It’s Crazy to Rule Out Subways for L.A.

Perhaps Los Angeles’ Metro system has been mismanaged and has overspent, but its initial strategy of a balanced system of heavy rail, light rail and an improved bus connector system remains sound. It should not be abandoned.

Proposition A on Tuesday’s ballot would prohibit the spending of sales-tax dollars on future subway construction. Such a blow to rational transit planning would cripple the Los Angeles region as it enters the 21st century. It is a question that should not be decided by opportunistic political whim.

By 2020, Southern California will add another 6.7 million persons, the equivalent of adding two cities the size of present-day Chicago. Los Angeles County alone will have 2.5 million new residents. The Southern California Assn. of Governments warns that “the region must turn around transit usage--traffic is already unbearable.” Without public transit, SCAG warns, “the impacts of growth could double commute times.”

The regional transportation plan adopted by SCAG on April 16 identified exclusive--i.e., off-street--transit corridors (including the East Los Angeles route under attack by Proposition A) required to “minimize travel time and maximize transit usage.” Even with the completion of rail transit lines that are the target of Proposition A, average freeway speeds are predicted to decline from 33 to 23 mph. Without a comprehensive, multimodal transportation system, the region faces traffic gridlock and economic decline.

Of course additional buses are needed, but it is specifically because buses are so slow and so crowded that off-street alternatives must continue to be developed. Even though subways may have only limited application, no transportation mode should be completely precluded from consideration.

Contrary to misinformation promulgated by proponents of Proposition A, rail transit is most popular with riders when they are given a choice. Although the revival of rail transit in Los Angeles is just beginning, more than 20% of passenger transit miles are now by rail. Ridership on the existing Red, Green and Blue transit lines exceeded 2.5 million passengers in 1997, and passengers find the service both comfortable and on schedule. The extension of the Red Line to Hollywood next spring will demonstrate the popularity of rail transit. This is no time to shoot ourselves in the foot!

The Los Angeles region has urban densities comparable to the San Francisco Bay Area where the BART system (including subways) is thriving and is being extended. Are our politicians less adept than those in San Francisco in tapping the $36 billion the federal government has scheduled for mass transit in California ?

There are areas in Los Angeles where the urban densities are as high as any area outside of New York City and where high-speed rail transit is fully justified. East Los Angeles is one such area, and the need for high-speed transit is compounded by the high proportion of transit dependency. In one stroke, Proposition A throws away more than $150 million of taxpayers’ money invested in the East L.A. line, with little chance of recovery.

Even when an existing right of way is available and light rail is the logical choice, there will be situations when a short stretch of tunnel is mandated by topographical realities. Proposition A is so poorly worded that it could preclude such eventualities.

Voters should reject Proposition A.