DOCSLIB.ORG

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles Regional Investors Conference, February 26-27, 2014 Nalini Ahuja‐Executive Director, Finance and Budget Donna R. Mills –Treasurer At a Glance Metro Operates the 3rd Largest Transportation System in the U.S. • Completely clean-air fleet of over 2,200 Compressed Natural Gas buses • 87 miles of Metro Rail – 83 stations • Approximately 1.1 million bus and 360,000 rail passengers each weekday • Metro Rapid Bus • 535 HOV lane miles • Service area of 1,433 square miles 1 At a Glance The Extensive Bus System • Service in L.A. County as well as portions of Orange and Ventura Counties • Second largest bus system in the U.S. • Nearly 360 million boardings in FY13 • Twenty-five Metro Rapid corridors – Over 400 miles of express routes throughout the County – Buses have traffic signal priority and fewer stops to speed transit • The Metro Orange Line – 18-mile Bus Rapid Transit service that operates along an exclusive right-of way – Transports thousands of commuters between Warner Center in the west San Fernando Valley and the Chatsworth Amtrak/Metrolink Station to the North and the Metro Red Line subway station in North Hollywood • The Metro Silver Line – Express Bus service stretching over 26 miles from El Monte Station to Harbor Gateway Transit Center 2 At a Glance The Rail System Currently Consists of Six Rail Lines • Four light rail lines – Blue, Green, Gold, and Exposition serving 67 stations along 70.3 miles of track. • Two subway lines – Red and Purple, serving 16 stations along 17.4 miles of track. • Projects under construction – Expo 2 to Santa Monica – Gold Line Foothill Extension – Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor – Regional Connector – Westside Subway Extension Phase One 3 At a Glance The Rail System Currently Consists of Six Rail Lines 4 At a Glance Other Major Transportation Projects Across the County • Highway System Improvements – Freeway construction improvements- interchanges, widening and sound walls. – High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane program, in cooperation with Caltrans, funded through a combination of federal, State and local resources. – Metro ExpressLanes, a pilot program on I-10 and I-110 overseen by Metro, Caltrans and several other mobility partners to convert HOV lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. – Accelerated Regional Transportation Improvements (ARTI) P3 Project. • Metrolink Commuter Rail Line Fund Assistance – Funding partner with four other participating counties – Seven lines, totaling 512 miles and 55 stations. – Service to Riverside, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. • Other Metro Funded Projects – Freeway service patrols – Over 100 local return and non-profit agencies providing community based transportation. 5 At a Glance Metro’s Public Support Proposition A • ½ cent sales tax approved by voters in November 1980 with no sunset • Since inception, Proposition A has provided more than $14.4 billion for transportation funding1 Proposition C • ½ cent sales tax approved by voters in November 1990 with no sunset • Since inception, Proposition C has provided more than $11.7 billion for transportation funding1 Measure R • ½ cent sales tax approved by voters in November 2008 with 2/3 majority • 30-year sales tax expiring in 2039 • Commits a projected $34.5 billion to traffic relief and transportation upgrades 1Through FY2013 –Sales tax revenues less administrative fees paid to the State Board of Equalization 6 At a Glance Proposition A Sales Tax Revenues $800.0 $700.0 $600.0 $500.0 $400.0 $300.0 $200.0 $100.0 $‐ 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 *Proposition C and Measure R Revenues are historically similar to Proposition A Revenues 7 LOOKING FORWARD Long Range Planning 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan May 2013 Update Summary of Sources Measure R $ 34.6 B 14.3% Federal $ 34.5 B Local 14.3% $ 135.1 B 55.9% State $ 37.3 B 15.5% $241.5 Billion Total FY 2013 – FY 2040 9 Measure R 2008 Voters Approved Allocation of Measure R Revenues • Half-cent tax on all taxable sales throughout Los Angeles Rail Operations Metro Rail Capital County 5% 2% Local Return • Taxes are allocated to be spent on specific project needs 15% Rail and/or Bus and operational purposes as set forth on the right Metrolink Capital 3% 35% • Bondholders benefit from a pledge of 85% of all Sales Tax Collections Bus Operations 20% Highway Capital 20% 10 Measure R Ten Largest Transit and Highway Projects Estimated Cost Opening Project (in $Millions) Year Exposition Blvd. LRT Phase II $1,511 FY 2017 Gold Line Foothill LRT Extension 786 FY 2017 Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor 2,058 FY 2020 Regional Connector 1,399 FY 2021 Westside Subway Extension – Segment 1 2,861 FY 2023 Largest Transit Projects Subtotal $8,615 I-405 North Carpool Lanes from I-10 to US-101 $1,149 FY 2014 I-5 North Carpool