Same Transit Plans, Different Agency Initials
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Tomorrow, Metro board members will take a vote on putting a half-cent sales tax increase on the November ballot, with the funds raised going to a number of transit projects in the region.
It's not the first time the region's seen such a proposal. In fact, the current debate is quite similar to a proposal by Metro-predecessor RTD that would have used a 7.5 cent sales tax to fund a $6.6 billion regional transit system. The plan was announced exactly thirty-five years ago, on July 23rd, 1973.
Just like now, 1973's Southern California was faced with growing traffic and a rising sentiment to do something about it, fast. The day before the program's announcement, the Times previewed what was about to be unveiled and included this quote.
"Hang the costs!" a planner said. "When you're under the gun -- and starting from scratch -- billions of dollars are involved any way you look at it."
The 1973 plan would have built a 116-mile, eight-corridor network. Like today, the most common complaint was about all the places it was going to miss. Just like today, San Gabriel Valley officials were major detractors, claiming the plan didn't give them a fair share of the service.
It took until July of 1974 for RTD to approve the program, which by that point had evolved into a 175-mile system projected to cost from $8 - $10 billion, and the tax had become a full cent -- half for rapid transit and half to improve bus service.
The tax went to the ballot on November 5, 1974. Polls had put voter approval up around 60%, but in the end only 46.3% of those voting were in favor.
Let's hope 2008's edition doesn't suffer a similar fate.
thebonaventure
LACAFE
bgfa
crewest
TheGRAMMYMuseum
tornadoes28 on July 24, 2008, at 08:35AM – #1
Supervisor Mike Antonivich is complaining that the proceeds from the tax will not be shared equally with the SG Valley. I think he and many others are not understanding what 'equally" means. Although the SG Valley has a large and growing population, I think it is population density that should be looked at. The westside has a higher population density so should get a higher percentage of the money.
The other factor that Mike is not seeing is the cost of building a higher density location. Of course it is going to cost more to build a train line in a more dense area so logically more money will need to go there in order to build a train line. Your only choice in the Wilshire corridor is to build a subway because the area is soe dense. Subways cost more. So logically more of the money should go there rather then the SG Valley.
I guess it is not just dense in the westside. There is also a lot of density in Mike Antonovich's brain as well.
Tom on July 24, 2008, at 08:54AM – #2
Sadly, we need 66.7% of the vote to pass this. I think this is extremely important, but with such a high threshold, it's no wonder we can't get a decent transit system here.
JM on July 24, 2008, at 09:54AM – #3
What will it take to change things here??? $7 gas?
Tim on July 24, 2008, at 01:19PM – #4
Sad thing is that they got that percentage to ban tunneling with sales tax funds. Lots of people complain about transit, but when it comes time to step up ... (cricket noises)