Ending Eastside Transit Jam

After years of study, debate and delay, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board approved a plan Thursday for a light rail line to the Eastside. Opponents vowed to keep fighting it, whether in court or by literally throwing themselves onto its tracks. Welcome to the land of congested freeways and contested mass transit projects, where no one goes anywhere fast.

The plan would extend the recently renamed Gold Line--13 miles of light rail already under construction (and still under attack) between Pasadena and downtown Los Angeles--eastward to Boyle Heights and unincorporated East Los Angeles. The Eastside extension has significant support in the neighborhoods it would serve. Almost $500 million in federal transit funds are earmarked for its construction and at risk of disappearing if ground isn’t broken soon.

None of this matters to the rail line’s vocal critics, who may differ on their reasons but are united in naysaying. Some complain that local businesses would suffer during construction. Some simply don’t trust the MTA. And some want the MTA to spend the money on buses instead of light rail. Los Angeles City Councilman Nick Pacheco, who represents Boyle Heights and should be leading the fight to improve transportation, is grumbling about the MTA plan because a campaign contributor who owns a shopping center wants a planned rail station moved closer to his business so his customers won’t have to walk two blocks.

Yes, construction will disrupt some businesses. No, not every shopping center can have a station next door. Yes, the MTA has messed up in the past, but its new director, Roger Snoble, comes to the job after building light rail in Dallas, on time and in budget, and is eager to do the same for the Eastside.

And here is the big picture: About 20% of the working people in the densely populated, mostly low-income Eastside depend on public transportation to get to their jobs, compared with 6.5% in Los Angeles County as a whole. Fully 30% of the residents have no access to an automobile.

Sure, Eastside residents need buses. A light rail line would supplement, not replace, buses, just as it would in the densely populated, traffic-congested Westside, where for too long the naysayers were the loudest voices in the debate over the finally approved Exposition Line. Public debate is needed and welcome. But at some point the argument gridlock has to end, or the traffic gridlock never will.