Where’s Debate in the Planning of Light Rail?

While the Metropolitan Transportation Authority rail transit debacle in Los Angeles gets headlines, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) marches forward to build a similar rail network.

The problems with the L.A. system go well beyond the financial and mismanagement issues. The real concern with these systems is that their huge development and operating costs do not contribute significantly to the public transportation capacity in the region.

The rail system has put Los Angeles County into long-term debt and has interfered severely with the ability of the authority to provide effective public transportation for its citizens. Rail could do the same to Orange County.

With all these formidable rail transit problems next door, why is there no questioning of the wisdom of urban rail in Orange County, and no debate of the planning currently being made by OCTA?

While the press has made the MTA a major topic of investigation and reports, it is almost silent on the issues that might face Orange County if it continues with its plans. Where is the public debate on the effectiveness, risks and cost of urban rail as there is in other cases, such as Denver and Portland?

The source of all this activity in Orange County is in large part the Measure M initiative that was passed by the voters in 1990. Measure M sales tax has been a major source of revenue for freeway and local street improvements. The initiative also included a clause to set aside 11% of the revenue, $340 million, for study and development of high-technology advanced rail transit.

But Measure M funds are far from adequate to cover the OCTA system. The authority last year proposed a light rail system running from Fullerton to Irvine, a stretch of 28 miles. A required Federal Transit Administration study was conducted to compare bus, mixed-flow freeway lanes, high-occupancy freeway lanes and rail alternative improvements. While the detailed analysis conducted showed that urban rail was the least cost-effective alternative, the final report nevertheless recommended rail and identified it as the “Locally Preferred Strategy.”

The planned 28-mile urban rail system will cost many times the amount provided by Measure M. Federal transit funding will be required to fill the gap between the $340 million delivered by Measure M and the required $1.8 billion. These requests surely must compete with other more effective uses for the money. At some point, additional local funds will be called for. Under present law, Measure M will expire in 2010, but the OCTA is doing everything it can to be prepared to ask the voters to extend it for another 20 years. There is no plan that is strictly bound by the Measure M funds.

OCTA is now calling for public comments on considering a lower cost ($1.3 million) surface-level system that would interfere with street traffic. To have a public debate, there must be an informed public.

Since the investment study was published, OCTA has been on an extensive public outreach campaign for the rail system. They have conducted various public meetings and expositions for the system.

Almost all have been conducted as publicity events to promote the idea of urban rail and not as forums to encourage discussion. The poor showing on cost-effectiveness evaluation was never made known to the public, and speakers all have been proponents of rail systems.

Information presented has included videos describing the benefits of rail. Material provided covers descriptions of advanced rail systems and planned routes and station locations.

Ask anyone who has attended the OCTA meetings if they were told: (1) that the 28-mile system will cost $1.8 billion, (2) that it will haul less than 1% of the daily Orange County trips or (3) that the public will subsidize about $3 per ride to operate the system.

The answer overwhelmingly will be: “It wasn’t discussed.” If you ask most people whether they like rail for Orange County, the answer likely will be yes. But ask whether they still would like it if it will cost $2,400 per household to build and will not go near their house or place of business.

Whose responsibility is it to educate the public? Certainly OCTA should. The press also can and should play a role in education.

We should expect OCTA to carefully review its studies and conclusions. We should expect that OCTA will bring the alternatives and issues before the public.

It is time to reevaluate the urban rail plans for Orange County.