OCTA is on the wrong track with light-rail plan

OC Register, Aug 15, 1999

The process to develop a 28 mile light rail system in Orange County continues at a steady pace while more and more citizens question the desirability of the project. This fall the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) will submit an environmental impact report and make a decision on whether to proceed with the light rail system and which route to build. The OCTA has taken a strong position in favor of the light rail and so the only real decision appears to be which route to select. Not all the public is convinced and so the OCTA has been on a major campaign to sway the majority to its side. To do so OCTA has raised a number of specious arguments for their case.

The early argument, and one which would have real merit if true, was that light rail contributes significantly and effectively to reducing traffic congestion and addressing future transportation needs of the county. From surveys taken and letters to the editor, OCTA's campaign to convince the public of such benefits was successful for many people. OCTAs estimate of 55,000 daily rides (the number of riders are about half this) may sound like a large number to some, but it is minute compared to our traffic levels, and a fraction of the capacity of any freeway or our bus system. Switching 20,000 bus riders and 7,500 car riders to rail is not worth $1.8 billion. Unfortunately the information which demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the rail has not been advertised. The fact is the effectiveness argument is not true and even OCTA appears to now be convinced. They have indicated that the rail objective is not congestion relief, and have changed to other arguments such as; "We need to provide choice", " We cant keep building roads" , and rail is a key ingredient in "transit oriented development". These cliches may be politically correct but are just shallow statements.

Take "choice" for example. If choice is the goal, then why not balloons, pogo sticks and horses. Choice is a valid objective when the subject is a matter of taste like food, and entertainment. Transportation is not a matter of taste, it is a necessary part of our infrastructure to maintain our health, economy and standard of living. Not everyone is able or desires to use the most common means of transportation, the automobile, and for that important part of our community we need to provide an effective means of transportation. Public transit is a recognized and accepted element of Orange County transportation structure. Orange County has demonstrated its commitment to both bus and Metrolink service. But this is not "choice", it is providing transportation means and accessibility to all our citizens. This is a very specific goal while "choice" is a bottomless pit. Within public transit there are efficient and effective components and there are inefficient components. If we are to provide the best service for the most people we need to be very selective in which systems we put forward and fund.

What we need is not "choice" but the "best choice". If we had the option of selecting between developing two poor performing new systems or one good but old one, which do you think we should select? Our bus system has proven to be responsive to the demands of our transit dependent population. It is relatively economical, easily adjustable to changing demands and almost as fast as rail. An average transit trip is only about 3.5 miles. The difference in trip time for a 12 mph bus vs. a 20 mph train is only 7 minutes and an extra transfer or longer walk to the less frequent rail stations evaporates any time savings. Express bus systems with many of the operating features of light rail can approach rail speeds at a fraction of the cost. For the same cost as rail, many more bus routes, more frequent service, express buses, smart shuttles and other improvements could be provided.

The oft repeated axiom, "we cant keep building roads" is also false. If we are concerned that we have run out of ideas or space to add roads then one should consider OCTA's long range plan, the Fast Forward plan, which addresses future transportation needs. OCTA is aware of numerous possible roadway and transit additions that would go a long way to address our future needs. Unfortunately projected funding is not enough for all the projects. By eliminating the $1.8 billion rail we would almost halve this funding shortfall.

And what about high density integrated work/shop/ live communities referred to as transit oriented development? I had thought that transit oriented development was to be a benefit of building rail. But an article distributed by OCTA states that we need to promote development around stations because," To make a transit system economically viable, a sufficient number of riders must live and work near transit stops." Translate "promote" as "subsidize". A ride along the Los Angeles Blue Line will expose how rail does not by itself promote development.