Op-Ed: Politicians Should Leave the Transit Routes to Planners

The opening of a Los Angeles Times editorial by Ethan Elkind begins innocuously enough: "The opening this month of the Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Azusa is an example of how voter-approved tax dollars are now delivering real transit projects for Los Angeles." Then comes the kicker: "It is also an example of how politics often dictate how and where Metro builds."

In the case of the widely celebrated Gold Line extension, Elkind says that planners, not politicians, could have come up with a better route for the train:

Better mass transit is necessary across the region. But not every part of the county has the population to support rail. In the case of the Gold Line, we've brought expensive train technology to a generally low-density area that could be more economically served by bus rapid transit or commuter buses running in the right-of-way.

After detailing the political bedfellows that brought the Gold Line extension into existence, Elkind looks forward, and recommends that Metro "be more willing to reject inefficient rail proposals in favor of more cost-effective options." Elkind also offers some specific ideas about what those projects might be.