A Light Rail Project to Benefit Only a Few

* Regarding the Orange County Transportation Authority’s proposed reduction in the light rail boondoggle, I loved the arrogance of Vice Chairwoman Laurann Cook, who said (Nov. 21) that “once this first leg is built, the residents of Orange County will have become more educated to the advantages of light rail. . . .”

I’ve got news for Cook. We are educated. We know that aside from the employees of OCTA, precious few in Orange County will derive any benefit from a light rail system, especially now that it’s only connecting Irvine and Costa Mesa.

With all the “important” destinations eliminated (Civic Center, Edison Field, Disneyland), the only possible justification for this is to keep OCTA employees employed.

It seems the Orange County Grand Jury had it right last spring when the members pointed out that a portion of the Measure M dollars were supposed to be used for a light rail feasibility study.

Instead, OCTA people think these dollars are to be used to sell a light rail system to the Orange County taxpayers.

If OCTA thinks it can gather the billion-plus dollars that a light rail system will cost, how about coming up with some transportation ideas that will benefit more than just a few?

JACK WARNER

Orange

* Re “Region Is Again Ranked No. 1 in Traffic Congestion,” Nov. 17:

Orange County has embarked on a spending spree of $18 billion in road projects. And what will that buy for Orange County by the time 2020 rolls around? A rush hour speed of 26 mph compared to today’s 25 mph. That’s only a 4% improvement.

Would anyone be satisfied if we spent $18 billion more on Orange County schools and got just a 4% increase in test scores? Or $18 billion more on health care for 4% more patients?

Our elected officials should be more accountable for the puny returns we are getting for our transportation dollars.

In a recent editorial, The Times rightly fingered urban sprawl as the culprit in creating traffic congestion. Yet, Orange County keeps sprawling.

Witness the Foothill South toll road, which would open up the county’s last big open space for development.

County Supervisor Tom Wilson is right when he says that “we need to find some other mode of transportation other than pouring concrete and making another lane that will be congested as soon as it opens.”

But Wilson supports the toll road, which is an example of the status quo he laments.

On the other hand, the CenterLine light rail system supported by the Orange County Transportation Authority, which Wilson chairs, was recently rejected by Santa Ana.

Orange County’s elected officials seem content to pursue conflicting agendas that mean more urban sprawl and traffic congestion.

That spells trouble for Orange County’s future.

BILL CORCORAN

Public Lands Conservation

Coordinator, Angeles Chapter

Sierra Club

* Kudos for the three closely related articles on toll roads and sprawl on Nov. 18.

Those who hate to spend their time jammed into surly masses of smog-belching insults to good planning should take note of the connection between sprawl and congestion.

If you find it convenient to blame this mess on Caltrans, the state or the federal government, think again. It is the cities and counties that plan development via their general plans.

Cities and counties acquiesce when developers propose high-income development that will fill their coffers despite creating more sprawl and congestion.

What we need is regional, long-term planning conducted for the benefit of communities of people, not for developer profits and political agendas.

We need redeveloped, medium-density communities where we can live, walk and bike.

CHRIS O’CONNELL

Long Beach