By DANIEL FREEDMAN

Sometimes I wonder if I’m the last American who connects government spending with the taxes they take from my paycheck. When I see and read about government agencies squandering money, or politicians pushing big outrageously expensive projects just to gain popularity I get shrill. Back in 2005, when the transportation bill was passed, Rep. Don Young’s (R-Alaska) $235 million “bridge to nowhere” made me want to pull my hair out.

Here in Los Angeles however, we are not above making unwise decisions with government money as well. This “Subway to the Sea” proposal being pushed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Council members is not a wise investment. Let me explain why.

First, the cost, and not just the cost they claim, but the real cost. Villaraigosa claims the 14-mile extension of the Red Line will cost us around $5 billion, or about $300 million per mile. This is absurd. The original Red Line that was built in 1986 cost $5.6 billion, which comes out to around $321 million for each mile. Are they trying to tell us that it will actually be cheaper per mile to build a subway in 2007 than in 1986? Probably not, and actually, they should plan on it costing double.

Granted, $10 billion sounds like pocket change to the federal government, as its last budget began to close in on the $3 trillion mark. But maybe that’s not the best comparison.

Rather, let’s judge the merit of this expenditure based on another Los Angeles-based transportation project, say the Orange Line just over the hill in the San Fernando Valley. In terms of cost, the entire 14-mile Orange Line project cost about the same price as one mile of the original Red Line built in ’86.

Councilmember Bill Rosendahl said in a statement about the subway, “If it costs $5 billion, we have to find that $5 billion.” I respectfully ask the councilmember, please stop looking, because I have a suspicion that the only place you’re going to find that money is in the form of more, and not less, taxes.

Vulnerable subways

Still, the money aside, another reason to disagree with extending the subway is due to the fact that subways tend to be extremely vulnerable in regards to public safety and security. Whereas the streets that buses run on are already patrolled and watched over, an abundant network of dark underground tunnels and stations create new spaces that must be closely watched and secured. For the passenger as well, it’s far more comforting getting on a bus knowing the driver is within earshot. On a subway, your only connection to an authority figure is a button you can only pray works when you need it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I do agree a functional and efficient mass transit system is important to have, but it is my belief we can have that for a tenth of the price with a dedicated-lane busway system like the Orange Line. We would save billions of taxpayers’ money, allow commuters to feel safer and enjoy the beautiful Los Angeles weather and scenery during transit.

My last point on this is a rebuttal to a constant criticism I receive of my suggestion; it’s regarding traffic. As most people are quick to realize, a dedicated-lane busway might require a slight reduction in road capacity on some stretches, which might create added traffic, depending on Angelenos’ willingness to use mass transit. This is one of the reasons people love the idea of a subway, because it neatly tucks the transit underground, not affecting the roadways above.

Let me explain to you why this reasoning is flawed, and why if you want less traffic sooner than later, a busway is far superior. The Orange Line took three years to build, whereas the subway line will likely take 10 or more years. This means 10 years of construction-related intersection closures, lane closures, and 10 years of hauling heavy equipment in and out of our urban core. A busway could probably be completed with minimal disturbance in less than five years, thus giving the busway a five-year head start on the subway to begin actively attracting drivers out of their cars and into buses. Meaning maybe we can reduce traffic in five years instead of 10!

In short, if we want less traffic on our streets, and more money in our pockets or for other government programs, we need to drop this porky subway-to-the-sea project, and start to pursue dedicated busways as a far superior and cost effective alternative.

Daniel Freedman earned a master’s degree in urban planning from UCLA last year and has been a green building consultant. He is to enter law school this fall.