Is a subway in our future?Follows is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Representative Henry Waxman regarding the proposed expansion of the Los Angeles subway system:
Dear Mr. Waxman:
On Thursday, November 10, 2005 I received a copy of the local “Park LaBrea News/Beverly Press” newspaper. On the front page was a headline that read: “Tunneling OK’d for Wilshire Subway.” As a native Californian (born and raised in West Hollywood) who recently moved back to Los Angeles after a brief stint in New York, I was very intrigued by the headline. Surely I needn’t remind you of what an unpleasant task driving in Los Angeles has become over the past several years. For quite some time I have felt frustrated with the apparent lack of progress that has been made in the realm of public transportation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
After reading the subway article in the neighborhood paper, I noticed one name had been mentioned several times: yours. According to Janet Turley, the author of this particular article, one of the major obstacles currently facing the expansion of the Los Angeles subway system is a ban preventing federal funds allocation to any tunneling projects involving the infamous Wilshire Corridor. Ms. Turley indicates that despite a safety review committee finding that such tunneling could be safely conducted without fear of methane or hydrogen sulfide gas-related complications, the project cannot effectively move forward without the current ban on federal funding being lifted. Ms. Turley indicated that the decision to lift this ban is yours.
I suspect that Ms. Turley likely over-simplified the process of jump starting the flow of federal funds for transit development under the Wilshire Corridor. It is with this assumption in mind that I write to your office this day.
Having lived in New York and Los Angeles I have seen first-hand how important an adequate system of mass transit is to the survival of a large metropolis. What I find very troubling is the public perception of who should use mass transit in Los Angeles and where it should exist. It is true that ours is a car culture. It is also true that the media generally tends to portray mass transit as a waste of time and money; they routinely exploit the failures of mass transit endeavors in our city and ignore its potential and present successes. You know as well as I that if left to voters today, such a negative campaign against any form of significant light rail or subway development in highly populated, middle class neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County would be waged that the project would be destined for failure. People are always highly resistive to change, and it seems that Los Angelinos are irrationally and fearfully opposed to public transportation.
Image though, being able to walk to Santa Monica and Fairfax and hopping on a train to an office in Santa Monica without having to fight traffic all the way to the freeways and then again once you finally make it onto the 10. Imagine not having to spend in excess of $2.00/gallon on gasoline. Imagine not having to spend nearly two-and-a-half hours per day sitting in traffic, polluting the air, draining your wallet for a mere 12-mile round trip drive. Is it such a radical idea to not have to drive to a subway station? Is it an unreasonable expectation to be able to go to more than basic tourist attractions by rail within your city? I don’t believe that these are unreasonable expectations at all.
The transit model in Los Angeles over the past decade can be summed up with one word: busses. Unfortunately, busses still suffer the plague of traffic and—in many instances—make it worse. Busses are unsexy, while trains are not. Busses do not generally appeal to middle class business professionals, a significant component of our society. The point of mass transit is—as its namesake implies—to appeal to the masses. In order to relieve the southland’s traffic problems, a transit system must appeal to all members of society, regardless of socioeconomic standing. Another bus is not the solution—nor is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on freeway widening projects. Why is it that you can find wealthy business professionals sitting alongside construction workers and school teachers aboard the Long Island Railroad, the subways underneath New York, or the PATH trains from New Jersey, but such an idea in Los Angeles seems like an absurdity? Are New Yorkers really better than us? I refuse to believe that they are.
You now stand a rare crossroads in politics where you have the ability to help lead a fight that will establish a legacy. What do you want that legacy to be? Will you be remembered as the representative who embraced the present popular misconception that public transportation doesn’t belong in “our” neighborhood? Or will you seize this moment and go down as the person who spearheaded an initially unpopular revolution in public transportation that helped to finally solve one of the worst transit problems in the history of the world? The choice is yours. If not a Wilshire Corridor subway extension then some form of light rail must be built in its place. Perhaps a monorail or a maglev, but pleases…no more busses.
posted at 12:42