Measure M (2016)

Measure M (2016) was a half-cent sales tax measure approved by voters in Los Angeles County, California on November 8, 2016. The measure authorized a permanent increase in the countywide sales tax to fund an expanded regional metropolitan transportation investment program, extend funding for highway and transit projects, and accelerate planning for rapid transit expansions. Backers framed the measure as essential to support projects proposed by agencies such as the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metrolink, and the Southern California Association of Governments.

Background and ballot placement

Measure M emerged amid long-running debates involving the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and earlier transportation measures such as Proposition A (1980), Proposition C (1990), and countywide initiatives like Measure R (2008). The proposal was developed during planning processes led by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Mayor's office under Eric Garcetti, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (California) board, and regional planners at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Fiscal analyses referenced the work of the California State Auditor, the Legislative Analyst's Office (California), and consultants with experience on projects including the Metro Expo Line, Metro Gold Line (Pasadena), and Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project. The placement of Measure M on the November 2016 ballot followed ordinance and resolution votes by county officials and coordination with municipal leaders in Long Beach, California, Pasadena, California, Beverly Hills, California, and other jurisdictions.

Provisions and funding mechanisms

Measure M authorized a permanent half-cent sales tax increase in Los Angeles County, California to fund a prioritized project list and a countywide transit innovation fund. The measure created new funding streams administered by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, with allocations to existing operators such as Metrolink, LA Metro Rail, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and municipal transit districts including Foothill Transit and the Orange County Transportation Authority. It included provisions for matching state and federal funds from agencies like the California Transportation Commission, the Federal Transit Administration, and grant programs such as those administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Specific capital projects funded under the measure included extensions and enhancements related to the Purple Line, East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project, and improvements to the I-405 (California) corridor, with governance involving the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California only peripherally through regional planning linkages. Measure M also established requirements for local return to cities and accountability measures overseen by watchdogs including civic groups and auditors such as the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller.

Campaign and endorsements

The Measure M campaign featured a coalition of public officials, labor unions, business groups, and transit advocates. Endorsements came from figures and institutions including Eric Garcetti, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the SEIU Local 721, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and advocacy organizations that had previously supported projects like the Expo Line and Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project. Opposition voices included taxpayer groups and local fiscal watchdogs with ties to organizations such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and some municipal officials from suburbs skeptical of transit allocations aligned with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Campaign advertising, mailers, and public debates involved consultants and firms with experience from campaigns like those for Measure R (2008) and statewide measures such as Proposition 1 (2014). National actors with interests in infrastructure investment, including officials from the U.S. Department of Transportation and prominent urbanists who had worked on New York City Subway planning, weighed in indirectly through policy endorsements and commentary.

Election results and implementation

Voters approved Measure M by a substantial margin on November 8, 2016, joining prior county measures that shaped regional transit funding. The measure's passage allowed the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to initiate funding flows, bond issuances, and contractual arrangements with construction firms and engineering firms involved in projects similar to those on the Purple Line and Expo Line extensions. Implementation required coordination with state actors such as the California High-Speed Rail Authority where corridor interactions existed, and with federal agencies including the Federal Transit Administration for New Starts and Small Starts grant applications. Early implementation milestones included programming funds into the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (California)’s Long Range Transportation Plan and entering preconstruction phases for projects in the Measure M program.

Impact and controversies

Measure M significantly increased predictable local revenue for transit and highway projects, influencing capital planning across Los Angeles County, California and shaping priorities for operators like Metrolink and LA Metro Rail. The increased funding accelerated several projects but also sparked controversies over project selection, cost estimates, and the balance between highway expansions and rail investments — disputes reminiscent of debates over projects such as improvements to I-405 (California) and the expansion of the Metro Gold Line (Pasadena). Critics pointed to concerns about cost overruns on large transit projects comparable to those experienced on the Big Dig in Boston and the Somerset Street Tunnel in other regions, and raised governance questions about oversight comparable to controversies that had affected agencies like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York). Supporters argued that Measure M enabled a transformative decade of investment, citing comparisons to infrastructure investments in metropolitan areas such as San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle, Washington. Legal challenges and municipal negotiations over local return formulas produced litigation and settlements involving city attorneys from locales including Long Beach, California and Pasadena, California.

Category:Los Angeles County transportation