Q & A : Galanter Promotes Airport for Palmdale to Limit LAX Growth

Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles city councilwoman

Claim to Fame: In her second term on the council, representing a district stretching from

Venice south to Los Angeles International Airport and inland as far as Crenshaw area.

Background: Since her election in 1987, she has clashed repeatedly with LAX officials over plans to expand the airport and increase the number of passengers served. She has warned of possible safety and environmental consequences of such growth, including gridlock on already congested streets and increased aircraft noise.

Interviewer: Times staff writer Jeffrey L. Rabin

Q: LAX is one of the world’s biggest airports. It is an enormous employment center, and it’s absolutely vital to the L.A. economy. But for the last 4 1/2 years you’ve been doing battle with the airport. Do you believe it is a bad neighbor?

A: It could be a lot better neighbor. Most of my battles with the airport have been with the plans for future growth. The existing airport has pretty much hit its limit. I don’t think there’s room in the air for the planes, and I certainly don’t think there is room on the ground to bring the people and cargo in and out that they are talking about adding to the existing load. So, I’ve been pushing them to think ahead and get prepared to absorb all that projected growth (at a new regional airport) in Palmdale or elsewhere.

Q: Are you saying that the current level of 45 million passengers a year is LAX’s limit?

A: I cannot get a clear answer as to the limits of safety. Remember, we had a crash a year ago. Following that crash, we asked the airport operations people and some of the emergency response people a lot of questions. The only answer I could get to the question of how many more flights we can take was, “That’s the FAA’s department.” I said, “Fine, let’s ask the FAA.” Well, the Federal Aviation Administration won’t give us an answer. I’m not sure they know the answer. The fact that nobody is willing to say it is safe makes me very nervous.

Q: I gather you also think LAX has reached its capacity on the ground?

A: Absolutely. The airport owns up to being responsible for about 25% of the traffic on the Westside. If they try to build out the airport to 65 million or more annual passengers, the only way you will get in is to walk in with your luggage on your head. There simply is not room on the streets. The standard approach to the problem when there isn’t room on the streets is: We’ll widen the streets. When you widen the streets, you take something out. What do you take out? Neighborhoods. You don’t need to do that.

Q: But the airport has plans for additional terminals, air cargo space and other facilities. Are you saying that its physical growth should be constrained?

A: It doesn’t make any difference how many terminals you have, or how big they are, if you can’t get the planes in and out, and you can’t get the traffic in and out. The airport doesn’t operate, no matter how nice the buildings are. All this planning effort that’s going into putting more terminals and more facilities at LAX is essentially wasted. That same effort spent on Palmdale would be productive.

Q: Some have looked to mass transit--light rail--as a way to relieve traffic congestion. But with the controversy surrounding the Metro Green Line and what has happened with the Sumitomo contract, isn’t a rapid transit connection to the airport even more distant than it had been?

A: I hope not. But remember that the Green Line wasn’t going to go to the airport anyway. There are a great many things wrong with it before you even get to the question of who will build the cars. First of all, it doesn’t go where it most needs to go.

Q: Because it goes only to El Segundo on the south side of the airport?

A: The technology that they were proposing to buy is not maneuverable enough to be able to go into the airport, no matter who builds it. They can’t make the turns. Three to four years ago, we had an understanding with both the county Transportation Commission and the Department of Airports that the rail line would go to LAX Parking Lot C. Well, you’ll notice the Green Line doesn’t go there. Only six or eight months ago did the commission bother to find out that the technology they have proposed can’t go where they were going to have it go.

Q: The overhead electric wire posed problems?

A: The wire above the train is too high, and the whole thing is in the clear zone (at the end of the runways), where you’re not supposed to build anything.

Q: So at this point there is no rapid transit link on the drawing board to serve the terminals or the parking lots?

A: That’s right. We have been meeting for over six months with a task force of the Department of Airports and the Transportation Commission to try to resolve the problem. The airport has committed to planning what they call a people-mover that would link the airport terminal area with Lot C. We’ve been arguing for months over where the actual connection to the Green Line would occur. I am still supporting the notion of Lot C, although at the present time that doesn’t appear technologically feasible. My last recommendation was that it occur at Aviation and Imperial, where the Green Line comes down (from the Century Freeway).

