Mass Transit Decisions for L.A.’s Future

“Admit Rail Plan Is Dead and Move On” (Commentary, Dec. 13) merges two separate issues, damaging our ability to improve Los Angeles transit. The two questions are: Is the MTA an efficient, effective organization? Does Los Angeles need rail transit?

The answers are, respectively, no and yes. Too many commentators suggest that since the MTA is inefficient and ridden with excessive politics, we should stop building a rail transit system. They are right that the MTA is a poorly structured organization, beginning with the board, but wrong to assume that we don’t need a modern mass transit system.

Can’t we rebuild MTA into a positive, less political organization that puts maximum energy into building transit?

EDWIN G. STAUSS

Woodland Hills

* The column on the MTA’s continued fixation with an untenable rail-oriented plan was right on the money. The failure of the entire MTA and the much needed improvements in the L.A. area transportation system can be laid squarely at the doorstep of the politicians of all stripes who “run” L.A. County, the city of L.A., the MTA board and MTA management. Egotism and ineptitude reign supreme!

WALT KILMANAS

Redondo Beach

* As an environmental consultant, I found the recommendations of James E. Moore II and Thomas A. Rubin absolutely hilarious. They claim the answer to transportation problems in the L.A. Basin is abandoning all proposed rail lines (not just subways) and improving bus transportation.

Surveys show that all our existing subways and aboveground commuter rail lines provide “hassle-free” transportation to multitudes of commuters each day. I ride the Blue Line from Long Beach to L.A. for downtown meetings, and my commute time is never more than 45 minutes, while taking a bus (actually, several buses with transfers) would require two hours or more. Even giving buses “priority access to city streets,” as they suggest, will not encourage the majority of commuters to ride buses, as buses will still be compelled to stop at traffic signals and deal with gridlock.

Second, Rubin and Moore’s idea would contribute additional vehicles to our already crowded streets and freeways and add to degradation of air quality, while rail transportation reduces traffic and air pollution.

Yes, Metro Rail construction has been plagued with inconceivable cost overruns and disasters, but denying residents access to “hassle-free” commuting is not the answer. We must instead find a far more responsible method of managing the allocated funds. Perhaps penalizing, rather than rewarding, wayward contractors would be a start.

KATHY KEANE

Long Beach