"The sky's no longer the limit at LAX"

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Opinion
The sky's no longer the limit at LAX
To make the airport work, planners have to focus on smaller, effective
projects.
By Steven P. Erie and Scott A. MacKenzie


LOS ANGELES, - the city that huge public works projects built, has developed
a bad case of airport envy. Having in the early 1960s led the nation into
the Jet Age with state-of-the-art facilities, Los Angeles International
Airport now looks shabby compared with the gleaming new terminals at San
Francisco and Seattle-Tacoma airports. Adding insult to injury, the
restaurant in the iconic Theme Building closed last week because of
structural weaknesses in the arches. With the number of available
international seats going through LAX dropping 12% since 9/11, its status as
a major global hub appears threatened. Recently, alarmed L.A. officials
hastily revived plans to build 11 new gates at the Tom Bradley International
Terminal.

Compared with its gleaming West Coast rivals, however, LAX's international
passenger losses are small. Despite the large drop in available
international seats and the airport's "cramped and old" facilities, there
was only a modest 3% decline in international passengers from 2000 to 2006.
In contrast, the number of international passengers going through San
Francisco airport, which opened its new $1-billion international passenger
terminal in 2000, was up only 2%, while at Seattle-Tacoma, which also
recently renovated its terminals, the number grew a measly 3%. One big
reason for these lackluster figures is the difficulty of obtaining U.S.
tourist visas since 9/11.

Nevertheless, the praise heaped on larger, newer airports has many Angelenos
wondering whether the city needs a comparable facility to retain its
competitive edge. The sectors that power Southern California's economy -
international trade, tourism, technology, entertainment and professional
services - depend on airports to connect the region with the rest of the
nation and the global economy. A new generation of longer-range aircraft
that makes it possible to fly nonstop from Asian airports to such U.S.
cities as Phoenix and Las Vegas adds urgency to the question. If San
Francisco can upgrade its airport in dramatic fashion and attract new
business, why can't L.A.?

The problem is that L.A. remains addicted to the "culture of Mulhollandism"
- grandiose, expensive public works projects that require the sort of
over-planning that inevitably inflames opposition and results in stalemate.
In San Francisco, by contrast, community and environmental representatives
were closely involved from the get-go in planning for the airport's upgrade,
and the steps taken were relatively modest.

In the early 20th century, public entrepreneurs, such as William Mulholland,
could marshal the civic will and resources to build the Los Angeles and
Colorado River aqueducts, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the
L.A. Municipal Airport, which became LAX. These huge public works became the
foundation for the region's subsequent growth and economic prosperity.

In the final decade of the century, however, Mulhollandism persisted even as
the political terrain shifted dramatically. In densely populated Southern
California, new mega-projects became much more difficult to build because of
community opposition, environmental challenges and funding constraints.

Years of unrealistic, overly ambitious LAX master planning have contributed
to the region's current airport-capacity problems. Among these grand
projects was the 98 million air passenger "runway in the bay" - to be built
on a berm in Santa Monica Bay - proposed in the mid-1990s. Then there was
the more recent "Alternative D," a hastily assembled $12-billion proposal to
promote "safety and security" at LAX after 9/11. It called for the creation
of an off-airport passenger check-in facility at Manchester Square, the
demolition of terminals and LAX's central parking structure and the
extension of runways toward Westchester.

Efforts to plan for new airports in the rest of Southern California, where
the shortfall is greatest, have been similarly affected by Mulhollandism. In
1996, Orange County officials christened plans for a new airport at El Toro,
claiming that it would rival LAX in size. El Toro was subsequently scaled
down to a "community-friendly" facility less than half its original size. By
then, the proposal had galvanized opponents, and the site was ultimately
lost to proponents of a Great Park, a landscape of artificial lakes, streams
and a rugged canyon. This was the last great opportunity in the region for a
major new international airport to supplement LAX. 

More recently, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority completed a
site study for a new airport to replace severely overtaxed Lindbergh Field.
Rather than evaluate modest alternatives that would supplement existing
facilities, officials focused on winning voter approval for a major
two-runway international airport. The results were predictable. With no
suitable civilian sites available, San Diego airport officials selected
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar as the site of the new airport and put the
idea on the November 2006 ballot. The proposal, which angered both the
military and communities nearby, was soundly defeated by San Diego voters.

For better or worse, it is unlikely that a major new airport will be built
in Southern California again. As a result, regional management of our
airports has to improve, and that can be more easily accomplished if we
overcome our addiction to Mulhollandism. For example, airports such as
L.A./Ontario International should be protected from incompatible housing
development that might produce NIMBYs who complain about noise. Enlarging
and adding road access to that airport is another example of a modest
enhancement that would yield immediate dividends. At LAX, the addition of
the 11 gates at the Bradley Terminal is a prime example of a sensible
upgrade, as is the new system of flyaway buses that allows remote ticketing
and baggage check-in.

Abandoning Mulhollandism will mean that politicians will probably have fewer
ribbons to cut. But the reward will be a more efficient regional airport
system in which our scarce resources are directed to improvements that
benefit those who live, work in and travel to Southern California.

STEVEN P. ERIE is a professor of political science at UC San Diego. SCOTT A.
MACKENZIE is a doctoral candidate at the university.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************