opportunities for new development. Creating a market in these areas requires public support to spark demand and lower developer costs. And in rail‐rich areas with high demand for housing, such as Hollywood and soon West L.A., homeowner groups have challenged land‐use plans and new proposed projects. To reverse these historic trends, transit leaders should consider three policy changes. First, they should restrict funding on rail lines or stations that lack a minimum number of houses or jobs located within walking distance, or at least have local plans in place to meet these goals. Second, state and regional governments should provide funding for local plans for rail‐oriented growth and help support and maintain the associated infrastructure, such as sidewalks and parks. Finally, state and local governments should help promote well‐designed “catalytic” real estate projects in neglected areas to spark revitalization and unlock private investment, such as through revolving loan funds and tax‐increment financing. Speeding and reducing the cost of construction Another area of concern for Metro Rail is the spiraling cost of building these lines, coupled with the multi‐year waits to both plan and build them. As an example, in 1925, Los Angeles opened a downtown subway tunnel (four‐fifths of a mile long). After just one year of planning, construction took 18 months at a cost of $3.5 million ($47.4 million in today's dollars). But in 2014, after four years of study, the MTA planned to spend over $1.427 billion to build the similar 1.9‐mile “regional connector.” At $751 million per mile, it's almost a 13‐fold price increase from the 1925 project. And the 23.75 months per mile construction rate became 40 months in 2014. Certainly better safety standards, higher prices for real‐estate acquisitions and construction materials, and more advanced construction equipment explain some of the delay. But ultimately these public infrastructure projects, from the San Francisco‐Oakland Bay Bridge to Boston's Big Dig, too often seem to suffer from complacent public‐sector management and oversight. Developer campaign contributions can shadow the awards process with conflicts of interest, and good project management often seems lacking. And even before the construction phase, planning for these mobility projects can take years with little ultimate benefit. While MTA should ensure careful transit planning with proper community input, safety and cost‐effectiveness, the multiyear processes are often unnecessary and counterproductive. To help expedite these transit projects, the MTA should engage in strict oversight of construction management and awards and ensure no conflicts of interest due to construction‐firm campaign contributions, possibly through the creation of more independent construction authorities. The agency should also work with the state legislature to reform state laws to reduce litigation over environmental review of transit projects. State transit leaders should also allow local agencies to prioritize transit infrastructure over automobile traffic without requiring expensive new planning studies. These reforms would help Los Angeles plan and build Metro Rail lines faster and at less expense.
51