Q: At some point, perhaps in our lifetimes, the new Century Freeway will go to the airport’s doorstep.

A: But it’s not to the airport’s doorstep. There’s this big gap between the end of the Century Freeway and the airport--the same gap we talked about with the Green Line. The Sepulveda Tunnel is already too small to carry what it needs to carry now. But there’s not enough money to widen the tunnel to pick up the traffic.

Q: One of the other issues that you’re addressing is the city’s budget crisis. You have a Department of Airports that operates at a tidy surplus. How much luck do you think the City Council is going to have in diverting some of the airport funds to support city services?

A: This is one of those issues I have raised with the airport a number of times, and they have just said flat out, “We can’t do it.” Finally the mayor got into the ballgame, and now they are writing long letters explaining what we will have to do in order to do it. One of the things I have proposed is that since they’re responsible for 25% of the traffic on the Westside, they are clearly causing more wear and tear on city streets. They ought to pay for the increase in maintenance costs associated with that.

I’m also hopeful that, a year from now, when the landing agreements that give all the profits back to the airlines expire, we will see a change in the way the airport manages its finances. But I’m concerned that I’m not seeing any negotiating going on. A great deal is going to depend on the political will of those in office at the time those agreements expire.

Q: Do you feel that you’re a voice in the wilderness representing your immediate constituents who are neighbors to the airport, while others in the city view LAX differently?

A: Yes, I do. We have other council districts that have airports in or next to them, but the mark of how alone I am is that I’m the only one who never gets invited on airport junkets. In fact, they usually don’t tell me that the junkets exist until somebody who’s going on one says, “Goodby, I’ll see you in two weeks.”

Q: The residents of Westchester and areas to the east and south of the airport have long been affected by aircraft noise. Inglewood has been far more successful than Los Angeles in obtaining federal funding to insulate homes or to demolish those in the flight path. Why?

A: The first reason is that (Inglewood) filed the applications. To my utter astonishment when I took office, I learned that Los Angeles had never filed an application for this money. We have now done so. (But) we have unfortunately been held hostage by the FAA because the airport tried to move faster than the federal government to phase out older, noisier jets. So the FAA has sat on our soundproofing money for just about a year now.

Q: Threatened with the loss of federal funds, Mayor Bradley earlier this month announced a compromise with federal officials that would eliminate the loudest jets at LAX by the year 2000. I understand you don’t like this agreement.

A: First of all, I was not invited into any of these discussions and was rather specifically told to stay away. Based on what I’ve been told, the mayor and the Department of Airports agreed in advance of any public hearing that they would back off from aggressively moving to phase out noisier aircraft. They decided we’re not going to buck the policy set by the FAA at the behest of the airlines. They want to get the money for soundproofing and for various transportation projects, and the FAA is holding the money hostage.

Q: But should the city stick to its guns on phasing out noisy jets at LAX even if that means it may be years before Westchester gets soundproofed?

A: There’s probably a point beyond which it isn’t worth it, but I don’t think we’re there yet. I’d like to have both. I mean, you’re going to have to keep soundproofing houses as long as you have very noisy jets. So we’re not gaining ground unless we also phase out the Stage II aircraft. We did persuade the Department of Airports to advance some money toward the soundproofing, and they’ve agreed in principle to put up $2 million. But we are still arguing with their lawyers.

Q: Let’s talk about Palmdale. Given the state of the economy, isn’t developing Palmdale as a regional airport a pipe dream at this point?

A: Only if the Department of Airports refuses to start developing it. Certainly the economy is providing an excuse for the airlines to say, “We don’t want to help finance this because we can’t afford it,” which provides an excuse for the Department of Airports to say, “It’s too soon.” But it’s really not too soon. In my view, LAX is at its limits. Which means that at whatever point all this growth starts to occur, if we don’t have a place for it to go, it’ll go to some other city.

