully
support. Additionally, we believe that residents throughout the county would greatly
benefit from integrated multimodal services. We encourage Metro to engage cities by
setting programmatic targets in the local return portion of the measure aimed at
providing incentives for more municipalities to design and implement mobility hubs that
meet their needs.
Further, mobility hubs were integrated into the recently approved LA Mobility Plan 2035
and the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS. Both of these plans received significant community
input, proving theres support amongst planning officials and the public.
We look forward to working with you and Metro staff to further discuss how a November 2016
transportation sales tax measure can advance these important elements of a balanced
transportation system. We are confident in your visionary leadership and offer our partnership in
creating a mature multimodal transit backbone that pilots 1st/last mile solutions from the shared
mobility industry. Please dont hesitate to call Fernando Czares at NRDC at (310) 434 - 2300.
Sincerely,
Fernando Czares
NRDC Urban Solutions
Bahram Fazelli
Communities for a Better Environment
Jonathan Parfrey
Climate Resolve
Tim Sexton
E2 Southern California
Jason Islas
Transit & Housing Advocate, Los Angeles
Hilary Norton
FAST-LA
Emily Castor
Lyft
Melissa Hebert
LAX Carshare consulting
148
Deborah Murphy
LA Walks
Linda Paradise Lyles

Commute90067 Century City TMO
Tamika Butler
LA County Bike Coalition
Sandra McNeil
TRUST South LA
Aysha Cohen
UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies Scholar
149
Chen, Patricia
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Richan, Susan
Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:34 PM
Chen, Patricia
RE: LTSS Motion
See motion below.
From: Hernandez,Sebastian [mailto:SHernandez@citvofpasadena.net]

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:38 PM
To: Richan, Susan
Subject: LTSS Motion
Susan,
As per the discussion at the February 26, LTSS meeting, can you please forward the following motion for a vote by
LTSS.....
Motion to recommend the following to Metro and the LRTP/Ballot Measure TAC Working Group.
Current funding is not sufficient to meet the need and projected growth for local transit operators. The Locaf Transit
Systems Subcommittee is recommending that the ne~ct ballot measure and Lang Range Transportation Plan include
additional dedicated operating and capitaE funds to address the transit shortfall and transit service gaps in our
corrmunities as wef! as support these systems providing regional eonnectivity and feeder service to transit in Los
Angeles County.
Sebastian Andres Hernandez

City of Pasadena -Dept of Transportation
Planner
P (626)744-7661
F (626)396-8952
www.citvofaasadena.net/ARTSBus
www.citvofpasadena.net/DialARide
1501
August 27, 2015
Mr. Phillip A. Washington

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
One Gateway Plaza
Dear Phil:
As the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) considers placing a sales tax
measure on the November 2016 ballot, Metrolink is requesting that Metro include enhanced all-day
Metrolink services in Los Angeles County (including more robust midday and late night services) and
increased funding for safety and capital investment as part of the upcoming discussion regarding a potential
sales tax measure.
This improved service would provide a benefit to the thousands of Los Angeles County residents who
already and potentially would ride Metrolink. The late-night service would support transit to the voluminous
amount of evening activity in downtown Los Angeles and the thriving activity centers across the County.
Enhanced Metrolink services would provide a a truly regional rail system and significant added value to the
people of the Antelope Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, the San Fernando Valley, and the Downtown Metro
area. Adding midday and late-night Metrolink service would enhance passenger convenience and mobility
in Los Angeles County. A significant portion of our ridership also connects to the Westside and South Bay
areas via the Metro transit system. As the Metro rail system grows into these areas, new connections will
enhance access and continue to attract more riders to the Metrolink system throughout the entire county.
As you know, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is a five-county Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) that operates, maintains, plans, and administers the regional commuter rail system known
as Metrolink. The Metrolink system operates a 512-mile network across six counties, serves 55 stations,
and provides approximately 44,000 passenger trips per weekday. Approximately one-half of the system
operates within Los Angeles County, with 26 stations including the largest and busiest station Los Angeles
Union Station.
We have developed estimates of growing needs to keep the rail system in a state of good repair as well as
opportunities to increase the frequency and reliability of service through new capital investments and
expanded operating funds. Our estimate includes three elements.
First, operating estimates incorporate both the cost to support the existing level of service on the six lines
that operate through Los Angeles County as well as the increase in train frequency to as often as every
thirty minutes. This enhanced schedule would enable Metrolink to play a more significant role in daily travel
across the region.
151
Sales Tax Measure November 2016 Ballot

Page 2
Second, rehabilitation cost estimates reflect up-to-date asset management planning to replace aging assets,
and to bring and sustain the regional rail network to a state of good repair.
Third, new capital investments are required to support service at 30-minute frequencies and to improve
grade-crossing safety. New capital investments are primarily directed along the rights-of-way which are
owned by Metro that host the Antelope Valley, the Ventura County, and the San Bernardino lines. Additional
more modest investments are proposed for the the Riverside Line (owned by Union Pacific (UP)) and the
Orange County and 91 lines (owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)). Especially, as safety has
been our organizations top priority, we include grade separations, grade crossing treatments, and other
systemwide safety programs throughout Los Angeles County as part of this estimate.
Over a 30 year period, we have estimated that the total cost to support these three elements to be $12.11
billion (in 2015 dollars). An approximate breakdown of the amount by decade and by expenditure type is
shown in the following table. These initiatives could be funded through a combination of the new tax
measure, the existing measures, and other sources, such as federal and state grants and partnerships with
other initiatives.
Enhanced Service
Rehabilitation (State
of Good Repair)
New Capital
Investment (Capacity
and Safety)
Total Program
Short-Term
(2015 2024)
Medium Term
(2025 2034)
Long Term
(2035 2044)
Total 30 Years
$ 716.25
$ 906.48
$ 906.48
$ 2,529.21
$ 725.18
$ 906.47
$ 1,087.77
$ 2,719.42
$ 2,527.38
$ 3,087.82
$ 1,246.40
$ 6,861.60
$ 3,968.81
$ 4,900.77
$ 3,240.65
$ 12,110.23
We look forward to working with you to discuss the level of investment in Metrolinks service and
infrastructure to ensure regional benefits for our taxpayers. Metrolink will continue its unwavering
commitment to safety by investing in essential safety enahncements such as grade crossing improvements
and advanced technologes. These investments would allow Metro and Metrolink to collaboratively create a
public transportation system more readily available and attractive to all Los Angeles County residents.
Sincerely,
Arthur T. Leahy
cc: Stephanie Wiggins, Deputy CEO
Nalini Ahuja, Chief Finacial Officer
Bryan Pennington, Executive Director, Engineering and Construction
152
634 S. Spring St. #818, Los Angeles, CA 90014

