Citizen Jurors Speak Out on Rail

One of the interesting things about grand juries in Orange County is the range of territory they cover. Often, their reports prod government agencies to do better. In the case of the proposed new urban rail system, jurors recently waded directly into the controversy to challenge transportation officials.

The Orange County Grand Jury is not a panel of transportation experts, so its observations on something as intricate and complex as a rail system need to be set against the context of other appraisals.

But these are citizens, and citizens are the people who use rail systems. In the case of an Orange County system, they are the people who, it is to be hoped, would be some of the customer base.

Neither should the grand jury’s findings on proposed rail be undervalued on the merits of the arguments.

If jurors lack technical knowledge or understanding of national rail systems, they are perfectly capable of getting up to speed on complicated issues and making informed judgments. Those serving on the panel often can be expected to bring a fresh perspective or the common sense of regular folks to a public policy discussion. For these reasons, the salvos contained in a new report should be taken seriously and included alongside the range of questions that already exist.

In its recent report, the grand jury openly questioned the Orange County Transportation Authority, saying it was spending more time promoting urban rail than studying it. It said that OCTA was ignoring evidence that the system would fail to reduce traffic congestion or pollution.

These findings were met with predictable disappointment by the transit board. It is important to remember also that citizens earmarked millions for rail study when they passed Measure M, the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements, back in 1990.

The grand jury has on its side the fact that many questions remain about the cost and likely use of the rail system.

As too often seems the case in Orange County policy-making, there is a sense with this project that the decision to go forward has come first, to be followed as an afterthought by the public discussion and evaluation of merits.

Still, the potential for a rail system is attractive as a way to meet future transportation needs.

The proposed $1.3-billion cost estimate is apparently only a starting point. So the price, feasibility, public subsidy and public acceptance are some of the questions still on the table.

By weighing in, the grand jury has contributed to the continuing debate.