The Challenge of Rail

Plans for a 28-mile urban rail system in Orange County have been moving forward, with a crucial vote set on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s calendar for the end of the year. The argument for having such a system seems strong, but there are caveats as well. For starters, beware the cost, and learn the lessons of bureaucratic bungling from the MTA experience in Los Angeles.

Orange County’s changing demographics and the need for economic and cultural alternatives to the freeway are compelling elements in the debate. The proposed railway would run through the heart of some of Orange County’s older and more densely developed communities. These areas have been transformed by immigration and the need for new housing and economic models. While many in coastal and southern regions now are served by huge freeways and toll roads, immigrants concentrated in Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim and Fullerton need the lifeblood of a reliable transportation system. This is precisely the corridor where the urban rail route would run.

The opportunities for attendant housing and spinoff business development that would come from such a system are promising. This is so for their capacity both to revitalize older areas of the county and to foster and inspire new growth and development.

The corridor’s link through high-tech areas of Anaheim to the north, the retail South Coast Metro region, John Wayne Airport and the Irvine Business Complex and Spectrum to the south make this a logical new backbone for the county’s public transportation system. Already, this corridor is rich in jobs and population concentration, and there are projections ahead for substantial increases.

To create new affordable housing, it will make sense to look not in the sprawling suburban areas that are building out but around a reliable transportation system that is an alternative to the freeway.

While this geographical backbone exists, the culture of the county has been built from the beginning around the car. The suburbs spread to the south of Los Angeles along the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways; Disneyland as a getaway and the beaches and coastal communities as attractions encouraged auto travel.

A recent study by the Southern California Assn. of Governments showed Orange County residents were least likely to carpool of all residents in Southern California, even though they have the largest number of carpool lanes.

So not only the inevitable high cost of creating a rail system but also the question of whether people would use it is on the table. Those who oppose the system argue that its aim to connect suburban areas is a complicating gamble in a difficult undertaking.

The cost issue is not to be underestimated. The county has been fortunate to date because the millions spent and set aside for study and environmental impact reports have not required any pitch to the voters. And anti-tax sentiment is strong in Orange County. The estimate for the system starts at $1.3 billion and goes up from there.

The expensive construction of a rail system should be measured against the alternative of simply increasing bus service. The American Public Transit Assn. in Washington last year found that the county had the fastest-growing population of bus riders in the country. The bus alternative to the expenses of land acquisition and building the system needs to be carefully considered. The estimated cost for a light rail at street level is between $48 million and $53 million per mile.

The millions spent to date for study and the millions more to be spent gauging environmental impact have been relatively painless because of Measure M, the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements, and federal and state funds. At some point, it would not be surprising to see a pitch made to extend the life of the sales tax measure in order to build the system. When voters passed the measure in 1990, they clearly were focusing mostly on freeway and street improvements. Selling taxpayers on any future tax would be a formidable assignment indeed.

OCTA has done a good job of explaining its systems and has received a favorable reception from communities affected. As the discussion goes forward, the public needs cost estimates and alternatives that are clear and realistic to set the stage for a crucial decision.