It’s Time to See Beyond the Dashboard

Re Dave Mootchnik’s “Light Rail, Heavy Costs,” Commentary, Nov. 25:

Like many Orange County residents, I used to be car-dependent. Three years ago, I gradually started using other modes of transportation. I bicycled to work sometimes, rode Orange County’s trains and took the bus. One day I walked to work.

As I gradually reduced the amount of time I spent driving, I lowered my personal transportation expenses and gained about 45 minutes each day, which I use for working, thinking, conversing and reading. When I’m riding on Metrolink or the bus, I don’t worry about other drivers’ inattention, impatience or unsafe maneuvers.

I’m not sure if other motorists appreciate that I don’t often use a private vehicle on the roads, but my personal decision benefits me and many other residents, not unlike when a smoker quits smoking. Orange County is a better place when people decide to use transit, bicycle or walk. Let’s promote that.

Many people say they would use transit if it were convenient. Existing transit is already convenient for some commuters--just visit the Orange, Irvine, Santa Ana, Fullerton or other train stations during peak hours. The proposed CenterLine light rail will make transit more convenient for tens of thousands of Orange County commuters by connecting major employment and activity centers to existing train stations. It would be a great complement to commuter rail and bus service.

Roy Shahbazian

Orange

*

Though Mootchnik’s concerns over such matters as tax subsidies, ridership levels and effective and judicious use of transit dollars certainly have merit, he overlooks the many hidden costs and subsidies of private automobiles. These costs pertain not only to money but also social, health, community and ecological spheres.

Consider advertising. The major car manufacturers have millions of dollars available to advertise on TV, radio, billboards and, yes, buses. By stark contrast, the Orange County Transportation Authority and other municipal transit systems have shoestring budgets. As a result, public transit doesn’t stand a chance of getting the word out about its benefits.

Though funding and building transit networks, especially light-rail and subway systems, does cost significant taxpayer dollars, it is also important to consider the true public costs of private automobile transportation. It’s not cheap posting naval forces in the Persian Gulf so we can safely and securely ship the oil to America to fuel our cars and trucks. At all levels, government underprices and oversubsidizes auto use.

Look at all those Orange County shopping centers with massive parking lots and structures, most of which don’t charge for parking. Talk about an incentive to drive! Many neighborhoods have no bus service and probably never will. Meanwhile, our zoning laws ensure separation between our homes and commercial areas, forcing citizens to get into their cars for even the simplest errand. What are the costs of maintaining the roads coursing through these far-flung suburbs? Also, what of our young and elderly who don’t drive?

Mootchnik belongs to the “there is no alternative” club when it comes to alternative modes of transportation. In his view, more freeway widenings and more highways are the answer. Dollar for dollar it’s more effective to get people out of their cars and into clean, modern and effective mass transit.

Mootchnik holds a double standard: Private transportation is cheap and efficient while public transportation is nothing short of a waste of taxpayer money. Yet there are viable alternatives that would help enhance Orange County’s livability, reduce our fuel dependency, lessen congestion and smog and move and promote the mobility of Orange County citizens.

The transit authority is trying a more balanced approach that encompasses not only private vehicles but also systems such as the CenterLine project. It’s a step in the right direction.

Mark Nedleman

Costa Mesa

*

Myth: OCTA strategy calls for 60% of capital spending on transit and only 17% on highways.

Response: OCTA’s main capital revenue source is the Measure M sales tax, passed by the voters. The 20-year plan was specific about where the money goes--43% for freeways, 32% for streets and roads, and 25% for transit. In fact, an overwhelming 80% of Measure M funds ($2.5 billion out of $3 billion) is being spent on freeways, streets and HOV lanes. A scant 10% is going to light rail. The remaining investment for light rail will come from federal and state funds that would otherwise go to other cities’ rail projects.

Myth: Light rail will carry only a fraction of 1% of traffic.

Response: To see how ridiculous this figure is, consider Interstate 5. Count the number of trips on the freeway and compare that with the total number of trips in the county, on every other conceivable street, highway and freeway. You will conclude that I-5 carries a very small fraction of Orange County trips. Then consider that we just spent $1.1 billion widening 10 miles of this freeway. The reality is that every transportation project with measurable impact is expensive.

But endlessly building new freeways causes sprawl, pollution and the permanent loss of open space. Is this what we want for future generations? We need to make smart mobility choices and light rail is a great step in that direction.

William Korthof

Seal Beach

*

Re “We Must Study Rail as a Freeway Alternative,” Letters, Dec. 9:

I am very upset with the letter by Art Leahy. There must be many areas more populated than Orange County, such as New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia. They not only have larger populations, they are also much more dense. Leahy also confuses population with density. Most home building in Orange County is for single-family homes away from the central cities, which reduces density. Santa Ana, Anaheim and Fullerton may be densely populated. Because they are built up, they are the slowest growing, but San Clemente and Mission Viejo are not.

Why would OCTA waste money on another study that might show different results than previous studies? Not merely the ones by OCTA but the ones mentioned in the 1999 county grand jury report that enumerated consistent failures by light-rail systems across the country.

Why is pouring concrete for homes and the light-rail system, which exacerbate the road/freeway problem all right, but pouring concrete for roads, which would alleviate the problem, bad?

A. Trujillo Escareqo

Tustin