310.310.2390 phone, 310.361.5718 fax
www.MoveLA.org
Move LA
Leadership Board
Marlene Grossman
President, Move LA Board
Danny Tabor
Vice President, Move LA
Board, Former Mayor of
Inglewood
Joan Ling
Treasurer, Move LA Board,
Urban Planning Policy
Analyst
Allan Alexander
Attorney, former Mayor of
Beverly Hills
Raul Bocanegra
CSU Northridge
Urban Studies & Planning
Priscilla Cheng
LA County Federation
of Labor
Darrell Clarke
Sierra Club / Friends 4 Expo
Jim De La Loza
HNTB
Jerry Givens
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Frank Lopez
Los Angeles Area
Chamber of Commerce
Ron Green
AFSCME Local 3634
Victor Griego
Diverse Strategies
for Organizing
Art Hadnett
Stantec
James Hamlin
Jacobs
Jim Hilfenhaus
LA County Democratic Party
Dr. Richard Jackson
UCLA, School of Public Health
David Jacot
Los Angeles Department
of Water & Power
Melody Kanschat
The Getty
Leadership Institute
Richard Katz
Richard Katz Consulting, Inc
Denny Zane
Executive Director
Move LA
Leadership Board
September 1, 2015
One Gateway Plaza
Sent via email to: washingtonp@metro.net
Re: Initial Input on Next Sales Tax Measure
Thank you for your service to our community and the leadership you
provide. As we all know, LA Countys transportation system and the
implications of choices made over the past 100 years have in many ways
defined our community. The discussions we have had as a community since
2007 with respect to the development and operation of our countys
transportation system, culminating in the success of Measure R in 2008, have
given us the opportunity together to revisit those choices and in many ways
to redefine ourselves. This has only been possible because we are a
democratic community in a democratic nation where true participation as
community members is possible. We must be thankful for that.
We must also be thankful for the opportunity Metro as an agency and you as
our leaders have created for each of us to offer our observations and
suggestions about our possible future. While these comments take the form
of possible revisions to the Los Angeles County Long Range Transportation
Plan and a possible ballot measure for the November 2016 election, what we
are really discussing is whether our community is to be both prosperous and
sustainable - or not.
1. Fortune Favors the Bold
We believe we are at a moment of extraordinary opportunity for Los Angeles
County as a community and for each of you as our community leaders. The
approval of Measure R in 2008 and the near-victory of Measure J in 2012
have demonstrated that LA County voters deeply appreciate the need for
major investments in our transportation system. And, it demonstrates that
they are willing to support reasonable tax increases to pay for it. Measures R
& J have demonstrated that there is a durable base of nearly, or maybe more
than, two-thirds of LA County voters who are ready to support sales tax
measures for transportation investments if we present them with a clear,
thoughtful and equitable program, where opportunities and burdens are both
widely shared and costs are reasonable.
153
Hart Keeble
Iron Workers Local 416
Mark Kempton
Skanska
Eli Lipmen
LA City Board of Neighborhood
Commissioners
Allan Marks
Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy LLP
Wally Marks
Walter N. Marks Realty
James Watt McCormick
Subway to the Sea Coalition
Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza
Southern California
Gas Company
Ron Miller
LA/Orange Counties
Building & Construction
Trades Council
Claudette Moody
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Rani Narula-Woods
Kevin Norton
International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers
(IBEW) Local 11
Francine Oschin
Oschin Partners, VICA
Jonathan Parfrey
Climate Resolve
Joyce Perkins
LA Neighborhood Initiative
Sergio Rascon
LiUNA Local 300
Nolan Rollins
LA Urban League
Dan Rosenfeld
George Crenshaw
Michael Schneider
HDR
Dan Tenenbaum
Pacific Crest Realty
Tunua Thrash-Ntuk
West Angeles Community
Development Corporation
Alan Toy
Westside Center for
Independent Living
Johannes Van Tilburg
VTBS Architects
John Warfel
Metropolitan Pacific Capital
Move LA Letter to LA Metro

Initial Input on Sales Tax Measure
page 2 of 6
At this moment voter confidence in Metro is strong. New investments from Measure R will soon
be operational. A broad-based community coalition capable of communicating well with voters has
been convened. This moment presents a special opportunity. We urge you to be smart, be practical,
but also be visionary and be bold.
2. Process: Build Partnerships
It is simply not possible to win two-thirds voter support without an aspirational program that
provides significant benefits to each and every part of the county. Weakness in voter support in any
significant area of the county can undermine our ability to achieve the two-thirds vote required.
Thus, all parts of the county must see investments they believe will make a difference for their
communities. That can occur only when the revenue stream is significant and the investment
program robust.
When a two-thirds vote is needed, success requires formation of solid partnerships around a
common program with key constituencies throughout the county. It requires a common effort on
the part of cities, Councils of Government, but as well non-governmental constituencies including
the business community, organized labor, environmental, faith-based constituencies, transit and
active transportation advocates, social justice champions, and advocacy groups representing
populations with special needs.
Listen to the Councils of Governments
Move LA believes that the process undertaken by LA Metro with Councils of Governments
(COGs) and their member cities was very instructive and useful toward building a countywide
program and a consensus around that program. While there was risk that such a process might
emphasize more local street system improvements rather than more countywide systems that
play a more important role in our morning and evening commute and our countywide economy,
we believe that the end result of this process has actually deepened an appreciation for taking a
countywide look at our needs while ensuring each of our COG communities are fairly served by
any measure that goes before the voters. It has deepened a countywide understanding that we
are really one county and one economy with one future, but with many voices that deserve to be
heard.
Listen to constituencies outside government
For a measure to win two-thirds vote, however, it must not only address the aspirations of our
city and COG leaders, it must also address the aspirations of a critical mass of core constituencies.
In addition to the core constituencies of business, labor, and environmental organizations that
championed Measure R, Move LA has developed a robust dialogue with organizations
representing the faith community, social justice, affordable housing, students, people with
disabilities, and senior citizens. We believe these other constituencies must be consulted, because
in addition to a democratic entitlement, these constituencies will bear the responsibility for
gathering the resources for an effective campaign, a role that neither cities, nor COGs, nor Metro
can lawfully play.
We at Move LA have seen increasing interest throughout the county among these core
constituencies on potential revisions to the LRTP and a possible sales tax measure for the
November 2016 ballot. Move LA was deeply involved with both Measure R and J. Our
community feels the success of Measure R, as well as the near win of Measure J, as both
inspirational and yet cautionary. The narrow margins of victory and defeat tell us it is a time to
be aspirational but also instill a sense of caution. We must build broad consensus, bring in
154

page 3 of 6
constituencies who were not involved in Measure R or J and ensure they see their needs met and
that they are ready to mobilize their constituents and contribute to success.
Move LA has had regular dialogue with many of the above referenced core constituencies
throughout Los Angeles County. The success of Measure R has enabled these constituencies to
envision a dramatic expansion of our countywide transit system and other investments that
could accomplish exceptional things for our community. Our current recommendations,
detailed in the attached Straw Man, reflect what we believe is a thoughtful basis for broad
based agreement among these many constituencies as well as the Councils of Governments.
3. Think beyond Measure R
Some have thought that the framework for a new measure should be geographically defined and
focus upon distribution of funds and projects by subregion and by cities; we believe the systems
approach taken by Measure R was essentially sound and enabled a coherent blending of local,
subregional, and countywide objectives and systems.
However, Metro should adjust the framework to include important systems not included in Measure
R but perhaps should have been. Move LA shares many of these concerns. For example, in
addition to rail and bus expansion, a new measure should make significant investments in:
Active transportation infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians which can facilitate mobility,
reduce congestion and air pollution and contribute to healthier more active lifestyles.
First and last mile connections to stations
Improving the efficiency and reducing emissions from goods movement.
Arterials and boulevards to create complete streets to reduce congestion, enhance transit
services, perhaps transitioning to BRT, and to provide opportunities for active transportation
and sustainable community development.
Meeting the needs of our student, senior, and disabled neighbors.
Access to regional parks and the Los Angeles River.
BRT and streetcar systems as local circulators when connected to regional transit systems.
Metro should also assess the plan to ensure an equitable distribution of improvements across the
county. If a sub-region clearly has lower investments in one major category, like Metrorail transit
for example, then consider balancing that shortfall with additional investments of another sort, for
example, arterial and complete streets investments.
4. Promote shared prosperity and opportunity
Transportation investments create tens of thousands of jobs directly while also making our local
economy more competitive in the long run, and stimulating expansion in many sectors. Smart
transportation investments are a prescription for prosperity, and voters know that.
Metros current policies around Project Labor Agreements and Construction Careers are important
policies that should be continued. They ensure that the new jobs created are good jobs and that
there is an open door for disadvantaged workers looking for a career in construction. They help to
provide opportunities for the local workforce despite federal policies that have long been a block to
local hiring and local manufacturing preferences, though that is starting to change. Using the
marketplace power of our transit and other transportation investments to rebuild the local
manufacturing sector is a smart way to build a shared prosperity.
155

page 4 of 6
5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions & meet air quality objectives

