By Jonathan Trachtman Los Angeles
Here is my response to David Pisarra (SMDP, Aug. 8, page 4). Let me first say thanks for providing a strong opinion. You are also quite well-versed in the entertainment history of LA and its status as the first horizontal megalopolis of edge cities and far flung “burbs” the world had ever known.
Now, how about the Red Car Electric Trolley system? Are you aware of its history? It was around precisely during the time DW Griffith and the Warners and Mayers of the world were holding court in old Hollywood.
This Red Car Trolley System was decimated over the years through collusion of the auto companies and real estate developers, with the tacit cooperation of the local governments and infrastructure contractors.
Meantime, let’s fast forward to 2006. The brilliant “rich” LA you speak of is not a wealth of the majority, but that of a certain elite demographic. Yes, everyone from new immigrants, gardeners, to big wig entertainment execs has a car, and we all love them (the cars, that is). There’s nothing wrong with this.
But, I ask you, are you aware of the price we pay for the one-horse-town mentality of this “richness?” I would venture to say this car-only culture has wrought environmental havoc through our gas-guzzling ways. Never mind all the hours we spend, rich and poor, sneering and losing productivity in gridlock.Take a look around the world,and you’ll see that cars,though still owned by a large majority in many other countries,are merely a part of a rich urban planning fabric that favors community, live/work, buses, trains, taxis, and walking. Most notably, efficiency is the buzzword. This multi-layered transportation network runs the gamut of benefits to the populace — more interaction, more community, slimmer people (you burn a lot more calories walking than driving everywhere),a cleaner environment consuming less resources,the hi-tech pleasures and relaxation of riding a Maglev train in Shanghai, and extensive local and long distance train systems in places like Tokyo, London, Paris, Toronto, Barcelona, and yes, even New York.
Meantime, closer to home, LA continues to develop a piece-by-piece transit system that, with a little cooperation and progressive thought from all areas of the city rich and poor, makes for viable transport alternatives, tourist revenues, and a less stressed-out, more productive and efficient society.
It is probably true that LA, due to its vast size, its young status as a city, and its fragmented nimby-ism in certain communities, may never have the most state-of-the-art or most comprehensive transit system. But do a little bit of snooping in business, government, and civic circles these days and you’ll see a proactive, progressive, and positive movement to re-urbanizing of our great city, with earnest attempts at making the whole thing work. This is to be admired, and dare I say, it’s not a crime to be optimistic.
Though this is a long ramble I wonder how you feel about a subway to the sea down Wilshire Boulevard, or light rail extensions up and down the 405, etc. It offers just a small contribution to making LA a truly cutting-edge, progressive, environmentally-conscious, and new urban model of a city for the rest of the world to take notice. Now, if only more people could afford to live in the concentrated density centers, which are in the planning and construction stages as we speak.
Oh, and by the way, the notion that transit systems are here to serve the poor and the plebeian “worker bees” is simply untrue on a global basis. Even rich millionaires and nouveau riche in many world cities recognize the value to efficiency, productivity and balance of mind that mass transit can provide. That’s why you’ll see investment bankers sitting and standing side by side with the “masses.” It’s not an outdated model or relic of the Industrial Revolution. Au contraire.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 16, 2006. Read the original PDF.