Opinion: Spread-out L.A. may not be New York, but it still needs a large rail network

To the editor: Aaron Renn is correct that federal funds should go mainly toward maintaining existing rail transit lines instead of building new ones. He is wrong, however, to say that the rail network in Los Angeles County should not be expanded. (“The U.S. doesn’t need new rail. We need to fix the transit lines we already have,” Opinion, May 8)

I disagree with his assessment that urban rail works best only in cities with large central business districts. Los Angeles has some of the greatest density in the nation served by light rail and subway networks. These lines service single-family home neighborhoods such as Pasadena, West L.A., Crenshaw, Hollywood and other communities.

The Los Angeles region comprises numerous business centers, not just a single major downtown area. I live near the business district around LAX and take buses and trains to the business districts of Santa Monica, downtown Los Angeles, Wilshire and El Segundo.

Matthew Hetz, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Renn notes that The Times places the cost of Los Angeles rail projects at $9 billion.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority conceals many costs of major capital projects in general overhead rather than charging costs to specific projects. Thanks to this and other nonstandard accounting practices, it is difficult to determine exactly what Metro has spent on rail, but a meaningful estimate is possible.

Accounting for hidden costs, expressing past costs in current-year dollars, and accounting for current-year operating costs, debt service and capital replacement, Metro’s cumulative rail costs are more than $25 billion for all lines operating and currently in construction.

James E. Moore II, Los Angeles

The writer is director of USC’s transportation engineering program.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook