Trip the Light Rail: The Will to Ride The Pink Line
by Tony Chavira
“What is the Pink Line?” you may wonder, poring over Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan with desperate fervor. And you’d be right to notice that, as of right now, it doesn’t exist on policy paper or PDF. And yet blogs, newspaper articles and local officials have had their agendas set afire by a surge in support for this previously-unheard-of endeavor. Where will it go? What will it do? What’s the goal?
To answer these questions, we have to start with a little overview of the stuff we’ve got. The Red Line, which begins in downtown Los Angeles and tentatively ends at the North Hollywood Arts District, was an issue of massive contention to Central City Angelenos when it was first announced. Appropriately, between the sinking sidewalks, the historical digs, and the lawsuits, the idea of tunneling under Los Angeles was never one that surface dwellers could fully get behind. When the proposed extension of the Purple Line under Wilshire took center stage 20 years ago, aimed at burrowing next to Westwood and eventually mining its way to Santa Monica, it likewise faced enraged grassroots political fury from a group primarily led by Hancock Park residents who claimed that the area contained a dangerously large methane deposit. But blocking subway development because of gas was, of course, all a political overreaction to ensure public support. What seemed like a real threat to the welfare of west side residents (and eventually became a ban on tunneling through the area) became a moot point after a very belated environmental review showed that the issue was overblown. Naturally, this ban (which was brought into law without the proper environmental review) took 20 years to overturn. But, hey, that was 20 years ago. Clearly collecting all the facts before passing policy is a 21st century thing.
Now we have a fantastic plan for a “Subway to the Sea” Purple Line, which will, if all goes well, extend from the existing Purple Line’s end all the way west to Santa Monica. Mayor Villaraigosa’s all about it and taxpayers seem to be too. No qualms here either; we’re totally for it as long as the money’s there.
The Pink Line proposal, to be brief, is simply this (taken with lots of love from MetroRiderLA):
As you can probably see for yourself, the Pink Line is a good idea, and I declare this so openly for a few reasons. First, West Hollywood is a relatively walkable area of Los Angeles, and there are plenty of amenities Joe and Jane Transitrider can easily reach from any of the proposed Pink Line stops. Because this is the case, West Hollywood would be pretty conducive to being classified as a gigantic Transit-Oriented Development, and it would be a lot easier to promote smart density development because of that. Second, the Pink Line would allow for people from the San Fernando Valley to access the Westside without having to come further and further into Central City Los Angeles. That could not only lighten the car traffic load immensely (while Metro works at getting the Green Line to crawl all the way up the 405 into Sherman Oaks) but also frees up movement in and out of Downtown Los Angeles. Lastly, the Pink Line’s a great idea because polls have shown that West Hollywood citizens are entirely pro-transit. Residents voted for Measure R in record numbers and already have enough strong community support for the Pink Line to get some real political attention.
So yes ... Metro should consider adding it to the plan. Though the projected cost is about $3 billion, I think that if there’s a will there’s a way.
Therein lays the problem, though. Will the insular West Hollywood community have the will to actually ride the Pink Line if it ever gets built? Los Angeles citizens already have a terrible history of fervently advocating for mass transit when gas prices are bad, then suddenly ignoring their public transportation options when the price of gas dips. What exactly will the return on this investment be if everyone’s mind suddenly changes?
More to the point though, we all know that there’s a stigma to public transit in Los Angeles, and don’t try denying it. Don’t you find it strange that Angelenos are so used to thinking of door-to-door travel times that the concept of not having a rail within five minutes walking distance seems abhorrent ... almost fascist! Something worthy of Internet chatter, policy change and a $3 billion investment, in fact. And yet, for all the clamor about tunneling new, accessible rail lines through any area of Los Angeles, how many people ever bother to ride the bus? Smart interconnected city transportation means thinking about transportation use smartly. Places a train can’t take you, a bus can, and places a bus can’t reach, you can probably walk. Most of the time the weather here is favorable to walkers, yet how many people do you know who walk in L.A.? For that matter, how many do you know ride the bus?
The “social advocate for the poor” side of me is screaming, “The point of rail accessibility is to help provide transportation alternatives to those who don’t have any,” while the environmental urbanist in me is stating clearly, “A Pink Line would be a great addition to a community that is conducive to this kind of TOD development.” The problem, when you get right down to brass tacks, is that the hypocrisy of abstaining from bus ridership while jumping for joy at the thought of rail lines is something you can only have when you’ve got the privilege to easily use neither.
So, for now, take the bus and walk around more. It might take a while longer to get to your destination, but you might actually enjoy it. At least, until you have a five-minute walk to a local rail line.
www.racaia.com | tony@fourstory.org
Comments
No comments yet.
