One day, bitches: the future of the Los Angeles Metro

I don't mean to reopen the box of frogs, so I'll just give Elvis a nod for being more OTM than I was when I tried to say the same thing. Find me a Southern California homeowner with a back yard, and I'll find you a NIMBY. Unfortunately, the LA transit map illustrates pretty clearly the unequal distribution of the economic power and social influence required to run a successful NIMBY campaign.

Do racially coded fears play a part? I can't imagine it doesn't. And neither the "bad guys" NOR the "good guys" display the slightest reluctance to shamelessly manipulate those fears for their own ends. LA politics is a pretty cynical game, even among the white hats.

All of which is to say:
- Elvis, Spencer, and Vic ALL OTM.
- Jeez, this thread could use a drink.
- Sorry I won't get to buy you all a round tomorrow.

and perception and attitudes is a huge part of the movements for or against transportation. people who have a history here are not necessarily more right, but have different perceptions to add and have lived through past ideas, efforts, and failures. for instance. it's common to think the red car, etc. were closed down by corporate conspiracy against everyone's will, but talking to my family (albeit a small focus group), people just weren't into it anymore (which i believe could be backed up looking at rider numbers/sales). there was a cultural fascination with cars and the future. and people really believed something like a monorail was coming, partly due to it's introduction at disneyland and the widespread belief a subway was a ridiculous idea for an earthquake-prone city. there was also MUCH less traffic then, people weren't as environmental. cars seemed win-win-win. i mean you can argue corporate efforts or advertising were behind this perception (people often act against their own best interest) and residents in retrospect might think they were wrong. but as you can gather from the state of politics, feelings and attitudes matter WAY more than facts. and they're much more random, difficult to pin down, especially if you have only past 2nd-hand records to look at.

however, things are changing. traffic and parking problems were never EVER this bad. it's affecting people's lives. people in the suburbs have excruciating commute experiences. people in the city with cars can't park and get around slower than if they rode a bike or even walked. that's what could ultimately change things.

oy vey. back to work...

So, the #1 thought in a rich westsider's mind when considering whether or not to vote for a public transportation initiative is the purely selfish fact that they will never use it! And even given the ideal map up at the start of the thread, we're still going to be driving all over the place.

I'm not saying this as an argument against public transportation but I think it's obviously a reality that has to be dealt with. I live near the PCH and every weekend there are hundreds of people out cruising, riding their motorcycles, enjoying the scenery, posing and trying to be seen with their vehicle. These people aren't going to take the subway to the beach!

When it comes to utopian transportation scenarios I'm much more optimistic about the future of electric vehicles and the trend toward working at home than the idea of totally rebuilding LA. Not that I'm opposed to an extensive metro system but I mean it's pretty obvious that we're all quite pessimistic about its future.

I will say one thing, I was gone from '91 to '01 and while parking is *much* worse in general, traffic is actually quite a bit better now. I think it has a lot to do with active intersection sensors which control traffic lights; they tend to make surface streets viable as an actual alternative.

You can KEEP blaming me for making a bad argument et al if you wish, but merely using a different adjective ("sloppy," as opposed to Spencer's "sweeping," or "extreme") in response to my very simple contention throughout this this thread - that race and socio-economic status are primary ingredients in the westside's NIMBYism - fails to sufficiently refute anything I've said on this thread, and isn't going to work. "Very simple," but not an oversimplifiction, in that I'm not blindly accusing every white westsider of being racist, a point I've repeated at least 2-3 times upthread (this makes it 3-4, right?). Claiming an issue is considered too emotional by many people to have any relevant factual realities just seems like a gigantic cop-out to me, but I sincerely hope that now you'd take this post of mine in the right tone: I'm not trying to be provocative as my comments could've been construed as being in my faux-"angry" and intentionally hyperbolic posts at the very top of the thread ("i hate the fucking westside!"), and neither am I trying to slag off the political complexities of the matter at hand. As Elvis pointed out already, the racial and socioeconomic factors have persistently been significant throughout all of LA's history of growth almost to the point of now becoming an unconscious presence, and to set up a dichotomy here by attributing the decisions of the non-development of the metro solely to capitalistic, business and monetary considerations to the exclusion of social ones is historically erroneous and moreover theoreticallly dangerous!

It's not an "either/or" issue, and I don't understand why anyone would argue that race/class and socioeconomic factors are not intrinsically tied up in economic-political ones, especially when it comes to questions about demographics, marketing, and consumer/spending culture. The automobile business flourished because the car, as domestic object of desire, meshed so well with the dream of every middle-class family owning an individuailzed house and a yard, but the marketing of this myth was never originally evenly aimed at every ethnic group or class that was present.