It is now technically possible and even convenient to overfly California if you’re coming from Asia. Denver is building a big new airport. I talked to a councilman from Denver who’s all excited about trying to make it the new international hub. That’s what we’re facing. We’ll have more competition, and we better be ready.

Q: Despite the environmental studies, the number of passengers at LAX continues to grow incrementally, except for a brief blip because of the recession. It keeps growing by itself.

A: Well, the problem is, we have no good legal mechanism to hold the lid on. It’s unwise for all the growth to occur at LAX. That is why I keep pushing an alternative, which seems to be Palmdale. In the absence of an alternative and faced with some of the constraints in federal law that seem to rank interstate commerce as more important than the (local) environment, people like me experience a lot of frustration. We’d rather have Palmdale than Denver.

Q: Isn’t this a delicate line you’re walking though? A lot of people in your district work at the airport or for the airlines.

A: I’m not proposing taking away the jobs that are there. What I’m proposing is that the new jobs be created (in Palmdale), where a lot of people live, and there aren’t very many jobs. That has several advantages besides keeping air commerce afloat--one being that all those people who commute from the Antelope Valley to the San Fernando Valley and down to the airport will be able to get jobs closer to home. That’s good for the air quality, for traffic and for their children, who won’t have to spend 12 hours a day in child care.

Q: Where do you find a balance when LAX is such an economic powerhouse, and that collides head-on with the needs of its near neighbors?

A: No matter what you think the economically appropriate balance is, if you can’t get the planes in and out safely, you probably guessed wrong. The contribution to the economy comes from having a smoothly functioning airport. That is not going to be possible in a heavily urbanized area if you still allow private cars to come and go and if you try to pack more planes in. You can’t do it. So what you do is keep the economy afloat by taking the growth to another part of the region so that you’re spreading not only the burden but also the benefits.

Q: Let’s talk about other airport impacts in your district. The LAX Northside development project has been on the drawing board for a long time. Is it going anywhere?

A: I hope not. Not in its present form. The project was approved before I got into office. It is essentially more hotels and office buildings. This is not a good time to build either of those things. I have a commitment from the mayor’s office and the Department of Airports that we can re-examine that plan. We need to discuss what type of development would be most appropriate and most compatible with the community.

Q: What do you do with the half-completed Westchester Parkway project?

A: They swear to me the parkway is going to be completed. And certainly once you have a half-completed one you might as well finish it, because somebody ought to get to use it.

Q: On another topic, do you feel that some accommodation has been reached that will protect the endangered butterfly and plant species in the sand dunes at the western end of the airport? Or is that a battle that is still raging?

A: Basically, we’ve made significant progress. We are now in the process of amending the city’s specific plans to provide the 200 acres that the biologists say are necessary to ensure survival of the species. We’ve gotten the airport to agree to that. The next step is to establish the permanent stewardship, who’s going to be responsible for making sure that the restored area isn’t damaged again.

Q: So you don’t expect the dunes to be in contention for development?

A: Every time I relax, something happens. The Board of Airport Commissioners adopted what they call a preferred alternative for the expansion at LAX. Their preferred alternative has a terminal building next to the dunes area, but the road to get to the terminal intrudes into the dunes. So it is going to require eternal vigilance.

Q: How would you discourage the single passengers from driving their cars to the airport? For most people, a shuttle van is a good idea, if they’re taking a long trip. But it is not competitive on a short trip because it’s not cheaper than parking.

A: That’s probably because our parking is not expensive enough to discourage parking. The parking rates ought to be higher, but as was pointed out, raising the parking rates before the landing agreements expire is just giving it to the airlines.

Q: What should your constituents expect from you at the end of eight years in office in terms of addressing these issues?

A: Well, until the federal government got in my way, I would have been able to give you some numbers about how many houses we were going to get soundproofed. If we are able to settle this easement question with the airport, and we think we’re very close, we’ll have $2 million to begin working with. Assuming that the money keeps flowing, we would expect that by the end of this term we would have some houses soundproofed, and we would be under way with the others.