Global climate change poses a serious threat to our environmental and economic health as well as
international social and political stability. In the face of this threat the legislature and the previous
governor enacted AB 32 making greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions a priority of the state and set
challenging near term emission reduction goals. SB 375 (Steinberg) made it clear that transportation
commissions and local governments have an obligation to coordinate transportation system
investments and local land use policies to reduce GHG emissions. Governor Brown has also made
reductions of GHGs a priority for his administration.
Since nearly 40% of all GHG emissions in California are produced by the transportation sector,
clearly LA Metro is obliged to regard the reduction of GHGs as a priority in its transportation
planning and in any investment program it places before the voters for funding. In general terms,
such an investment program must emphasize strategies to reduce automotive travel, specifically to
reduce auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and to facilitate the adoption of zero emission
automobile and non-automobile technologies by, for example, providing publicly available charging
facilities in all station areas.
Clean technology for transit
In general, expanding our transit system is one of our more important opportunities for
accomplishing reduced automobile use in our community. But it is also important that our
transit system investments give preference to the cleanest available transit technologies, that we
make it a matter of policy that Metro will invest in zero-emission and near-zero-emission
technologies wherever possible.
In addition, active transportation bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure has an important role to
play in reducing auto use and both air pollution and GHG emissions. While not included in the
Measure R investment program, active transportation investments should be very prominent in
the next measure. First mile and last mile bike and pedestrian infrastructure investments near
transit stations, complete streets with enhanced bike and pedestrian access, mobility hubs near
transit, bike sharing, and the like should all be on the front burner for LA County transportation
investments if we are serious about clean air or doing our share to combat climate change.
Clean trucks & trains
Emissions from diesel trucks and locomotives are the most significant and the most challenging
problem facing our air quality efforts. Diesel vehicles contribute 42% of So Cals NOx, a critical
precursor to ozone, as well as 70%+ of our particulate matter. Nationally, the cancer risks from
diesel emissions are about ten times higher than the cancer risks from all other hazardous air
pollutants combined. These problems are heavily concentrated on freeway corridors and are our
most serious environmental justice challenge, and we must address them now.
Facilitating deployment of clean trucks in the goods movement industry is the single most
important clean air measure we can now undertake. Doing so addresses the most serious and
difficult of our air pollution and environmental justice challenges.
Congestion relief
While congestion relief is important in the minds of voters, we can best accomplish that goal not
by increasing the capacity of highway systems but rather by investing in alternatives. In general,
156

page 5 of 6
street and highway widening should be avoided except where they facilitate active transportation
such as adding separated bicycle lanes.
6. Make LA County a better place to live
Clearly voters want relief from our exceptional traffic congestion and the next ballot measure can
and should give many more Angelenos workable alternatives to being stuck in traffic. While
significant transit system expansion is a major way to achieve that, we can also achieve that by
investing in and promoting other alternatives to driving, like making bicycling and walking on our
streets safer, by providing mobility hubs with bike-share programs especially in neighborhoods with
robust transit.
Being active and breathing clean air are important components of healthy communities. Likewise,
giving people a variety of options for getting not just to work but also to entertainment venues, local
and regional parks including the LA River also add to our quality of life.
In addition, many local cities are directing new residential, including affordable housing with high
propensity transit users, and commercial development to downtowns and along boulevards with
robust transit services. This is an essential element of healthy and sustainable future for our
communities. Metro can be an even more valued partner in creating more beautiful and livable cities
and neighborhoods by offering an infusion of funding for infrastructure that encourages such
strategies.
Metros commitment to bring beauty to neighborhoods is evident through the station art program
and revitalization of Union Station. It is important to extend that commitment to safe, clean and
attractive surroundings to people who take the bus, walk or ride bikes. Achieving this will involve
resources and a deeper partnership with cities which are responsible for bus stops, sidewalks and
streets.
7. Promote social equity in our transportation investment program
Any major public investment program in a democratic society should begin with a goal that
everyone should be a beneficiary of our investments and that no one should become a victim of this
process. Translating this goal into policies and programs that are effective is one of Metros most
important challenges.
LA Countys transit system is one of our most important sources of enhanced opportunity and
social equity for low income families and communities of color. The passengers of LA Countys
transit systems are overwhelmingly from low income families from communities of color: 90% of
all bus riders are low income and members of a community of color; 80% of all rail transit riders are
as well; even the subway users are over 70% low income. These transit riders are typically on their
way to work or to school or accessing some needed service. The transit system is the essential
opportunity for access. Significantly expanding the transit system itself is a major investment in
enhanced social equity in our community, together with a successful public education system
perhaps one of the most important investments we can make.
Need for Community Retention
Because Metrorail projects generally follows abandoned rail corridors or freeway rights of ways,
transit construction itself has not resulted in direct displacement in the same way the building of
the 105 freeway did, for example. But a new transportation funding measure should
acknowledge that transportation investments can still be directly and indirectly disruptive to
communities.
157

page 6 of 6
Direct displacement of businesses or residents should be avoided and if it occurs those affected
should be made whole.
Indirect displacement is likely more widespread and more pernicious, if less visible. It is the
product of the upward pressures on both residential and commercial rents that occurs anytime
investments bring real betterments to communities. We must expressly take responsibility for
these disruptions. Communities should be encouraged to adopt policies or programs that avoid
or mitigate indirect displacement, such as displacement that results from induced rent increases,
or Ellis Act evictions and conversion of apartments to condominiums.
Again, our goal should be to create a prosperity without victims- a lofty goal, perhaps, but a
natural one for a democratic community that takes seriously the well-being of all its members.
There is, however, no substitute for a separate major financial resource, outside the
transportation sales tax measure, to subsidize genuinely affordable housing for those most likely
to be transit users.
8. Serve the needs of special populations
Los Angeles Countys ten million residents include many with needs for specialized transportation
services. In LA County, approximately one-third of adults over the age of sixty have one or more
disabilities and many may require the use of canes, walkers or wheelchairs. Adults with disabilities
are twice as likely as those without disabilities to have inadequate transportation. With low incomes
and more openness to transit, students are another special population that can be cultivated to be
life-time transit users. The next ballot measure should include specific strategies to improve mobility
for seniors, disabled people and students. Some of these strategies, like sidewalk repair, will overlap
with the general population, but others, like improving paratransit service or offering universal
college student transit passes, will be targeted to just one group.
9. Achieve financial stability for Metro
Financial stability is certainly a vital goal for LA Metro. Lack of sound fiscal practices will inevitably
lead to a decline in service, and our community, our environment and our commitment to
opportunity will all start heading in the wrong direction. Thus it is essential that any future measure
include very significant funding set aside for funding the operations and maintenance of the system.
Our goal should be to provide sufficient public funding so as to avoid fare increases which
invariably leads to reduced ridership and lost opportunity for many, and from which we might not
recover for nearly a decade. Our goal is to increase transit ridership, not decrease it, so as to avoid
unnecessary auto trips and the burdens they create. That means creating a more robust, more
efficient system, with fares as low as possible, ridership as great as possible, as well as clean and safe
buses and trains.
We greatly appreciate Metros soliciting of input at this early stage. We have also attached a
description of the 45th version of Move LAs Straw Man proposal to this letter. We look forward to a
robust discussion and a fruitful partnership.
Sincerely,
Denny Zane
Executive Director
158
Straw Man Proposal
Sept. 1, 2015
Over a year ago, Move LA began a process of dialogue about priorities that might be reflected in a new
measure. We developed a draft proposal we call the Straw Man framed largely by Measure R with
the addition of missing elements mentioned above.
Priorities we believe should be driven by several objectives:
Reducing our worsening traffic congestion
Improving our economy and creating jobs
Reducing air pollution and GHG gas emissions
Ensuring greater social equity and reducing environmental injustices
Creating easy access to jobs, education, services, amenities and open space throughout our county.
30% Metro Rail
Metrorail
Metro Rail includes 5% First & Last Mile Transit
Transit access
& & Community Mitigation
Access
Mitigation
Local Return
5% Metrolink
Metrolink
Rail
25% Transit
Operations
Transit
operations
Hwy & Clean

Freight
15% Highway & Clean Truck Corridor

Highway
25%return
Local Return
Local
Transit
Operations
Local Return includes 5% for Active Transportation

