Transit? Or a Bike Path Fit for King?

The debate over light rail in Los Angeles has thus far been portrayed as a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon.

By dwelling on noise, visual blight and the possible impact on property values, the fundamental question of whether light rail is an effective solution to our transportation crisis is missed. Granted, the Ventura Freeway is the world’s largest parking lot and the Westside’s “rush hour” is around the clock. But is light rail a solution or a technical fix that misses its mark and leaves us poorer and still gridlocked?

The Los Angeles City Council and the County Transportation Commission are opting for light rail in the San Fernando Valley along either Chandler Boulevard or the Ventura Freeway, and on the Westside along Exposition Boulevard.

We need ridership studies to determine whether light-rail systems on these corridors will actually woo drivers out of their cars, or merely transfer bus riders onto light-rail trains. Yet both the City Council and the County Transportation Commission support purchasing the right of way for these light-rail lines now, just on the hunch that they might be useful sometime in the future. To stem the opposition of concerned residents, they argue (facetiously) that the land could become a linear park or a bike path if not used for light rail.

The estimated cost of acquiring the Exposition Boulevard right of way alone would be $70 million, according to a Santa Monica official. That would make it the world’s most expensive bike path. Are we planning and funding parks, or trying to solve our transportation problem?

If the rights of way are not purchased, the city and county reason, then development could occur. Apparently these transportation pundits do not appreciate the fact that in many instances the local community would find development, particularly if it were single-family housing, preferable to the status quo--the present eyesore of abandoned right of way or a light-rail line with its attendant consequences. If elected officials truly fear development, then they can rezone this land to protect the residential community.

Or, perhaps the railroads are land-banking and want to transfer development rights to a project downtown?

Purchasing railroad right of way is justifiable only if this significantly helps to solve our transportation problem. If not, we must find other solutions--increased subsidies for bus riders, modernized bus fleets burning clean fuels, expanded bus service and better security for riders. What would be the effect of dedicating certain streets exclusively to bus traffic and providing bus lanes on freeways? Compare this with the capital costs of acquiring a rail right of way and new trains.

Other cities have been bolder in dealing with gridlock. In Seattle, for example, you need a permit to drive into certain areas on selected days. Bus ridership has skyrocketed. Similarly, during rush hours, some highways leading out of Washington are restricted exclusively to car pools of three or more persons and taxis.

The debate over light rail must be based on hard evidence that it will work, not whether the price is right. Only if the answer is affirmative should we begin to evaluate the environmental impacts of developing a light-rail line. At that point there should be an environmental impact report on the acquisition of the right of way as well as the hardware that would be placed upon it, with mitigation measures clearly spelled out regarding noise abatement (trenching, rubber wheels, levitation), landscaping (berming), and diminished property value (compensation if necessary).

In an era of collapsing infrastructure, medical-service cuts, gang crimes, homelessness, a school drop-out rate that is the highest in the nation and the worst air quality in the country, our city and county cannot afford to waste money. We must determine the most effective means of moving our citizens around in an environmentally safe manner. Perhaps it is light-rail, perhaps not. Show us!