You’ve possibly read about my excitement about the long-awaited Expo line, connecting downtown to USC and the Science, Natural History (and other) Museums, and then connecting out to Culver City, and ultimately to Venice. I’ve blogged this here and here. They broke ground on the project two days ago. See here and here. Here’s a picture (yes, construction workers wear business suits in LA. They are very image-conscious here, and you never know when a casting director might be looking):
I am truly amazed every day by the small percentage of people who live and work in LA who actually know about this major breakthrough – the very existence of the plans for the line, never mind its approval. It is as though I live in a different city…. Anyway, conversations are going on in the various direcly affected communities about the design of the tations, the business that will sprout up around them, the best way to include bike lanes along the projects, and the routing of the cars that will do doubt still have priority and therefore compromise the efficiency of the entire project as happened with the Gold Line. Join in these conversations if you live and/or work in the city.
There are some significant new developments. The first is that the proposal to call the Expo line the “Aqua Line” did not succeed. Expo Line will be the name, it seems. Ok, that’s not so significant, I suppose. Meanwhile, the second branch of the Red Line, the one that stops for no good reason at Wilshire and Western, will be called the “Purple Line”. Yay. Not significant either, you say. Maybe, but the point here is that the Purple Line is actually being discussed! Not only has it been discussed, but there has been a breakthrough. That “no good reason” mentioned above was translated -back in the ’80s- into a legal blockade, making it illegal to tunnel further along that route for safely reasons. The claim was that the geological instability (that resulted in an explosion in a store) made it unsafe to pursue the goal of having a subway run down Wilshire Boulevard, and ultimately out to Santa Monica. This project would have acheived the wonderful goal of connecting Downtown to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Wiltern Theatre, The Superior Court, the Hammer Museum, and the whole of UCLA. But it was held up because (essentially) the greatest power in the history of the world could not simply look across the Atlantic or the Pacific to learn the tried and tested engineering solutions to this “safety issue”.
So the Good News: The same politician who sponsored the legislation that resulted in the ban on tunneling has how worked to (successfully) get it repealed! Quoting from the LA Times:
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who wrote the ban after the 1985 explosion, said he is satisfied that new technology now makes safe tunneling possible.
Huh. It is entirely coincidental that the city is simply being forced to reluctantly accept that the traffic and parking problems are overwhelming them. The “Not in My Back Yard” and other short-sighted attitudes to the subway -which I claim are more responsible for the ban than any engineering issues- is beginning to crumble a bit. May it crumble at an accelerating rate henceforth. The more it crumbles, the fewer stupid logistic compromises will have to be made to make life easy for selfish car drivers.
Here’s a quote from an opinion piece by Christopher Hawthorne in the LA Times, showing the sort of lame, ignorant, and frankly, intensely annoying, things people still offer as reasons to not build such a line:
Some opponents of the subway to the sea complain that it makes little sense for Los Angeles because it borrows an ill-fitting notion of dense urbanity from New York and San Francisco, or because it would threaten L.A.’s neighborhood diversity.
Christopher Hawthorne points out (with remarkable patience):
But development spurred by stations along Wilshire could help highlight distinctions between neighborhoods rather than erase them.
Indeed, travel by subway can make those differences more pronounced. When you’re riding underground, even along a single boulevard, Point A becomes distinct from Point B; sections of the city become discrete locations rather than parts of an asphalt continuum.
… although he notes:
Transit-oriented development around subway stops can further this sense, though the design of projects on land controlled by the MTA — such as the Hollywood and Highland shopping center or the Archeon Group’s proposed $160-million condo tower for the intersection of Wilshire and Western — is hardly encouraging along these lines.
All true. But why bother addressing such a stupid and short-sighted claim? You need only look at other cities to see that this is nonsense, and you need only look at Los Angeles right now to see that this is idiotic. How can ease of access for a diversity of people contribute to the threatening of neighbourhood diversity? I’m puzzled by this attitude, which again ignores the lessons learned in numerous other cities. Yes, the building of more subway lines will change the city, but positively, since it will create more opportunities for neighbourhood diversity, if the community steps up to take advantage of the myriad possibilities that will be created by a subway stop being near them.
The main interpretation of the above attitude I can think of is not positive at all. Are they afraid that it will mean that those scary people of colour from some neighbourhoods will more easily get access to neighbourhoods where you normally don’t see them walking on the streets? If that is what they mean by “threatening of neighbourhood diversity”, then I can’t be sympathetic.
I can’t wait for all of this to happen. The lack of a strong spine of railway lines connecting the key parts of the city is what is stopping LA from making the transition from a wonderful city (which it is now) to one of the planet’s truly great cities. Imagine being able to end your work day over at UCLA, take in an exhibit over at the Hammer museum, have dinner on Westwood, and then step on the train to go Downtown to see a concert at the Disney Hall? ….and never once have to worry about traffic, parking, or gas.
The city is finally starting to grow up.
-cvj
Pingback: Gone East, Looking West at Asymptotia
Pingback: Pit Visit at Asymptotia
Pingback: Purple not Pants - Asymptotia
Pingback: Rapid Changes in Los Angeles - Asymptotia
Never too late to comment on a post John.
Yes, it is a combination of light rail and subway.
Right now, the bus system (for several major routes) is remarkably good (although it returns to poor in the later evening, for no good reason) as it stands, despite what peope say. The metro rapid service is brilliant.
Cheers,
-cvj
I’m late reading this post, as is often the case, but I have to say: I’m glad to learn about the development of these rail lines (light rail, I’d guess, though in my quick scan I didn’t notice the term), as well as the extensive bus system. One of these days, I expect I’ll be returning to LA for a visit, and unlike the first time I won’t be taking taxis all over town. The rail and bus lines are what I’ll be using instead–and possibly a rent-a-bike…
So, what about the train Jack Benny used to ride to Anaheim, Azusa, and Cucamonga?
Hey Jude,
Thanks. Don’t be fooled by the mythology though…. There’s a huge amount of mass transit here despite what people say. See this bus map for example:
Huge detailed version can be found at the MTA’s website. See more at this post.
Speed, frequency, and efficiency… and the will of the people to use it… those are what are missing. But as the car’s grip wanes, you see improvements, and more usage….
-cvj
Glad to hear about L.A. getting more mass transit. I haven’t been there since the 1970s, and my view of the place was tainted by the fact of its being a city, which, if you grow up in rural Colorado, isn’t a virtue. Besides, back then they were watering the streets weekly, in spite of living on borrowed water. Later, I lived in Phoenix for a brief time, and I disliked it even more intensely than L.A. That winter, one bank actually spray-painted the grass green to maintain the illusion that it wasn’t winter. Just a Colorado prejudice, I suppose.