Arterials &Local
BlvdsReturn includes 5% for Complete Streets
Scale: A half-cent sales tax increase with

at least a 45 year term and about $90 billion expenditure program
In order to meet the real needs of a place as large and as diverse as LA County it is necessary to have a
very robust investment resource. This is not just a practical imperative; it is also a political imperative.
It is simply not possible to win a two-thirds vote unless every part of the county sees the measure
meeting real and significant needs in their community.
Move LA supports a half-cent sales tax increase. We believe the scale of resource from the measure
and its ability to ensure every part of the county receives significant improvements is directly proportional to the length of the measures term. Move LA prefers a measure with no sunset, principally to
avoid a moment when there might be a sudden and significant drop in transit operating funds that
could force a sudden and dramatic cut in service. We believe that a 45-year measure that would generate over $90 billion would enable the county to meet many, maybe most, of its transportation needs
even given an expected population growth of three million new residents over that time.
159
Straw Man Proposal
September 1, 2015
1. A Robust Countywide Metrorail Transit Expansion: 30% = ~$27 Billion
page 2 of 7
Metros top priority should be to create a robust

countywide rail transit system with a high level of
connectivity that serves every part of Los Angeles
County consistent with local aspirations and priorities. This effort begins with implementing most of
the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
Strategic Unfunded Rail Transit Program and the
transit development priorities of the COGs. Relying
upon Metro published cost projections for these
projects, the estimated total cost would be approximately $27 billion or 30% of the projected revenue
from a 45-year measure.
a. Move LA recommends a priority be the expansion of the scope of several Measure R

projects, which emerged in our community
dialogue:
Upgrade from Bus Rapid Transit to light rail
and complete the East San Fernando Valley
corridor project which travels along Van
Nuys Blvd from the Orange Line station to
the Sylmar Metrolink station
Upgrade from BRT to light rail and complete
the West Santa Ana Corridor project while
extending it from Artesia to Downtown LA
(aka ECO-Rapid Transit)
Implement both alternatives on the
Eastside Gold Line light rail extension so
that service is provided to both South El
Monte and Whittier
Implement a rail corridor through a tunnel
(light or heavy rail) under the Sepulveda
Pass/405 corridor connecting the Orange
Line/Van Nuys station to Westwood / Wilshire Subway and to West LA / Expo Line.
Consider a toll road in the tunnel or over
the pass to raise revenue if analytic assessment demonstrates feasibility. This project
can significantly improve regional connectivity and reduce freeway congestion.
Extension of Crenshaw Line to Wilshire Blvd.,

continuing to West Hollywood then to the Red
Line Hollywood / Highland station
Extension of Foothill Gold Line to Claremont
Extension of Green Line to Torrance
Extension of Wilshire Subway to Bundy. [Consider alternative to hospital zone at Wilshire
and 17th St.]
Upgrades to the Orange Line BRT with longer
buses and grade separations.
BRT on Vermont Ave from Wilshire to Green
Line in South Bay
BRT from San Fernando Valley to San Gabriel
Valley
Light Rail on the 405 Corridor from West LA to
LAX
Extension of the Green Line east in Norwalk
to connect to the Metrolink station
c. Move LA recommends Metro consider the

following additional transit projects should
funding be available including:
Extending the Green Line beyond Torrance
ultimately to connect it to the Blue Line,
providing continuous Metrorail corridor
service from Long Beach to LAX and to the
San Fernando Valley;
Implementing a multimodal rail and active
transportation program on the Harbor Subdivision corridor east of the Crenshaw line
that would enable direct rail transit service
between Downtown LA and LAX.
d. First and last mile transit access &

Community Mitigation:
5% ~$4.5 billion
Move LA believes that no rail project and no

transit station area should be regarded as complete without real investment in first-last-mile
infrastructure, including enhanced bicycle access and pedestrian infrastructure as well as
enhanced access for seniors and disabled persons.
b. Move LA recommends the next priority be

primarily, but not only, extensions of
Measure R projects to serve more communities and enhance overall system connectivity, including:
It is also important to minimize adverse impacts, especially the direct or indirect displacement of residents and businesses. We recommend structuring a portion of this fund as a
160
Straw Man Proposal
September 1, 2015
competitive grant program for enhanced station area first and last-mile infrastructure, and
making these funds available to communities
that have policy or funding commitments in
place to help minimize the adverse impacts of
transit development on residents and businesses (such as relocation assistance) or that have
policies or programs that encourage the development of housing for residents who are highly
likely to use transit (such as lower-income residents).
page 3 of 7
tions along the route and the ability of Ontario Airport runways to handle their Superjumbo A-380
aircraft, which LAX struggles to accommodate. The
area around Ontario Airport and all along the Metrolink corridor to Downtown LA, including the San
Gabriel Valley and eastern Los Angeles County, will
then become attractive areas for economic development.
We recommend significant funding for Metrolink to
enhance service, safety and efficiency and to reduce
fares, and reduce emissions including investments
in zero-emission vehicles. We also urge investments in double-tracking and grade separations to
improve safety, separate freight system from commuter rail and to enable reliable express service to
and from regional airports, Palmdale, Burbank, Ontario.
2. Metrolink regional commuter rail

within LA County: 5% ~ $4-5 billion
The five county Metrolink regional commuter rail

system is a significant and cost effective way to get
regional commuters off the freeways and onto safe
and comfortable transit services. The system serves
over 40,000 riders per day from all corners of Los
Angeles and neighboring counties, has significant
room for growth and is a near-term opportunity for
a transition to zero-emission technologies and a
reduction of diesel emissions.
3. Transit Operations: 25% ~ $200 million 1st year

~$23 billion over 45 years
Ensuring significant new funds for transit operations,

both bus and rail, is necessary if we are to enhance
transit service and build and maintain ridership. We
believe that, in fact, operations funding to maintain
high service levels and low fares on both the bus and
rail transit systems is possibly our single most important investment if reducing congestion, reducing
emissions, ensuring access to opportunity, and providing for a more equitable opportunity community are
our goals. And, we believe they are.
Metrolink is uniquely capable of providing express

transit service to regional airports including
Palmdale, Burbank and Ontario Airports. While Ontario Airport is in San Bernardino County it represents a significant congestion relief and economic
development opportunity for LA County.
Planning is underway at SANBAG to connect the San
Bernardino Metrolink line to the airport. Morning
and evening express service between San Bernardino and Downtown LA is available today and ridership is very promising. LA County investments
along the Metrolink corridor in LA County, including
double tracking where needed, while SANBAG
makes the Metrolink connection to Ontario Airport,
can make feasible all day express service from Ontario Airport through the San Gabriel Valley and
East Los Angeles to Downtown LA.
Every time Metro, or any other transit agency, raises

fares, there is a measurable and sometimes very significant decline in ridership on the system, which can
translate into worsening congestion or loss of employment or both. Such declines can take as long as a decade to rebuild. It is counterproductive and should be
done only where necessary to avoid significant service
cutbacks.
To avoid both which should be a priority goal - we
must have significant sources of operations funding
independent of the fare box. Thus the measure Metro
might place before voters in November 2016 must
have significant operating funds.
Given the explosion of growth and development in

Downtown LA, both residential and commercial,
this could be a significant opportunity to attract major carriers to Ontario Airport, especially Asian carriers who may also be attracted to Asian popula-
In addition, it is important to address the needs of specific populations. Thus, we support a set aside of 5% of
161
Straw Man Proposal
September 1, 2015
page 4 of 7
lution and a significant source of safety concerns on

our freeways, especially on the north/south I-710
corridor and the east/west I-10 and I-60 corridors.
total measure funding (included in this 25% category)

for countywide transit pass programs for students as
well as improved transit access, passes, paratransit
services for seniors, persons with disabilities.
A high degree of mobility for our senior population and
for persons with disabilities, comparable to that enjoyed by others, ought simply to be regarded as a fundamental responsibility of a just and democratic society. Move LA urges fund its implementation.
A universal access student transit pass program, as
implemented in numerous communities in America,
including Cal State University, Sacramento; University of California, Davis; University of Wisconsin,
Madison; University of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign;
University of Colorado, Boulder may be one of the
most cost effective measures available to provide
near term traffic congestion relief. In addition, it
would be an important investment in equity and
especially for low income part time students who
often must juggle work, studies and family.
4. Highway Program & Clean Truck Corridors:

15% ~ $14 billion
Note: The total for highway investment in this proposal is 20%. An additional 5% for highway funding
is proposed in the Local Return Arterial Program.
There are important highway investments that need to
be made in LA County. Residents, businesses, and voters in general are eager to see investments that yield
congestion relief, air quality improvements, and improved overall economic performance. However,
there are important highway investment opportunities
that were not included in Measure R that should be
considered a priority in this measure.
a. Addressing the Challenges of the Goods

Movement Industry
Perhaps the most important is the need to make

investments to improve the efficiency, safety and to
reduce emissions from the overwhelmingly diesel
goods movement industry. This industry is one of
LA Countys strongest economic drivers and job creators, in large part because the Ports of Long Beach
and Los Angeles are the primary gateways for Asian
trade for our entire nation. Still, heavy duty trucks
are a major source of traffic congestion and air pol-
In addition, emissions from diesel trucks and locomotives are the most significant and the most challenging problem facing our air quality efforts. Diesel emissions are among our most toxic air contaminants, a major cause of lung cancer, asthma and
other breathing problems. Diesel vehicles contribute 42% of So Cals NOx, a critical precursor to
ozone, as well as 70%+ of our particulate matter.
Nationally, the cancer risks from diesel emissions
are about ten times higher than the cancer risks
from all other hazardous air pollutants combined.
These problems are heavily concentrated on the
above mentioned freeway corridors and have by far
their most serious manifestation in low-income
communities of color living and working along those
corridors. Diesel emissions are our most serious
environmental justice challenge, and we must address them now.
This new transportation measure should make addressing the challenges of the goods movement
industry and its effects upon the freeway and highway congestion and safety as well as pernicious diesel emissions the number one priority of its Highway Program.
Vehicles involved in goods movement often operate
nationally and even internationally. Thus, local and
state regulators do not have the authority alone
needed to require a cleanup of the technology. The
strategies that have succeeded in bringing clean
vehicles to the market, such as the Carl Moyer Program, are those where public resources have been
invested in partnership with private engine manufacturers and trucking companies to develop and
demonstrate cleaner technologies, mostly natural
gas, as well as a smaller number of electric or hybrid-electric technologies.
Facilitating deployment of clean trucks in the
goods movement industry is the single most important clean air measure we can now undertake.
Doing so addresses the most serious and difficult
of our air pollution and environmental justice challenges.
162
Straw Man Proposal
September 1, 2015
page 5 of 7
commitment of local dollars to this task. As we

stated earlier, this measure should make this effort
a priority of its Highway Program funds.
The challenge for a clean goods movement strategy

is no longer one of developing and demonstrating
clean technologies that can provide comparable
performance characteristics of heavy duty dieselpowered trucks: The challenge is ensuring deployment of these technologies.
b. Other Highway Programs

HOV/High Occupancy Toll /Express Lane programs
and the like that encourage carpooling and use of
transit as an alternative (such as with the Silver Line
BRT) have been surprisingly successful and should
be expanded. Freeway maintenance & repair certainly merits inclusion on a list of highway investment priorities.
Because vehicles engaged in goods movement are

both expensive and have a long operational
lifespan, engine manufacturers are not able to ramp
up production of even successful technologies unless they know there is a long term market for
them. Once they have that confidence, they can
and will expand production and gain the advantage
of economies of scale that will bring costs down and
enable a sustainable technological transformation.
5. Local Return Funding: 25% ~ $23 billion
Includes
5% committed to local active transportation investments
5% for Complete Streets and Grand Boulevards on arterials
We should rely upon the strategies that work - public private partnerships where the risk is shared
and the benefits are shared between the breathers
and the manufacturers, as Carl Moyer used to say.
Funds from this transportation measure can and
should be used to facilitate just such partnerships
and bring near-zero and zero emission technologies
to the market for the long term and make such
technologies the standard for the goods movement
industry of the future. We urge 3% of the measure
be used to facilitate deployment of zero and nearzero emission trucks.
Move LA supports the continued practice of directing a significant share of sales tax proceeds to local
governments for implementation of local transportation priorities. These finer grained local transportation infrastructure have an important role in
our county system. Measure R provided 15% of its
revenues for this purpose. Some local cities have
urged an increase to 25%, largely reflecting the impact of the recent recession on local capital improvement budgets. Others have argued that doing
so will take needed funds away from other important countywide priorities.
Make no mistake: the problem of worsened traffic

congestion, reduced highway efficiency and safety
are also serious problems associated with the goods
movement industry operating on our freeways and
highways. The public and the private sector need to
work together, to co-invest together, if we are to
significantly improve this vital industrys impacts
upon our highways and our communities while retaining the economic benefits it provides.
Move LA believes there is a smart compromise possible here whereby 25% of total funding is directed
toward local infrastructure investments but that
these investments include bicycle and pedestrian
investments as well as subregional arterial investments.
Specifically, we propose that out of the 25% in the
Local Return category:
a. Unrestricted transportation:
15% of total funds be allocated by population
formula to local cities for any transportation investment at their discretion.
Plans have long been in development to address

these operational issues by creating truck-only lanes
and corridors which could separate truck and auto
traffic and enable each to be more efficient. Some
of these plans involve toll roads and special access
for clean trucks. All of these plans require significant public investment to succeed. We need federal dollars and we need state dollars but we will
never get much of either if we do not first make a
b. Active Transportation:
5% of total funds allocated by population formula to local cities for investment in a bicycle
163
Straw Man Proposal
September 1, 2015
page 6 of 7
and pedestrian transportation program in their

community.
program is what we at Move LA call a Grand Boulevard.
c. Arterials, Complete Streets and Grand

Boulevards:
5% of total funds should be managed by Councils of Governments (COGs), for use in planning
and implementing, in coordination with Metro,
a Complete Streets and Grand Boulevards investment program. Complete streets should
enhance overall mobility, expand transit services, while creating separated bicycle lanes and
enhanced pedestrian infrastructure; Complete
streets become Grand Boulevards when a Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) program and a community
development program has been implemented.
Move LA recommends that half of these Arterial
funds be allocated by population formula and
half used to ensure geographic equity to subregions with less rail transit service.
Looking back to see forward: Grand Boulevards

Our legacy rail corridors, once heavily used but then
closed to make way for the era of the automobile,
are now being repurposed for rail transit corridors
throughout the county. Those old station areas in
some cases have become attractive locations for
new development.
Our boulevards, like our legacy rail corridors, are
neglected assets that are now relatively low cost
opportunities for repurposing and revival. Once the
corridors of travel, work and commerce, they became an afterthought in the era of the freeway.
Many have become run down with commercial uses
that barely survive rarely do we find a place to call
home.
Many neglected arterials could be poised for revival, boulevards ready to come back to life. Investments that upgrade their role as transportation corridors, improved car, transit, bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure that help them become complete
streets - can be a catalytic moment for a larger
transformation. Improving conveyance can stimulate the creation of communities. Boulevards that
provide ready access to an enhanced network of
transit services provide ready access to jobs and
services throughout the county and therefor become more convenient and attractive places to live.
Two of the most important missed opportunities of

Measure R were the failure to invest in active transportation, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
and the failure to invest in our arterials and boulevards. Local governments should have the resources
to plan and implement a locally determined active
transportation program. In addition, smart investments on many LA County arterials and boulevards
could create complete streets that not only improve the efficiency of overall travel, create opportunities for expanded bus transit, but also provide
separated bike infrastructure and enhanced pedestrian infrastructure as well.
Other new funding tools like Cap & Trade funds or

Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs) can provide
the resources to fund urban forests along these
boulevards or to provide district parking at strategic
locations along these boulevards further enhancing
their attractiveness as places to live and for mixeduse development. Cap &Trade and IFD funds are
both also potential sources of subsidy for affordable
housing.
On some boulevards bus service could transition

eventually to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), potentially
creating a BRT network as extensive as our rail
transit network.
Our boulevards are also opportunities for transit
oriented and location-efficient mixed-use development, for housing middle, moderate, and low income households more likely to use transit. A
boulevard that has become a complete street and
where communities are planning to enhance its
transit system, perhaps to become a BRT system,
and implement a local community development
Tools that make these boulevards more attractive

places to live will make them more attractive opportunities for developers, both for profit and notfor-profit, both market rate and low-income projects. Mixed-use, mixed income communities are
not only increasingly popular places to live they
164
Straw Man Proposal
September 1, 2015
feed the transit system on the boulevards and enable enhanced transit services to transition over time
to Bus Rapid Transit.
page 7 of 7
Adding it up: How do various

systems fare in the Straw Man?
[Note: the figures exceed 100% because categories are

not exclusive]
Too visionary? We think not.
Transit systems: 65%
Few thought it possible to create Old Town Pasadena or to bring the Third Street Promenade in Santa
Monica back to life from the run down neglected
community commercial centers they had become.
But, both have succeeded wildly in becoming vibrant community centers and great places to live.
Metrorail 30% + Metrolink 5% + Transit Operations

25% + 5% carve out in Local Return for enhanced
bus on complete streets/Grand Boulevards
Transit Operations: 25%
Includes 5% carve out for special populations services
The neighborhoods immediately around the Promenade in Santa Monica have become an urban success story with nearly 3,000 new housing units built
since the Promenade re-opened in 1989, all in
mixed-use moderate-scale developments and nearly half deed-restricted affordable to low and moderate income households. In both cases smart public investments brought incremental improvements,
including adaptive reuse of existing structures with
occasional but compatible new developments fostered by a collaborative relationship with developers willing to work within the communitys historic
development standards and a sensitivity to its identity and its history.
Highway systems: 20%
Freeway and goods movement 15%

+ 5% carve out in Local Return for arterials/complete streets
Local Return: 25%
Includes 5% carve out for active transportation + 5%

for arterials/complete streets
Active transportation systems: about 10%+
5% carve out in Metrorail for first-mile-last-mile +

5% carve out in Local Return for active transportation + 5% carve out in Local Return for complete
streets
That can be the prescription for progress on our

boulevards as well, triggered by transportation investments helping to address our traffic congestion
and providing new mobility options while creating
opportunities for community where we can address
our housing needs as well. At Move LA we call this
program the Grand Boulevard Program.
Special populations: 5%
5% carve out in Transit Operations for students,

senior and disabled persons
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
September 1, 2015
One Gateway Plaza
RE: Initial Stakeholder Input for potential 2016 Los Angeles County Transportation Ballot
Measure
Please accept these comments on the potential 2016 Transportation Ballot Measure described
as a sales tax to finance the expansion of the transportation network in the County of Los
Angeles. The size and scale of the proposed tax and investments requires that we, as a public,
carefully consider whether or not this course of action is in the best interest of County residents.
For this reason, we provide for your consideration principles and recommendations grounded in
two decades of work in South Central LA, a location that recently received new public and
private transit and transit-oriented investments.
SAJE has worked in the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles for nearly twenty years
to expand participation of low-income communities of color in policy and planning decisions that
impact their economic security, health and well-being. Issues of transportation access,
affordability and development have been core to our community engagement efforts, especially
as changes to bus service and rail line expansion have impacted residents. A key goal we have
is to ensure new investments benefit low-income people and do not result in their displacement.
We recognize that the core transit riders of Metros transit system are predominantly low-income
people of color and so we call on Metro to ensure that these transit riders and other low-income
people living along existing and planned transit corridors are central to the agencys decision
making. What we call investment without displacement is rare, but possible. Metro has the
opportunity to get it right with a commitment to investments that stabilize low-income
communities.
Transportation Infrastructure Is a Housing Issue
LAs housing affordability crisis has been described in innumerable ways in local and national
media. A study covered recently by the Los Angeles Times reports that 13,000 County residents
become homeless every month. As rising rents and creative eviction practices send more
people out of their homes, away from their communities and, often, onto the streets, our use of
public dollars should be utilized to reverse this trend. We cannot allow our own money to
worsen a trend that is harmful to us all. Through its billions of dollars of investments, Metro can
lead a transformative investment plan by advancing clear and enforceable goals to prevent
displacement and expand affordable housing opportunities near its transit system.
It is purported that the proposed sales tax could generate up to $90 billion. At this scale, the
negative impacts on core transit riders and other low-income residents could be dramatic, if not
180
traumatic. Rising land values and speculative land banking are processes that follow the build
out of transit networks and result in the loss of housing affordable to low-income residents.
Given that Metro uses public dollars and that its riders are primarily low-income people, its
infrastructure programs should directly address the displacement of residents. Therefore, transit
infrastructure investments are a housing issue. In order to benefit the public as a whole,
investments of this size must ensure low-income people can live near transit hubs.
We applaud Metros work this year to advance programs that would support the expansion of
affordable housing. The creation of a Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) fund and
including in the joint development policy a target goal for affordable housing development and
the allowance for land discounts for affordable housing projects are powerful steps to build
upon. If a sales tax were to be put before voters, the public should know that monies generated
would support the preservation of mixed income communities.
Principles for consideration, regarding a Potential Transportation Ballot Measure
A sales tax ballot measure would generate billions of dollars in revenue. Together, we must take
the time now, at these initial stages of consideration, to base decisions in a set of principles that
prioritize positive impact on vulnerable and underinvested communities.
Authentic and meaningful public participation should be paramount. As stated above,
much is at stake and public dollars are the tool that is being proposed to advance transit
infrastructure. Meaningful participation from community stakeholders is necessary to making the
best decisions about whether or not to pursue a sales tax ballot measure. This requires
concerted effort to engage, consult and regularly return to residents who face the greatest
barriers to involvement. We call for a process that recognizes the added investment required to
meaningfully involve homeless and low-income residents, as well as residents whose first
language is not English. These same groups stand to lose the most when it comes to
gentrification and displacement spurred by transit investment. But with their involvement,
transformative solutions and policies can emerge for Metro to pursue.
Speaking to this current process, we are disappointed that, to date, Metro has not practiced this
principle. Few organizations let alone communities are aware this opportunity for comment
exists and it appears Metro has not helped the public be aware. For instance, multiple searches
leading up to the comment period deadline on the Metro.net website found no mention of the
opportunity to comment on this potential ballot measure. (We are fortunate to have heard of this
comment period from fellow non-profit organizations.) To truly represent the public, we implore
Metro to prioritize outreach efforts to low-income residents and homeless residents because
they are the most vulnerable to displacement in and around transit development and transitoriented development sites. Organizations who directly work with these community members
can be assets in the outreach process; but we cannot help if we cannot easily find information
about the process.
Sales taxes disproportionately harm lower-income residents. It goes without saying that
sales taxes have a greater impact on people who have fewer dollars to spend. Because of this,
we question the appropriateness of sales taxes to drive public infrastructure projects. As
previously mentioned, the most frequent and consistent riders of public transit are low-income
people who face difficult choices on a daily basis about how to spend their limited income.
Metros core transit riders should not both face the greatest burden in funding a sales tax and
then, at the other end, also face the greatest harm as the funds are used in ways that contribute
to their displacement.
181
Transportation must be accessible for it to benefit low-income riders/residents. For lowincome people, transportation infrastructure is only useful if it is accessible. The two greatest
barriers to accessibility are distance from transit resources and cost. So, a transportation ballot
measure must conceive of addressing accessibility in a meaningful way. In addition to providing
low fares, Metro can create new - and expand existing - programs that create affordable
housing at deep affordability levels such as at the Extremely Low-Income (ELI) level.
Investments must first benefit underinvested communities, without contributing to their
displacement. Historically, low-income communities of color have experienced generations of
disinvestment. These hard-hit areas are also vulnerable to gentrification and displacement when
new investments finally arrive. The critical distinction is that investments must first benefit
underinvested communities, while also not harming them. A great harm is done when residents,
workers and families are displaced from their homes and communities, often resulting in greater
economic insecurity and worsened physical and mental health.
Significant anti-displacement investments and policies can prevent displacement. Where
such investments/policies do not exist, major infrastructure projects will substantially decrease
housing affordability and increase displacement of low-income and homeless residents. For
instance under Measure R, we have seen low-income tenants facing worsening pressures of
rent increases evictions - often unwarranted or illegal - along the Exposition and Crenshaw
Lines. Incentivizing projects that include anti-displacement provisions and/or contribute to deep
affordable housing can help end this trend.
Greenhouse gas reduction and other environmental goals are advanced when core
transit riders live near transit. The considerable investments made in transit infrastructure
should not worsen environmental goals; but this happens when low-income people are
displaced. As seen in LA and other transit systems around the country, transit ridership
decreases following new transit investments. When low-income and mixed-income communities
give way to gentrification and leave behind only higher-income residents, many core transit
riders are removed from the system and require the use of older, less efficient vehicles to travel
to and from work. Meanwhile, transit areas are saturated by households who own cars and use
transit primarily as a convenience.
Recommendations for Transit Investment Projects
With the above principles in mind, we offer a starting set of recommendations for major public
transit investment projects. Given the disparate negative economic impact sales taxes have on
low-income people, the significant scale of the proposed sales tax, and knowing that low-income
tenants are facing displacement pressures throughout LA County along transit corridors, we
offer the following recommendations:
1. Require strong and enforceable anti-displacement provisions as conditions for
the use of sales tax dollars. This can include measures preventing the displacement of
residents resulting from the acquisition, construction and operation of any transit line.
Equally as important are measures preventing displacement of residents resulting from
private and public development occurring along transit corridors. Policies preventing
displacement apply both on-site and off-site of a proposed project location.
2. Devote a significant percentage of revenue generated to housing at deep levels of
affordability. Commit funds from the sales tax directly to Metros Transit-Oriented
Affordable Housing fund, to be used for the production of new affordable housing. The
182
deepest levels of affordability are critical to support the housing of LAs low-income
residents, many of whom would not qualify for housing held at the Low-Income and,
even, Very Low-Income levels. Investment in Extremely Low-Income affordable housing
should be prioritized.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact us for more information. I can be reached at
jdonlin@saje.net and 213-745-9961, ext. 215.
Sincerely,
Joe Donlin
Associate Director
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE)
183
CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CALiFORNlA
DEPARTMENT ~F TRANSPi?i~TriT10Pl
Sei~ta 1. Reynolds
GENERAL MANAGER
~y~~ ~ 1
'.,
1005outh Main Streei, i~Jit~ i