Lanes from State Route 170 to State Route 134 608 FY 2016 I-5 South from Orange County Line to I-605 (includes Carmenita Interchange) 1,894 FY 2017 I-10 Carpool Lanes from I-605 to State Route 57 578 FY 2018 Alameda Corridor East 1,446 FY 2012+ Largest Highway Projects Subtotal $5,675 GRAND TOTAL $14,290 (As of May 2013) 11 Measure R Transit Capital Plan 12 Measure R Highway Plans 13 Long Range Planning Metro Continues to Issue and Seek New Funding • New capital projects will be funded through Measure R subject to the Long Range Transportation Plan • Metro continues to seek alternative funding sources for various projects – Secured a $545.9 million TIFIA loan for the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor – In final negotiations for $160 million TIFIA loan for Regional Connector project plus FFGA – Application in progress for $856 million Phase One of Westside Subway Extension • Metro issued $320 million of Proposition C new money bonds in calendar 2013, for two to three years of capital funding for highways. 14 CREDIT AND DEBT CHARACTERISTICS Metro Credit Debt Policy Guides Future Debt Issuance Measure R Debt Affordability Targets and Policy Limits Category Allowable Uses & Status Debt Policy Maximum 87% of MR Transit Capital – Transit Capital 35% – New Rail New Rail and/or Bus Rapid Transit. Initial issuance occurred in New Rail and/ or Bus Rapid CY2010. and/or Bus Rapid Transit Transit revenues. Transit Capital 3% – Metrolink Capital Operations, Maintenance and Expansion for system improvements, 87% of MR Transit Capital – Improvement Projects Within LA rail yards and rail cars. Currently no debt service. Issuance likely in Metrolink Capital County the future. Improvements in LA County. Transit Capital 2% – Metro Rail System improvements, rail yards and rail cars. Initial issuance 87% of MR Transit Capital – Capital 87% of MR Transit Capital occurred in CY2010. Metro Rail Capital Carpool lanes, highways, goods movement, grade separations and Highway Capital 20% – 60% of MR Highway Capital soundwalls. Currently no debt service. Issuance likely in the future. Rail operations for new transit project operations and maintenance. Operations 5% – Rail Operations No debt issuance. Currently no debt service. No debt issuance permitted. Bus operations for countywide bus service and maintenance. Operations 20% – Bus Operations No debt issuance. Currently no debt service. No debt issuance permitted. Major street resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction; pothole repair; left turn signals; bikeways, pedestrian improvements; Local Return 15% – N/A streetscapes; signal synchronization; and transit. Distributed to localities based on population. 16 Metro Credit Sales Tax Bonds – Security Features Prop A Prop C Measure R Payments secured by Payments secured by Payments secured by Trust Structure Trust Agreement/ Trust Agreement/ Trust Agreement/ Trustee intercept Trustee intercept Trustee intercept ½ cent sales tax ½ cent sales tax ½ cent sales tax approved 1980 (no approved 1990 (no approved 2008 (30 sunset) sunset) year sunset) Funding Source Approx. 75% (excludes Approx. 80% (excludes Approx. 85% (excludes 25% Local Jurisdiction 20% Local Jurisdiction 15% Local Jurisdiction and administrative and administrative and administrative fees) fees) fees) • First Tier Senior • Senior Bonds • Senior Bonds Bonds • Subordinate Bonds, • Subordinate Flow of Funds • Subordinate Bonds, Notes or Other Bonds, Notes or Notes or Other Obligations Other Obligations Obligations • TIFIA Loans 17 Metro Credit Outstanding Debt and Ratings Credit Outstanding Par Rating (Moody’s/S&P/Fitch) Prop A – 1st Tier Senior Bonds $1,249,900,000 Aa2/AAA/NR Prop A – 2nd Tier Senior Bonds 20,520,000 Aa3/AA-/NR Prop C – Senior Bonds 1,316,285,000 Aa3/AA+/AA Measure R – Senior Bonds 701,935,000 Aa2/AAA/NR General Revenue Bonds 148,685,000 A1/A/NR Prop A Commercial Paper 119,020,000 P-1/A-1 (Sumitomo/Union LOCs) Prop C Commercial Paper 21,594,000 P-1/A-1 (State Street LOC) Prop C Revolving Credit Facility 45,000,000 NR Outstanding Debt $3,622,939,000 18 Metro Credit Proposition A Sales Tax Coverage History (in $Millions) Metro Maintains Net Sales Tax Allocation to Local Pledged Senior Lien Year Revenue Governments Revenues Coverage 2007 $686.2 (171.5) $514.6 3.60x Strong Coverage 2008 683.4 (170.8) 512.5 3.47x 2009 620.8 (155.2) 465.6 3.03x • Historically, Metro has maintained 2010 565.7 (141.4) 424.3 2.71x strong coverage on its long term debt 2011 601.9 (150.5) 451.4 3.00x 2012 648.7 (162.2) 486.5 3.04x supported by Proposition A and 2013 687.2 (171.8) 515.4 3.39x Proposition C Proposition C Sales Tax Coverage History (in $Millions) • A portion of the sales tax collected per Net Sales Tax Allocation to Local Pledged Senior Lien Year Revenue Governments Revenues Coverage proposition is used for local agencies, 2007 $686.3 (137.3) $549.0 5.86x the remainder is pledged to pay the 2008 683.5 (136.7) 546.8 5.31x 2009 620.9 (124.2) 496.7 4.22x Sales Tax Revenue bonds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coalition Politics and the Expansion of L.A.'S Transit System
