A Postmortem Analysis of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 20-Year Long-Range Plan
Thomas A. Rubin, James E. Moore, Shin Lee
Abstract
Thomas A. Rubin, James E. Moore, Shin Lee
Abstract
After spending or committing almost $7 billion on light and heavy rail lines, the Board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has voted to suspend most rail construction. This is an analysis of the current MTA long-range 20-year plan, “A PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Transportation for the 21st Century,” adopted March 1995. The plan is inconsistent with federal planning requirements. Performance indicators described in the plan are skewed in favor of rail in part because the plan accounts only for local costs in cost-effectiveness calculations. The plan does not evaluate reasonable alternatives to rail lines, avoiding discussion of lower cost options. We conclude that the Los Angeles rail plan was never realistic. The plan was crafted to justify the decision to build the Los Angeles rail system and not to guide, inform, or improve this decision.
OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
After spending or committing almost $7 billion on light and heavy rail lines, the Board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has voted to suspend most rail construction. This is an analysis of the current MTA long-range 20-year plan, “A PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Transportation for the 21st Century,” adopted March 1995. The plan is inconsistent with federal planning requirements. Performance indicators described in the plan are skewed in favor of rail in part because the plan accounts only for local costs in cost-effectiveness calculations. The plan does not evaluate reasonable alternatives to rail lines, avoiding discussion of lower cost options. We conclude that the Los Angeles rail plan was never realistic. The plan was crafted to justify the decision to build the Los Angeles rail system and not to guide, inform, or improve this decision.
Key concepts: Plan (archaeology), Metropolitan area, Transport engineering, Transportation planning, Business, Cost analysis, Range (aeronautics), Operations management