ORANGE COUNTY VOICES TRANSPORTATION : Transit Options Must Deal With Real World : People keep talking about a European- or Eastern-type rail system. But most citizens don’t want that high-density life style.

A county in conflict? That perhaps is the best way to describe the dilemma regarding alternative modes of transportation vs. land-use designations within Orange County. Few will disagree that our road network is the backbone of the Orange County transportation system. Likewise, most citizens agree that the road system needs improvement.

What is the conflict? The conflict is an attempt to build a central, city-oriented rail system in a suburban multicity community where the population is dispersed, housing is low- to moderate-density and business activity centers are decentralized. It’s the square peg in a round hole.

Specifically, we must develop a transit system compatible with existing land-use realities or make a change in those policies to accommodate a mass transit system capable of moving a large number of people in specific corridors.

People keep talking about a European- or Eastern-type rail system. If we had such a system, we would be a New York City, Paris, London, San Francisco or even Los Angeles. But we’re not, and most citizens don’t want that high-density life style.

We have with purpose created many business activity centers, in more than 30 cities or communities, in an attempt to reduce long-distance commuting. While this has met with some success, we continue in our attempt to encourage people to live closer to work. It’s not a perfect world, but that has been the strategy of county and most city governments for many years.

Thus the commute or driving patterns associated with the Orange County land-use decisions are dramatically different from that of a core central-city, business-district orientation.

Therefore we must not create a conflict between the reality of Orange County commute patterns and the desire to be “uptown” or “vogue.” Community after community throughout America has fallen into that trap, and they now find themselves deep in debt because they built a high-density central business-district system that was incompatible with the local land-use commute patterns.

Everyone is fascinated with the rail and the monorail concept. So am I, but let’s deal with the real world.

Our options are very straightforward. Either develop a system based on present land-use configurations, or up front, make the appropriate land-use and life-style changes to make a particular system work and not be a tax burden.

San Francisco is the most ideal example of transit accommodating community in the Western United States, and yet the BART system, before the earthquake, had only a 37% fare-box return based on daily operating expenses. That does not include any costs relating to debt service. The system was built with taxpayer dollars and is subsidized daily by 63% operating expenses. That’s reality.

Now, what are some of our transit options because we clearly cannot accommodate one person per automobile on our road system?

Some suggest a rail system similar to the old Red Car line. Such a system has frequent stops, and passengers simply walk to a neighborhood pickup area. Buses with the ability to alter routes with ease due to the absences of fixed rails replaced the Red Car. A return to the Red Car would just mean that a rider would take the Red Car instead of a bus.

Is the cost of revamping an entire system by laying fixed rail or installing overhead electrification worth the costs? An alternative is to improve the bus system, utilize van-type bus vehicles and offer a more comprehensive neighborhood door-to-door service.

Once you go beyond the Red Car or bus system, accompanied by high-occupancy-vehicle commuter lanes to encourage car pooling, you’re into high-capacity people movers, which trigger a host of policy decisions beyond the mode of transportation itself. In addition to the life-style changes in affected neighborhoods, some of the policy considerations that must be addressed when considering high-capacity transit systems include:

* Development of a feeder system to get enough people to the fixed system and deliver them to destination points from the nearest station. This convenience factor is the most critical component to the success of a fixed-rail transit system.

* Land acquisition and providing ample parking close to stations.

* Increasing capacity of the road networks leading to and around the station to accommodate additional traffic.

* Aligning routes and securing public support.

* Funding, including initial capital costs, cost overruns and the ability to locally subsidize in perpetuity operating expenses, recognizing that fare-box return will probably cover only 30% to 40% of daily operating expenses.

These are but a few of the most significant issues that need addressing if we choose to dramatically alter the living environment of Orange County with the introduction of central-core, city-type transit.

We all desire an effective transportation system in Orange County. We can develop that system, but we must forthrightly address the real policy issues that are associated with each option.

While this seems logical, most communities nationwide have adopted expensive systems with great appeal while ignoring fundamental issues. The result was an indebted, under-utilized system.

By doing the process in a proper manner, we will make the right decision and stand out as a model; the conflict between transit and land-use will not be institutionalized, from which there is no turning back; and taxpayer funds, investor capital and dedicated fees will be properly utilized.