You're essenially saying that there are -no- facts here, only emotional attitudes, perceptions and definitions, and while normally such resolute and eh, concrete abstraction (sorry) would be agreeable with one that has been accused (esp here) of dwelling too heavily on the conjectural, the hypothetical and the incorporeal, I don't think it's appropriate in this circusmstance. Furthermore, I strongly believe that statements like this " i don't think people running things are ever that concerned about race/class/religion" are utterly and almost ridiculously inaccurate, since...just as ONE example... you yourself effectively point out the race (and class ) card(s) are oftentimes manipulated by the agit-prop movements of the Left, or co-opted by them to galvanize or even radicalize a subset of people.

To imply that politicians and political decisions regarding the urbanity and livability of this city - or any city - are unconcerned with its social and racial demographic details, particularly of a geographic nature, is extremely absurd but perhaps not entirely uncommon. To me, it seems to follow a systemic pattern of advantageous and intentional denial, and at this point in LA's history it would materialize in negating the region's still-trenchant racial tensions. The metro is just one thing. Next, in regards to hiistory, you're going to start denying, for example, that the 110 freeway was not consciously chosen in the location it is to keep economically disenfranchised blacks on one side, and with how far this thread is gone I'm somewhat surprised that one hasn't already taken this (provocative) position.

I don't mean to sound like I'm personally singling _you_ out here when I'm not, but this entire issue is so important when discussing the history and future of Los Angeles in any of its manifestations that I think it's good we're spending time on it, even if inadvertently only because some are taking offense to anything I've posted. I think the denial of the standardization of racism - of how now it's just been reduced to a background issue, something that is used to mask the "real" issue, which in your opinion there's only one, capital - is what is most dangerous, since it eases the upper and middle classes into a complacency without ever trying to find a solution. We're all guilty of this, whether we think about it or not.

And then you have one incident - like Rodney King - and it's all over.

When living in such a stratified city (often but not always in regards to geography), it's easy to forget and deny the social and economic conditions of those most alien to your own background, but the implications of such denial are staggering. And living and travelling around in your own individualized machines, without engaging or partaking in any great degree of "public space," even if would be the Metro, which in NYC's situation is at least championed to be a democratizing tool when it comes to classism...all this only accentuates the stereotyping when confrontations do occur. Otherwise, it's back to the individuaized worlds of group disassociation, along classist but most obviously racial lines. It is this subject, I believe, of an unconscious, practicallyinvisible level of pervasive racism that was attempted to be dealt with in that movie Crash, but unfortunately in only the most trite and obvious manner. One could take the recent Villaraigosan victory and wax prophetic abt the progressive consequences re: this issue here at large, but not only do I think that would be grossly insufficient with respect to the reflection of race relations overall - since what does this victory even partially signifiy when it was against such an ineffectual and unpopular politician such as Hahn? - but also, I don't think many here would even be interested since the mayoral election thread I started got no more than 20 answers, with no one displaying any enthusiasm for the act of voting in the first place. If anything, the man's triumph proves that race does indeed matter to those "running things," and if you want to keep arguing this point with me, maybe you should pick up that silly Newsweek issue with him on the cover the week he won, with the headline LATINO POWER!

Leaving all that aside and returning solely to transportation, I think you bring up a very good point that the people back in the 50s and 60s acted against their own interest in choosing the automobile, due to a perception of its efficacy and easy of use. And how those decisions went beyond the marketing of cars, to the frustration and fatigue with the PER, which was supposed to move very slowly to only certain areas. I appreciate you adding your personal familial background to this discussion, and if possible I'd like to one day perhaps make some sort of documentary abt the big red cars and those who remember them themost vividly, since their existence is entirely unknown by recent generations of new Angelenos.

However - and on a final note - while I respect your family background in supposedly generating a more complex and nuanced stance on the subject of public tansportation, based on previous flirtations with the issue, I hope you won't exclude relative newcomers like myself from extensively partaking in the ongoing discussion (I note how you moved from "how long and where have you lived here / WHAT R YOUR LA CREDENTIALS, COLLEGE BOY??" to "oh ::sigh:: okay, i GUESS you can have an opinion EVEN IF YOU'RE STILL WRONG BITCH" in two nights, quite generously and, yes, outrageously). Frankly, I think any "external" opinions of those of us who _have_ lived in other cities that _did_ feature an effective and widespread use of public transport (and I'm not saying that I did necessarily, since my city's was effective but not widespread since it didn't have to be..it wasn't a big metropolis), would be very useful here, since many Angelenos who have grown up without the use of a Metro don't understand the need for its use or the frustration of living without one. For example, okay, no I'm not going to use that example of else dean gulberry will ^%$#$ &)&*(()6

I don't know how long one has to live here to be considered an Angeleno by the native populace, but looking faintly Mexican should at least count for something.

I won't go east of PCH unless heavily enticed.

Its all too ugly with too many cars.

ok but i'm not joking

I don't understand this (and the Wilshire Bl. BA thing) at all; why would they not want public transportation to bring people to the airport/their businesses? Is it the ordeal of building out the line that they're afraid of, or the end result? WTF?

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/39/features-berkowitz.php

Then I look forward to it!

although, im confsued, in the article and metros website, there seems to be use of terms like light rail, rail transit, subway etc interchangeably. what exactly is this thing? the pics of the gold line etc make it look like a tram, but does it go underground? do different lines have different types of transport on?

I thought the implication was that they're not so much a genuine bus users group as an anti-public-transportation group that used divisive accusations of racism as a means to squash any subway plans.

I too was confused by the mish-mash of terminology. I think light rail generally describes above-ground trains (but small subway-like trains, not big Amtrack type trains) and subways are obviously underground. Rail transit seems like a generic term that encompasses all of the above. But it sounds like the main issue is the route from east to west (along Wilshire) which pretty much has to be a subway.

it would be awesome

Busses although a necessity, were dirty, smelly things both inside and out; belching smog and particulates into our otherwise clear ocean-cooled air. I say a necessity, because how else would the maid get to our house?? They lived in “bad” neighborhoods that we would not be caught dead entering… Literally, or so I thought, when I was 8. Bad people would shoot you on sight and take your car if you ventured to wherever the maid lived. “Those People” were all in gangs and hated white people like me and my family and friends. Everyday, The big RTD bus brought domestic help to the corner of Sunset and Kenter, where all the moms lined up in their Mercedes’ to pickup Estella and Maria to drive them up into the hills to the house to clean. It was just part of the events of the day, much like shopping, lunch at the club and picking up the kids from school.

Then when I was 9, I grew up a little. It all began when I started asking why. Why, if Those People were so horrible, untrustworthy and killers, why did we allow them into our home? I continued to question, grow up, and began to realize that tiny minded thinking keeps you in a tiny (but pretty and well appointed) box. The box is within a wrought iron fence in a neighborhood that gets smaller and smaller as the “bad element” encroaches. You can lock yourself away in fear until you disappear or you are overtaken by real life and all the nasty, ugly things that are included; and all the really amazingly wonderful things that are real life. I now call my parents “Those People”. They lived in a tiny world consumed by fear.

I also live in fear. Fear of subways in Los Angeles, CA. Why? Not because of the people who ride inside them or any havoc they may bring into my world; but because of something much more powerful. The earth itself. Our city is riddled with faults and a subway is just a BAD idea. .

Earthquake faults, natural gas pockets everywhere, bad construction, bad planning, bad materials and a sparking tube with hundreds of people in it all lead to tragedy IMO. Not a good combination. (hello?! Tar pits?! Oh, those bubbling smelly things. Exploding corner at Fairfax and 3rd? Natural Gas, gee whiz!) Beverly Hills is a wealthy place. Not just the addresses and the people who inhabit, but the real estate-underground. The city sits on vast amounts of crude that if tapped could bring down the cost of gasoline, heating, etc. in California to affordable levels. However it’s just not gonna happen for so many reasons. We just keep buying it from them guys in Middle-eastern nations and funding their terrorist activities so they can thank us for our support by building bombs to nuke us with.

Aboveground Rail? Now you’re talking. Too bad we just tore up Santa Monica Boulevard and pulled out the rail road tracks that ran down the middle… or didn’t you guys know that was why there was a big and little Santa Monica Boulevard in the first place. Short-timers I guess. It would have been so much cheaper and easier to unbury the existing tracks. Ahem... yes, they were there until about 5 years ago big parts of the tracks were paved right over the top. Just would have had to refurbish the small areas of tracks that needed it, and put some cars on the rails. Presto! an instant rail line ready to go a "people mover" to be reckoned with running from Westwood to downtown. Instead, we decided to make the street more efficient to help out the congested traffic problem and went right ahead and ripped that old ugly rail thing right out of the ground. Ripped it up by the mile and trucked it out to the scrap heap in City of Commerce to be melted into more shiny new cars! (like we did when Goodyear rubber paid the city and its officials huge amounts of money and “paved the way” to keep us chained to our cars). Hmmm. Does anybody get it? I don’t think so. It’s not just NIMBY, my friends. This fish stinks from the head down. There won’t be a Los Angeles rail Metro anytime soon, Bitches. Not one of you has looked beyond your noses. Can you say “Follow the Money”?

henry waxman is an ugly, large-nostriled fucktard now and forever for doing this - FUCK YOU!!!

OH NOES, NEGROES AND BROWNINOS!!

the westside line would be reality now if he wasn't such a prick, sorry :(

day late/dollar short doesn't really begin to describe the damage done to this great city

what's the latest on this mythical expansion of the metro???

If a line west on Wilshire happens in the next 15 years, I will be extremely surprised.

Damnit, I miss the east coast and its public transit.