LAX Too Big to Rush Fixes

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn has allowed just 45 days for public comment on his plan to modernize Los Angeles International Airport because he doesn’t want to lose momentum, his deputies say. Translation: By limiting public comment to the minimum required by federal law and scheduling hearings for the dog days of August, Hahn hopes to escape the kind of organized opposition that torpedoed former Mayor Richard Riordan’s LAX dreams. It’s an understandable goal but the wrong way to get there. Yes, the project’s history, complexity and $9-billion price tag guarantee controversy. But these are the reasons it deserves more scrutiny, not less.

Hahn aims to keep neighborhood opponents happy by dropping Riordan’s expansion and containing growth to the 78.9 million passengers a year that planners say LAX could accommodate now. (About 56 million passengers a year used LAX in 2002, down from the pre-9/11 peak of 67 million in 2000.) He touts security and safety improvements instead in the ambitious overhaul.

Security is an obvious priority, as are much-needed safety improvements to LAX’s runways. But Hahn’s plan raises new concerns even as it attempts to answer old ones. One example: It would eliminate the security-screening bottlenecks in the current, cramped layout but add a people-mover train that, as two Rand Corp. researchers point out, could be vulnerable to attack.

As for capacity, the proposed passenger cap assumes regional airports will pick up a huge share of the projected demand. But a viable regional system doesn’t yet exist, and plans for one suffered a blow when Orange County voters defeated a commercial airport for the former El Toro Marine base. If the 30 million annual passengers that were slated for El Toro wind up at LAX, the redesigned airport will be as bottlenecked as it is now -- assuming all those new passengers materialize. More study is needed of growth projections in light of terror concerns and the airlines’ economic shakeout.

Hahn’s plan has some intriguing aspects, such as a consolidated rental car facility. But its remote passenger check-in center will be a tough sell to hassle-averse travelers. And its overall cost is a hefty investment for a remodel that doesn’t include an expansion and consequently, analysts say, wouldn’t provide much economic benefit beyond short-term construction jobs. Are there less costly options? Some ideas that are worth keeping but others not? With so much at stake, the mayor should extend the deadline for public input. Getting an airport overhaul right is more important than getting it fast.