-ioor
ins Mgeies, California ~OGiZ
(213)972-8470
fAX(213j972-$410
ERIC GARCETI'I
f~tAY4R
March 24,2015
Nalini Ahuja, Execu#ive Director
Office of Management, Budget &Local Programming
Metro
One Gateway Plaza
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE - REQUEST FOR TIER 2 TRANSIT FUNDING
The cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, current recipients of Tier 2 Operator transit
funding from Metro, are requesting a 4% annual allocation in funding from the proposed new Los
Angeles County transit sales tax measure currently being considered by Metro. Astable, dedicated
funding source is needed to ensure that these vital transit services can continue and grow. If approved
by the voters, this requested allocation is envisioned to replace the current year-to-year Tier 2
Operators funding provided by Metro that is capped at $6 million annually and represents only a small
percentage of the total annual service operating costs.
TIER 2 OPERATORS
The Community DASH fixed route transit services operated by the City of Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT), and the fixed route transit services operated by the cities of Glendale,
Pasadena and Burbank, have received Tier 2 regional operating funding from Metro for the past four
years. The transit services provided by the Tier 2 operators enhance intra-community mobility and offer
critical first mile last mile options for the regional transit system. Collectively, the Tier 2 Operators
carry more ridership than all but three of the fifteen municipal operators currently receiving regional
Formula Allocation Procedure(FAPj operating subsidies.
LADOT Tier 2 Community DASH services consist of 22 routes operating throughout the City.
These routes provide collection and distribution trips to and from the regional transit network
including Metro Bus and Rail, Metrolink and Foothill Transit. LADOT Community DASH service
had a total of 14 million hoardings in Fiscal Year 2014. LADOT is currently conducting a study to
identify and implement potential new Community DASH services, subject to available funding.
BurbankBus's four routes connect the Metro North Hollywood Red Line /Orange Line Station
and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station to 40,000 employees in the Burbank Media
District and Empire/Airport areas. BurbankBus provides important feeder services to the
Metrolink Antelope Valley and Ventura Lines, and also serves the Burbank Bob Hope Airport
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
184
Mlle#ro
with two routes. Carrying over 250,090 riders per year, BurbankBus operates during weekday
peak commute periods, but will soon be launching all-day service between North Hollywood and
the Burbank Bob Hope Airport funded by Metro.
Glendale Beeline operates nine routes providing service to the c+ties of Glendale and La CanadaFlintridge, Los Angeles County areas of Montrose and La Crescents, and portions of Burbank.
Beeline directly services the multimodal transportation centers at Glendale and Burbank
providing first mile last mile connections to Metro, Greyhound, Metrolink and Amtrak service.
Carrying over 1.7 million passengers in FY 2014, Seel9ne is essential feeder service to #wo LADOT
commuter express routes,two Metro rapid bus routes and many significant long-haul Mletro
local routes. As a result of a comprehensive route analysis in 2013, Beeline has a number of
significant service improvements that have been placed on hold while waiting for secured
funding.
The Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (ARTS)operates six fixed routes,carrying over 1.5
~rrelfi~r~ passengers in F1'2014 within the Cify of Pasadena,as well as portions of the
unincorporated community of Altadena. Pasadena ARTS has become an essential part of the
community that it serves and an Integra{ link to the extensive local and regional transit network.
Alt Pasadena ARTS routes are structured to service the six Gold Line Stations as well as the
regions{ bus lines that include Metro Rapidr and Metro Bus. Foothill Transit, LADOT Commuter
Express, and Glendale beeline. The Pasadena ARCS 2 13 Short range Transit Pian identified
several unfunded improvements to add capacity and add revenue operations to better service
its service area and prepare for the intensifying connections stemming from the opening of the
Gold Line Foothill Extension.
LONG-TERM FUNDING
In 2010,the Metre Board approved the Tier 2 Operators program tc help fund regionally significant
service that was unable to access the regional operating funds currently dedicated to municipal
operators. The funding provided to the Tier 2 Operators is budgeted year to year and is contingent on
the availability of a surplus in the Proposition A growth over CPI funds. The Tier 2funding is also capped
~t ~~. mi~~inn nor ~in~r ~~ihirh nnhi rn~inrc ~~r~r~vim~+clv 7 40/_ ~F +L~a +e~+~l ~...~..~1 n
~+:..r.
T4.e
... ~.............. r,,... t..... ......... v...~ ..v....
.a c~~'r. v..n.~u~c.Y .av iv v. u~c ww~ onnuo. v~ciaw~~ o
cnaci~,~cam. ~ nc
request of a 4~ allocation of a %z cent transit sales tax will allow the Tier 2 Operators to recover an
estimated 80% of our operating expenses. This new funding source would allow for the continuation
and expansion of needed transit services in the Tier 2 cities.
The year-to-year allocation leads to uncertainty for the operators and their riders. The ability to have a
d~dica~ed ~undi~ig source for these regionally significant fixed roue services wii8 ensurQ that ihes~
services can continue to provide vital mobility for our residents and visitors.
185
Nalini Ahuja, Executive Director

Metro
March 24,2015
Please contact 3ames L~ftr~r~ of l~ SOT at(213 972-84x8 if yn~s have any questions.
T~:ank you.
S~nc~re~Y,
~,
,~~~,-
lames Lefton
Executive Officer, Transit Services

