• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Thomas Soteros-Mcnamara Send your pithy comments to tmcnamara@media.ucla.edu

The BruinGo! Program remains on death row with all of its biggest advocates pressuring Chancellor Albert Carnesale hard for that elusive pardon. There is no doubt the “BruinGo!” program is beneficial for students, staff and faculty, and that it reduces the amount of motor traffic that surround the university.

Certain forces within the administration, however, view the program as teetering on bankruptcy with no support from the state. Whether it lives or it dies, the current debate reveals a more important point. UCLA’s transportation situation is deeply flawed – a far more radical solution is going to be needed to fully fix the problem at hand.

In its current state, “Bruin Go!” admittedly does not solve every transportation problem. Since the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Los Angeles has yet to sign on to the program, students remain limited as to where they can take the bus. Also, buses are largely reliant on traffic conditions, and while they consolidate traffic, they will still be affected by worsening conditions around the campus. Even so, students universally like the program, even if they never step foot aboard the bus itself.

What UCLA really should invest in for the long run is a mass rail system. The “Blue and Gold Line” would connect various underground stops on the campus in a U-shape and then run toward a transit hub underneath Lot 32. The rail line would help move people during the heaviest commute hours to more expansive parking structures off-site as well as be unaffected by traffic conditions on the street above. The extra benefit with putting the terminal hub below Lot 32 would then be when the Red Line is extended along Wilshire boulevard, the university can build sliding glass doors to open during the daytime when the UCLA rail system runs, and close these doors when it is not in operation.

With one of the highest population densities in Los Angeles, the Westside has resisted building more mass transit. Politicians such as Fifth District Supervisor Jack Weiss are against suggesting more public transportation in the area because rich, white homeowners do not want the noise, inconvenience or minorities wandering around their previously remote neighborhoods. Nevertheless, there is good reason for the university, no matter what one’s solution would be, to support mass rail on campus and throughout the city of Los Angeles.

For students, it provides more access to other parts of the city and opportunities to be more fully involved in the Los Angeles community. For professors and staff, it relieves the pressure of having parking permits, and allows people who live closer to the university the chance to “park ‘n’ ride.” It then frees up more parking spaces on campus for other individuals, and also lowers the traffic burden on UCLA’s congested streets.

But out of everyone who will benefit from a mass rail system, the administration has the greatest incentive to start digging. County research already demonstrates that within the next 25 years, the ambient speed on freeways throughout much of Los Angeles County will drop to around 25 miles per hour unless massive changes are made. Contrary to the image it holds itself to, most of the jobs provided by a university are low-paying and unglamorous. For the moment, these wages and other benefits are enough to convince the proletariat of UCLA to suffer long commutes and broken transportation systems. Once immigration declines and cheap labor becomes harder to find, the university will be hard-pressed to woo day workers unless they can at least provide them with a place to park or a decent commute.

If Carnesale or Director of Transportation Mark Stocki do not intervene, UCLA will be able to offer neither.