    Coalition Politics and the Expansion of L.A.’s Transit System By David Luberoff Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (center) celebrating the passage of Measure R in November 2008 with (from left to right): Tracy Rafter, Jerry Givens, Metro Board Member Richard Katz, Matt Raymond, Metro Board Member and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, Denny Zane, David Fleming, and Terence O’Day. This case was written by David Luberoff, Lecturer on Sociology at Harvard University, for the project on “Transforming Urban Transport – the Role of Political Leadership,” at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design (GSD), with financing from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF). Alan Altshuler, Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard emeritus, provided counsel and editing assistance. The author is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information in the case, which does not necessarily reflect the views of VREF or GSD. © 2016 The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Draft: May 2016; Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute Without Permission. Coalition Politics and the Expansion of LA’s Transit System Page 2 Table of Contents Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1 Context: Development and Transportation in Los Angeles ...................................................... 4 Getting the MTA Back on Track .............................................................................................. 8 Creating
    [Show full text]
  • S&W Levitt VRA Counsel
    Proposal to the Citizens Redistricting Commission Voting Rights Act Counsel Response to Request for Information for Legal Services January 29, 2021 STRUMWASSER ~ WOOCHER LLP PROFESSOR JUSTIN LEVITT Justin Levitt Strumwasser & Woocher LLP Burns 335 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, California 90024 Los Angeles, California 90015 (310) 576-1233 (213) 736-7417 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Personnel Proposed for Engagement ............................................................................................... 1 Fredric D. Woocher ............................................................................................................................. 1 Professor Justin Levitt ......................................................................................................................... 2 Michael J. Strumwasser ........................................................................................................................ 2 Andrea Sheridan Ordin ....................................................................................................................... 3 Dale K. Larson ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Salvador E. Pérez ................................................................................................................................. 4 2a. About Strumwasser & Woocher LLP ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 50 Years To
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 50 Years to the Wilshire Subway: The Political and Social Discourse Surrounding the Development of the Purple Line Extension THESIS submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Urban and Regional Planning by Olivia Harris Thesis Committee: Associate Professor Douglas Houston, Chair Assistant Professor Nicholas Marantz Associate Professor Walter Nicholls 2017 © 2017 Olivia Harris Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... v ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS ................................................................................................................ vi 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Megaprojects: Overview, History, and Urban Theory ....................................................... 4 2.1.1 Overview of Mega-projects ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail
    TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PASSENGER RAIL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TECHNICAL REPORT DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3 ANALYTICAL APPROACH 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 STRATEGIES 27 NEXT STEPS 44 CONCLUSION 45 TECHNICAL REPORT PASSENGER RAIL DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT connectsocal.