LADOT
.,
.
a ~-
a`
~-'
:.:
David L. Kriske, AICP

Deputy City Planner for Transportation
City of Burbank
f
Kathryn Engel
Transit Manager
City of Glendale
s~'
s~`
~~
- a ,fir ~.
.~
~'.
r-
~
~rqz
~.
r~
~~~~
Valerie Gibson
Transit Manager
City of Pasadena, Department of Transportation
E-Copy:
Borja Leon, Marcel Porras, Dan Rodman, Mayor Garcetti's Office

Doug Mensmen,CD 2, Paul Backstrom, CD11
Maria Souza Rountree, CLA; David Hirano, CAO;Seleta Reynolds, LADOT
Renee Berlin, Patricia Chen, Will Ritter, Metro
John Bwarie,San Fernando Valley Council of Governments
186
September 1, 2015
One Gateway Plaza
RE: Initial Stakeholder Input for Potential 2016 Los Angeles County Transportation Ballot Measure
T.R.U.S.T. South LA is a community-controlled organization dedicated to building the economic and political
power of residents of South Los Angeles, as well as to influence and control institutional policies and practices
that affect them.. The ultimate goal of T.R.U.S.T. South LA is to build a vibrant, safe and sustainable community in
South Los Angeles, where long-term, low-income residents have a continued presence and a voice in the
development of their neighborhoods. We work to transform the neighborhoods of South Los Angeles by building
community control over land; preserving and building opportunities for working-class people to remain in the
community; and building the capacity and power of local residents to have a say in the future of their
neighborhoods. T.R.U.S.T. South LA contributes to this work through our program, policy work and projects
around issues of Transit Oriented Development, with a focus on supporting preservation and production of
affordable housing through land stewardship, enhancing economic opportunities for local businesses, and
improving bike and pedestrian conditions throughout South Los Angeles.
T.R.U.S.T. South LA Members are almost 100% low-income People of Color, and a substantial percentage do not
own cars. They walk, bike and/or utilize public transit to go about their daily lives, including getting to and from
work. Furthermore, our organization has been involved in several high-profile campaigns over the past several
years, where we have been fighting the conversion of transit-adjacent land in South LA to serve higher income
people rather than lifting up opportunities for the existing low-income community. Discussion about
transportation, and plans for the continued build out of the transit system, is highly relevant to our community.
We have signed on to other comment letters which raise critical issues regarding increasing Metros investment in
Active Transportation, supporting the development of Share Use Mobility options, and establishing a clear equity
agenda throughout all of Metros programs. With this letter, we encourage you to deeply consider and mitigate
against the displacement pressures that we fully anticipate will arrive along with an expanded light rail system.
There is significant research documenting that low-income workers ride transit; that when market-rate housing is
developed in a transit hub, car ownership levels rise and transit ridership falls; that property values and
subsequently rents rise in transit rich areas as public and private investment flows in; and that displacement of
core transit riders to less transit-accessible areas can occur. We have heard you talk about Transit Oriented
Communities, and heard you acknowledge this risk of displacement.
187
Equity must be at the forefront of any transit planning. We need to ensure that transit investments lead
to economic mobility and core transit riders can afford quality housing near transportation. Building out
transit without planning for equity will exacerbate the growing inequities of the region and create further
instabilities for low-income communities of color, and potentially lead to decreased ridership. As such,
this planning should include intensive, authentic engagement with residents and community
organizations that are committed to addressing equity in development and implementation of tools and
investments to stabilize low-income transit riders. Only then can transit investments help us arrive at our
vision of Los Angeles as a cleaner, greener city with greater opportunities for our citys majority: renters
and workers.
We urge you to advance Metro policy and practices to aggressively counteract displacement, and to
proactively contribute to the long-term viability of both LA Countys transit system, and the low-income
communities that surround and depend on that system.
Sincerely,
Sandra McNeill
188
Mr. Phil Washington

CEO, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority
One Gateway Plaza
September 8, 2015
SUBJECT: Priorities for Measure R2 for the San Fernando Valley
The Valley on Track Coalition advocates for the funding and construction commitment to the following
three projects in a future ballot measure:
1. UPGRADE THE METRO ORANGE LINE BUSWAY TO LIGHT RAIL

A victim of its own huge success, growing ridership has made the line overcrowded and slow.
Conversion to light rail is the best choice now to improve what has become the Valley's transit
backbone.
>>ALLOCATION: $1.1 billion
2. BUILD THE EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY TRANSIT CORRIDOR AS A RAIL SYSTEM
The route runs through some of the most transit dependent, majority minority communities in L.A.
County. Current bus lines along the corridor are the most heavily used in the Valley after the Orange
Line and among the top ten in the county. The Valley cannot accept another underbuilt project that
does not meet the demand.
>>ALLOCATION: $1 billion
3. BUILD THE SEPULVEDA PASS CORRIDOR PROJECT AS A RAIL SYSTEM, INCLUDING A

TUNNEL THROUGH THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
Connecting the Valley to the Westside, the Sepulveda Pass is one of the world's most congested traffic
corridors. No mode besides rail can even begin to address the transit demand. Currently the last project
in Measure R, the corridor will run from Sherman Oaks to the Westside. It should serve UCLA and
West L.A. Metro lines, with the potential to eventually reach LAX.
>> ALLOCATION: $1.4 billion
These three projects have the greatest potential to improve congestion, get people out of their cars,
and connect the Valley with the rest of the county. This is why we have the support of dozens of elected
189
officials, neighborhood councils, homeowners associations, environmental groups and chambers of

commerce.
We urge you and your colleagues on the Metro Board of Directors to include these three projects in the
expenditure plan for a 2016 ballot measure. Thank you for your consideration and leadership as we
continue to advocate for the Valleys fair share of transit dollars.
Sincerely,
Coby King
Chair, VICA
Stuart Waldman
President, VICA
190

LRTP Stakeholder Input

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRTP Stakeholder Input

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATTACHMENT C

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Potential Ballot Measure

Potential Ballot Measure Initial Stakeholder Input

San Fernando Valley COG ...................................................................................... 47

g) San Gabriel Valley COG .......................................................................................... 51

Westside Cities COG ............................................................................................... 61

5. Regional Facilities Input

Port of Los Angeles ................................................................................................. 84

g) Union Station ........................................................................................................... 86

Community Health Councils, Inc. ........................................................................... 100

g) EnviroMetro ........................................................................................................... 103

LA County Department of Public Health................................................................. 129

Potential Ballot Measure Initial Stakeholder Input

LA Thrives ............................................................................................................. 132

k) Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce ............................................................. 135

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition .................................................................... 137

m) Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association ........................................... 141

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber ................................................................................ 171

u) Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) ........................................................ 180

Stakeholder Outreach Summary

2. Initial Stakeholder Input

Potential 2016 Ballot Measure

3. LRTP and Ballot Measure

North County Subregion Includes:

Arroyo Verdugo Subregion Includes:

Subregional Potential Ballot Measure Planning Areas

Long Range Transportation Plan and Potential Ballot Measure Assumptions

Augment, Extend, and Sunset Assumptions

Unmet transportation infrastructure improvement needs: The Mobility Matrix

Market research indicates public support for transportation improvements: Past

Alameda County super majority: In November 2014, 70% of voters in Alameda

As a result of these considerations, the LRTP Framework assumes an augment and

Optimal Subregional Target Assumptions

First Five-year Projects

(Hwy5) SR-2 Verdugo Avenue SB On-ramp

(TC5) Midlife Rehab Historic Depot

(ATP7) Improvements to bike/pedestrian

(TC4) Glendale Beeline east-west transit

(ATP5) Expand Harvey Dr / SR-134 Parkand-Ride

Freeway Interchange Improvements;

Rail Crossing Improvements; includes

Arterial State of Good Repair; includes

North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit

(TO3) Beeline operations funding;

Freeway Interchange Improvements;

Rail Crossing Improvements; includes

Arterial State of Good Repair; includes

10+ Year Projects

(TC2) Beeline capital funding; including

Second Five-year Projects

North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit

(TC1) Photovotaic System for Beeline

(ATP3) Cerritos Ave Complete and Green

(ATP1) Bus stop zones to meet ADA

Freeway Interchange Improvements;

Rail Crossing Improvements; includes

Arterial State of Good Repair; includes

MOBILITY MATRIX - ARROYO VERDUGO DRAFT September 10, 2015

First Five-year Projects

UNMET OPERATIONS NEEDS (TO1)

(Hwy 2,3,4) SR-134 Ramp Improvements;

Second Five-year Projects