News & Reviews News Wire LA Metro seeks $1.9 billion from California for three light rail projects

LA Metro seeks $1.9 billion from California for three light rail projects

By Trains Staff | December 7, 2022

| Last updated on February 10, 2024

Funding would come from state’s rail capital program

Email Newsletter

Get the newest photos, videos, stories, and more from Trains.com brands. Sign-up for email today!

Illustration of light rail train running in street
A rendering of the East San Fernando Valley light rail project that is one of three included in LA Metro’s request for $1.9 billion in funding from the state of California. LA Metro

LOS ANGELES — The LA Metro board has submitted a package seeking $1.9 billion in funding from the state of California for three light rail projects, Metro announced today (Wednesday, Dec. 7).

The funds would come from the state’s Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. Funding from that program is expected to be awarded on Jan. 31, 2023.

The application from Metro includes:

— $600 million for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, a 9-mile light rail line between the G (Orange) Line bus rapid transit Van Nuys station and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station.

— $798 million for the L (Gold) Line Foothill Extension Project in the San Gabriel Valley between Pomona  — to be reached by an under-construction extension from Azusa — and the city of Montclair.

— $500 million for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor, a 19.3-mile light rail line between Artesia and L.A. Union Station.

Metro said its staff and board selected these projects because they best meet the criteria for the state program: state of project readiness, improving transit inequities in vunerable communities, and significant federal and/or local funds already committed.

“These are transformational projects that will bring faster, more frequent transit and better mobility to important areas of Los Angeles County that are long overdue to receive rail projects,” said Glendale City Council Member and Metro Board Chair Ara J. Najarian. “These projects will also help complete the Metro transit network with better connections to local buses, Metrolink regional rail, jobs, schools and other important destinations.”

11 thoughts on “LA Metro seeks $1.9 billion from California for three light rail projects

  1. Drop in the bucket compared to Hwys – 80% of the Infrastructure Bill money going to Hwys because drivers didn’t want to pay their fair tax share at the pump yet expect transit users to pay up for theirs – “Do as I say not as I do” mentality. Drivers “own” the billions of $$ added to the deficit that some will try & reduce by cutting Soc Sec & Medicare & other basic human needs.

  2. The mistakes of the past are haunting Southern California and Los Angeles by foolishly getting rid of the Pacific Electric system and listening to urban planners who thought that the automobile was the answer to the transportation problem by building miles of freeways and just about eliminating all public transit in the area. Now as well as having over congested highways as well as a massive environmental problem bordering on disaster with smog and pollution, trying to build a new transit network is costing the taxpayers of Southern California billions of dollars as well as cost overruns. Had the Pacific Electric system benn maintained with some reduction in money losing lines while upgrading the lines that had good ridership with new equipment and new technology, it would not have cost the billions now being spent to just build only a fraction of what the Pacific Electric had. It almost happened in New York when urban planners like Robert Moses who had a big ego wanted to replace all public transit with highways and the automoblie. Lucky enough for New York he didn’t completely get his way. New York didn’t suffer the fate like Los Angeles and Southern California did by going all out on freeways and automobiles. Now L A and Southern California are paying for their costly mistakes and far out plans The past has a way of coming back to haunt you
    Joseph C. Markfelder

  3. ” $798 million for the L (Gold) Line Foothill Extension Project in the San Gabriel Valley between Pomona — to be reached by an under-construction extension from Azusa — and the city of Montclair.”

    How many people here know that Pomona and Montclair border each other? In fact, part the border between them is Indian Hill Blvd. The east side is Montclair, the west side is Pomona. One has to ask what they plan on spending $798 million of taxpayer funds on…

  4. o yea sure good luck calif wasted money on the high speed rail so they need to take care of that before any money for this thought calif has a big money deficit

    1. You may want to fact-check your post.

      “At the time of the Governor’s budget, and under the administration’s revenue estimates, we estimated the Governor had a $29 billion surplus to allocate in the 2022‑23 budget process. This surplus was nearly entirely the result of higher revenue collections and estimates compared to 2021 budget projections.”

    2. You may want to look at future budget projections as well as Generally Accepted accounting standards. Too, look at the inconvenient fact that every single state and local unit of government “balances” its books with federal grants — which are kept afloat by borrowed federal money and might not continue into the future. By those three measures, California is functionally bankrupt.

    3. Charles, the same principle was codified into federal law for Amtrak with PRIIA. Payments from the various states for the state supported corridor trains make the official Amtrak deficit appear to be lower than what probably (no one really knows from their GAAP-less books) really is!

      In order to balance its budget, California is overly dependent upon a small group of ultra-high income individuals, who earn most of their money from exercising stock options, for a disproportionate share of its overall revenue and income tax revenue in particular. Stock options rise and fall with the stock market. If you removed the Silicon Valley from CA, we would be as economically viable as Detroit. We have lost most of our middle class. Since the $29 billion surplus was forecast, our state doled out a “Middle Class Tax Cut”. Now the forecast is lower, and a deficit looms.

    4. JOHN — Thanks for the note. Since federally aided capital projects for the various modes of transport (trolleys, subways, Amtrak, even freight railroads) don’t count as the subsidy for each ticket, they’re even more subsidized than it seems.

      One only needs to read each day’s Trains.com News Wire. Chicago CREATE is very expensive. It’s off the budget of both Amtrak and METRA. I’m not against subsidy for public transportation. All I’m asking is to give one clear and true number what the amount of subsidy is. As for Amtrak, add the state subsidy, the federal subsidy, the local cost of stations, and the federal capital outlays for track improvements and so forth, to get the actual amount the taxpayers underwrite each fare. It won’t be pretty.

You must login to submit a comment