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This Connect SoCal Passenger Rail report lays out a vision of passenger rail services for the SCAG Region for the next three decades. It demonstrates Passenger Rail the progress that has been made over the last two decades in terms of growing ridership, new rail services, capital improvements and new funding opportunities. It demonstrates the regional importance and significance of passenger rail in the SCAG region, and why growing rail services by increasing frequencies in underserved corridors, as well as establishing service in unserved markets, is crucial to the future mobility and sustainability of our region. The report highlights recent success in establishing new funding opportunities for passenger rail, including the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and Senate Bill (SB) 1. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner intercity rail service is benefiting from these new funding opportunities as well as recent institutional arrangements that establish local control for the service. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s (SCRRA) Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) program is an ambitious
    [Show full text]
  • Measure M and the Potential Transformation of Mobility in Los Angeles
    MEASURE M AND THE POTENTIAL TRANSFORMATION OF MOBILITY IN LOS ANGELES A Research Report from the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Prepared for the TransitCenter, New York, New York PROJECT ID: 2017-01 | DOI:10.7922/G2VT1Q80 i ABOUT THE UC ITS The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS) is a network of faculty, research and administrative staff, and students dedicated to advancing the state of the art in transportation engineering, planning, and policy for the people of California. Established by the Legislature in 1947, ITS has branches at UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UCLA. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was funded primarily by TransitCenter, with supplemental funding coming from the State of California’s SB1 Research Program. I thank Steven Higashide at TransitCenter for valuable comments and insight throughout the process. I also thank Ana Duran for valuable research assistance, as well as the numerous UCLA Masters’ students who helped survey transit riders. LA Metro helpfully provided me with data. Tom Rubin, Dan Chatman and Adam Levine all gave helpful comments. Seminar participants at Cornell University also improved the argument, as did Donald Shoup. Miriam Pinksi and Marty Wachs each read an entire draft and provided valuable feedback. Esther Huang, heroically, proofread the entire thing. All errors are my own. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the State of California in the interest of information exchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Westside Purple Line Extension Section 2 Los Angeles, California (December 2016)
    Westside Purple Line Extension Section 2 Los Angeles, California (December 2016) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is constructing a 2.59-mile, double track heavy rail transit line below Wilshire Boulevard in the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills with two new underground stations, as well as the purchase of 20 heavy rail vehicles. The two new stations will be located at Wilshire/Rodeo Drive and Century City Constellation area. The Project is the second section of a planned 8.9 mile extension (to be built in three sections) of the Metro Purple Line to Westwood/Department of Veteran Affairs Hospital complex. Hours of operation in the opening year of 2026 will be from 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM on Sunday through Thursday, and from 5:00 AM to 2:00 AM on Friday and Saturday. In the horizon year of 2035, hours of operation will be from 4:30 AM to 1:30 AM on weekdays and weekends. Service will be provided using four- car train consists every four minutes during weekday peak periods and every ten minutes during weekday off- peak periods and weekends in both the opening year and the horizon year of 2035. The estimated daily ridership on the Project is 21,600 daily linked trips. This number is expected to grow to 36,100 daily linked trips by 2035. The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $2,499.24 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding amount is $1,187.00 million. Status Following completion of an alternatives analysis in January 2009 and publication of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in September 2010, the LACMTA board selected an 8.9-mile heavy rail extension as the locally preferred alternative in October 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • ACEC LA Luncheon May 22, 2019
