YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Critic's Notebook: There's a growing disconnect on a better-connected L.A.

The movement for more mass transit meets constant resistance from opponents who view projects through a narrow, car-centric lens. Just look at the Purple Line subway debate.

October 24, 2010|By Christopher Hawthorne, Los Angeles Times Architecture Critic

Someday, maybe, Los Angeles will come into its own as a post-suburban city, fully comfortable with density and multifamily housing and the coexistence of private cars, pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit. Clearly, though, that day remains a long way off, even if we continue to see tantalizing glimpses of how a more public, better-connected L.A. might look.

Consider the wildly contradictory evidence of the last few weeks. On Oct. 10, an estimated 100,000 Angelenos, on foot and on their bikes and skateboards, filled the streets to celebrate CicLAvia, which was modeled on a similar event in Bogota, Colombia, and, for most of a Sunday, closed more than 7 miles of L.A.'s boulevards to cars. The event drew many more participants than even its organizers were expecting, reflecting a growing constituency in Los Angeles for changes to the streetscape benefiting pedestrians and cyclists.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, meanwhile, continued to make significant progress on extending subway and light-rail lines across the region, even announcing a new federal loan of $546-million that will finally connect LAX to the Metro system. At the same time, Los Angeles and Santa Monica both advanced plans for new parks: on Spring Street in downtown L.A., where architect Michael Lehrer is designing a 35,000-square-foot pocket park, and in Santa Monica's Civic Center, where the talented landscape architect James Corner is working with architect Frederick Fisher on a pair of adjacent parks totaling 7 acres.

Anyone who took those pieces of news to mean that L.A. is entirely ready to move beyond its car-loving, sprawling ways — and start paying real attention to the shared spaces of the city — was in for a rather harsh dose of reality, however. It came most clearly in the form of angry reaction to a draft version of an environmental impact report released by Metro for the planned Purple Line subway extension across the Westside.

The draft EIR was full of promising news for those of us who see subway lines to the Westside — whether that means the Purple Line or, a little farther to the south, the Exposition Line to Santa Monica by way of Culver City — as crucial elements, both practically and symbolically, in L.A.'s civic maturation. It indicated, for instance, that riding from downtown's Union Station to Westwood would take roughly 25 minutes. (In bad car traffic, that trip can take three times as long.) Perhaps most important, the report was a reminder that much of the funding for an extension of the line from its current terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Westwood (or slightly farther west, to the Veterans Affairs campus) is already secured, thanks to sales-tax revenue from Measure R, which passed in November 2008 with 67 percent of the vote.

None of those details mattered to the subway's most vocal opponents, however. They jumped on a single detail buried in the EIR: the admission by Metro that the subway would do little to alleviate traffic congestion on the Westside. For a number of pundits and writers, the traffic issue alone was enough to prompt them to renew their attacks on the Purple Line extension as a massive boondoggle.

In the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald lined up source after source to condemn the Westside subway as "a giant public works project to please unions and special interests" and suggested that "county road-capacity projects put off for decades" might be a better use for Measure R money. Increasingly, he wrote, opponents of the subway are asking how Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa "can justify a subway that's more PR icon than traffic relief project."

Those complaints were echoed on a number of well-read websites around town, including Mark Lacter's LA Biz Observed, part of Kevin Roderick's LA Observed family of blogs. Calling the subway plan "nonsensical," Lacter wrote, "You can't expect taxpayers to shell out many billions of dollars and suffer through years and years of inconvenience for a public works project that will not improve their lives."

I'm a fan of Lacter's writing, but like many subway opponents he sees the issue of transit through an exceedingly narrow lens, assuming that the only plausible reason to build a line across the Westside is to make life easier for Angelenos driving around in their cars. For Lacter, McDonald and others, new mass transit will "improve their lives" only if it makes car traffic move measurably faster. Its only benefit is as a mechanism for "traffic relief." It doesn't seem to have occurred to either writer that anybody in Los Angeles will actually want to, you know, ride the new trains.

Los Angeles Times Articles