    ACEC LA Luncheon May 22, 2019 BRIAN BOUDREAU SR. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PROGRAM CONTROL Metro’s Program Management oversees 100+ projects totaling over $18.3 B. Annual Program Evaluation (APE) - Each year staff completes an annual evaluation of Metro’s capital program; reports to the Board any project budget and schedule changes. • Brings greater consistency, transparency, and discipline to Board/public • Facilitates financial planning • Reduces number of requests to Board for budget adjustment APE includes 63 projects & ~$18.1 B approved project budgets. APE focuses on capital projects, managed by Program Management, with a total project cost greater than $5M: • 9 Major Transit Construction Projects, 23 Other Transit Capital Projects, 5 Regional Rail Projects, and 26 Highway Program 2 • Metro Chair Garcetti announced the “Twenty- Eight by ‘28 Initiative” to highlight projects for completion by the 2028 Olympic/Paralympic Games • The Board approved the Twenty-eight by ‘28 project list • The Initiative includes Measure R, Measure M and other projects already slated for completion by 2028 • The Initiative also includes “aspirational” project schedules that propose to be accelerated by 2028 3 • The 2028 Olympic Games is an opportunity to advocate for accelerated resources, to achieve early project delivery. • By identifying projects with aspirational schedules alongside projects already planned to be delivered by 2028, the Board would be highlighting—but not committing—those projects for early project delivery. • Inclusion on the list does not supersede commitments made in Measure M. • List Overview – 17 projects already slated for completion – 8 project schedules are deemed “aspirational” – 3 additional projects that require resources 4 Project Est.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA Thursday, April 30, 2015 — 2:30 P.M
    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS A Joint Powers Authority AD HOC TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Thursday, April 30, 2015 — 2:30 p.m. Valley Municipal Building, Council Chambers 14410 Sylvan Street, 2nd Floor Van Nuys, California 91401 MEMBERS Chair: Councilmember Jess Talamantes, City of Burbank Supervisor Mike Antonovich, 5th District, County of Los Angeles Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, 3rd District, City of Los Angeles Councilmember Felipe Fuentes, 7th District, City of Los Angeles Councilmember Paul Krekorian, 2nd District, City of Los Angeles Mayor Marsha McLean, City of Santa Clarita OPEN SESSION 1. CALL TO ORDER — Jess Talamantes, Chair 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REGULAR CALENDAR At the discretion of the SFVCOG Committee Chair, all items appearing on this Agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the SFVCOG. 4. LOS ANGELES RIVER MASTER USE AGREEMENT (Attachment A) Requested Action: Recommend the Board of Directors adopt a resolution to support the creation of a Master Use Agreement. 6. UPDATE ON HIGH SPEED RAIL (Attachment B) Requested Action: Consideration of support of a station in the SFVCOG Region 7. APPOINTMENTS: SCAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Requested Action: Recommend that the Board of Directors vote to appoint Glendale Mayor Zareh Sinanyan to the SCAG Transportation Committee San Fernando Valley Council of Governments ad hoc Transportation Committee Meeting Agenda - Thursday, April 30, 2015 8. CREATE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST Requested Action: Determine Transportation Priorities for the SFVCOG Region to be transmitted to the full SFVCOG Board for adoption and transmittal to Metro. 9. FUTURE MEETINGS: AGENDA ITEMS & DATES Requested Action: Set next meetings and potential agenda items.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles, Ca
    LOS ANGELES, CA Transportation Funding Initiative Election Cycle: November 6, 2012 Title of Legislation: Measure J—a ballot measure which required two-thirds threshold to pass. Summary of Ballot Measures Measure R (2008): This ballot measure was an extension of Measure R, which was a ballot measure that passed in 2008, and it created a ½ cent County sales tax for a 30-year period—from 2009 to 2039. Measure R used the new revenue for transportation projects, where 35% were used for rail/rapid transit, 20% were used for highway projects, 20% for bus operations, 15% for local street system maintenance projects, and 10% for Metrolink, Metrorail and other rail projects. Measure R’s Political Consulting Firm: SCN Strategies “SCN ran the campaign for LA County's Measure R, which achieved the tough 2/3rds threshold for a half-cent county sales tax, establishing a $40 billion funding stream for mass transit and highways.’1 Measure J (2012): This 2012 ballot measure proposed extending Measure R from 2039 to 2069. Measure J would use the 15% of local project funding for 88 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. Measure J was very similar to Measure R, except that Measure J changed a provision about transferring funds. With a 2/3 approval from the Metropolitan Transit Authority board, Measure J proposed allowing the MTA to transfer net revenues back and forth from the Transit Capital Subfund and the Highway Capital Subfund —within the same sub-regions. Previously, with a 2/3 vote starting in 2019, Measure R allowed the Metropolitan Transit Authority to transfer funds between the highway and transit funds once every ten years.
    [Show full text]
  • 15-0002-S213 Title: Measure M / Instituting a New Half-Cent Sales
    Public Comment Re: 15-0002-S213 Title: Measure M / Instituting a New Half-Cent Sales Tax / Regional Transportation and Transit Projects {Exempt From Filing Fee • gotms 'Government Code § 6103] At^lSO 1 ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP SUNNY K. SOLTANI, State Bar No. 209774 2 ssoltani@awattorneys. com G. ROSS TRINDLE, Hi, State Bar No. 228654 FILED 3 gtrindle@awattorneys. com Superior Court of California CHRISTOPHER F. NEUMEYER, State Bar No. 257599 Countv of Cos An poles 4 cneumeyer(3>awattorneys. com AUG ^2016 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475 5 El Segundo, California 90245 Sherri R, Carter, Executive ulficer/Clerfc Telephone: (310) 527-6660 Bv M M?______ Deputy 6 Facsimile: (310) 532-7395 Moses Soto Attorneys for Petitioners, City of Carson, City of Norwalk, City of Torrance, City of Santa Fe Springs, City of Signal Hill, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Estates, City of Commerce, Jovito Morales, 1-5 Consortium Cities SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CITY OF CARSON, a public entity; CITY OF Case No. fiS 1 6 4 5 5 4 NORWALK, a public entity; CITY OF TORRANCE, a public entity; CITY OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE SANTA FE SPRINGS, a public entity; CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, a public entity; CITY OF (California Elections Code §§ 9051(b), 9105, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a public entity; 9106,13119(b), 13314; California Code of CITY OF COMMERCE, a public entity; Civil Procedure § 1085) JOVITO MORALES, an individual; 1-5 CONSORTIUM CITIES, a joint powers [DEEMED VERIFIED PER CALIFORNIA authority, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 446] Petitioners, v.
    [Show full text]
  • AB 811 Page 1
    AB 811 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 26, 2021 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Laura Friedman, Chair AB 811 (Luz Rivas) – As Amended April 6, 2021 SUBJECT: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: contracting SUMMARY: Repeals a requirement for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to adopt a finding, with a two-thirds vote, that awarding specified contracts will achieve certain private sector efficiencies in the integration of design, project work, and components. Specifically, this bill: 1) Removes this finding requirement for contracts that combine all or some of the planning, design, permitting, development, joint development, construction, construction management, acquisition, leasing, installation, and warranty of all or components of: a) Transit systems, including, without limitation, passenger loading or intermodal station facilities. b) Facilities on real property owned or to be owned by the authority. 2) Retains the finding requirement for these specified contracts that also include operation and maintenance elements, if the inclusion of these elements is: a) Necessary to assess vendor representations and warranties, performance guarantees, or life-cycle efficiencies. b) Does not conflict with collective bargaining agreements to which LA Metro is a party. EXISTING LAW: 1) Allows LA Metro to enter into contracts with private entities, the scope of which may combine within a single contract all or some of the planning, design, permitting, development, joint development, construction, construction management, acquisition, leasing, installation, and warranty of all or components of (1) transit systems, including, without limitation, passenger loading or intermodal station facilities, and (2) facilities on real property owned or to be owned by the authority.
    [Show full text]
  • 28 by 2028 Critique Final Edit
    A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LOS ANGELES METRO’S 28 BY 2028 PLAN Preface The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the surface transportation planning and funding agency for the largest county (by population) in the United States, and is the operator of the nation’s third largest public transit system. The Metro Board has adopted the 28 by 2028 Plan (the Plan), which comprehends the completion of 28 major transportation construction projects prior to the beginning of the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. This proposal accelerates eight projects for completion by 2028 in addition to the 20 specified in measure M, the 2016 County transportation half-cent sales tax ballot measure. The plan was presented to the Metro Board of Directors and approved at the Board’s February 28, 2019 meeting. Metro has a long history of over-promising and then failing to deliver on such projects, ultimately making conditions worse for Los Angeles transit users. The 28 by 2028 proposal appears to continue this pattern. This paper is the “Directors’ Cut” of a series of summaries of the critiques of individual aspects of the Plan originally commissioned and published by Reason Foundation1. While many of the contents are identical, the differences include: • This Directors’ Cut is presented in a single document, which some users will find easier to use for their purposes. • Some recent events were incorporated. • Some errors were corrected. • Some graphics were improved. • Lists of tables and figures are provided. • Tables and figures are numbered consecutively throughout the paper, rather than restarting for each chapter.
    [Show full text]