Transformation L.A.
1 Rail is Better Than 2

words by Robert Burnside

It’s fast, sexy, and fun, where some flirting is allowed, perhaps even a romantic kiss and surely about making some good connections in the entertainment industry all while moving about town. This could be the look and feel of mass transit in Los Angeles. The experience would lure people in and make it feel like the 21st Century we expected and were promised by our own film factories. Geez, let’s add some good, sexy jazz music too as we glide about town at speeds of up to 60 miles-per-hour. This could be our future. Not tomorrow but realistically in five years. It’s our choice to make it happen. And with oil now over $100 a barrel, with the arctic ice caps melting and with hundreds of thousands of our troops stuck in the treacherous sands of the Middle East, isn’t it time for real change?

Will we ever have a comprehensive transit system in Los Angeles? One where we could go downtown to enjoy an opening at the MOCA or enjoy a performance at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion and then go to a late night dinner on La Cienega? One where it is convenient to work in Santa Monica and live in an affordable two-bedroom in Echo Park? Yes, after some research, I believe and so do many others; we could transform this city in five years if we muster the political will and demand change – especially if Sacramento and Washington got behind it. However, it wouldn’t be a subway but an updated version of a monorail or lightrail. Something sleek, something 21st Century, something that could provide an enduring image of Los Angeles besides the images of endless ribbons of red brake lights of cars stuck on our once world-class freeways. Something as futuristic but more useful than the iconic image of the Theme Building at LAX.

It would be iconic and revolutionary for our city to have one of the best transit systems in the world as we once did. Psychologically it would be liberating. Economically, it would open whole new waves of business, saving countless hours in congested traffic and presenting Los Angeles as once again one of the most desirable cities in the world for the global cognoscenti that Hollywood needs to attract. It would be fairly simple to put up in a few years a hundred miles of above ground, well-designed attractive and “quiet” monorail or lightrail. These aren’t the loud, unruly elevated trains we see in Chicago or the ones that you remember perhaps from childhood visits to New York. In America, we have tended to push monorail to the fringe of amusement parks, zoos, and tourist attractions. In Japan, they have proven otherwise and designed them to withstand earthquakes. The fixation on the subway is no doubt due to our looking at New York or London as models, or perhaps it is also the way that the powerful bus drivers’ union and Exxon has insidiously sabotaged any real change for over 50 years.

For the first time in over 80 years there is basically little or no neighborhood opposition to some of the projects being investigated by MTA—particularly on the traditionally difficult West Side (read Beverly Hills and Santa Monica). Actually, there is increasing support as the realization that even if we don’t take the train or monorails, that the many workers, the young and the old of all different races and classes that stock our shelves, serve our food, clean our houses may and will take the train. And that also in reality land, nobody is going to stage a home invasion and carry off our 80” flat screen television by riding a train. No, those people have cars and trucks and have always had them. Truthfully, the yeast to get the bread to rise is often federal dollars. Isn’t it interesting to note that our nation’s capital is one of the few cities since World War II to build and complete a comprehensive subway system? The French and British tried for decades to get a tunnel under the English Channel, but until the governments got serious it didn’t happen.

Ever wonder why the train out to LAX, the one almost everyone seems barely aware of and that cost hundreds of millions to build, stops 1500 feet from the actual terminal even when personal cars have been identified as a major security issue? The train stops short and then you have to get on a bus and lug your luggage to the terminal. It’s because the airport authority, which is suppose to serve us, wanted to keep their parking fees intact. It’s the same reason that it is rumored that we don’t just get off at Universal City in the middle of their city walk - Universal or some division within wanted to keep the tour buses moving and get their parking fees. Who wants to walk up and down that hill at Universal?

The Hollywood Bowl has a similar story: The reason why the billion dollar subway doesn’t stop right at the Hollywood Bowl is that the Bowl would not give money to have a stop there. No doubt the Hollywood Bowl board thought that a higher caliber clientele would still drive. This type of thinking has pervaded attempts to get us out of the automobile since World War II. The parks and beaches on Long Island were designed so that buses (read inner city, urban youth) couldn’t pass under the overpasses.

Monorails cost between a fifth and a fourth of the amount of subways. Subways and heavy rail do have their advantages, such as transporting 1,000 passengers per train versus up to 500 per train on lightrail. At the grade, at street level, trains are much slower while they navigate streets and further interrupt traffic. Street level transportation may work in a few less-populous areas at the end of the line - but let’s get real. We like speed, and we need to make it sexy. This is America, the wealthiest country on Earth. And, this is Los Angeles. If we really got ambitious, we would have an express train like Paris’ RER where we could jump from Downtown to Hollywood to Century City and UCLA in ten minutes at speeds approaching 90 miles an hour, and we could jump on a high speed train to arrive in downtown San Francisco in about two hours.

Los Angeles, and certainly California, has the power to help change the world. We may have lost faith, stumbled a bit, and after doing some research into the past attempts and the political realities of getting things done, I can understand how we feel disempowered. But we have the power if we muster the will and we must collectively engage the system in a new, sustainable way and get involved. Si, se puede. Yes, we can change the face of L.A. and do it quickly.

In the last cnetury, we have given the planet vast pantheons and totems for people to worship, envy, and compete for. From James Dean’s crashes (the last one fatal) in his Porches, to Grace Kelly’s racing in her sports coupe with Spencer Tracy down a winding road, to the enduring images of a long, black Oldsmobile pulling up with a sheer stocking leg in a bejeweled shoe stepping out on the pavement, we invented the glamour of the car culture, mass-marketed it, and sold it to the world. These images still move millions of people around in a world that speaks three dozen languages. We made driving sexy, liberating and a part of the American Way of Life. There was also a lot of corporate support for the automobile, much more than many realize. General Motors and Standard Oil (today’s Exxon Mobile) were no fools when they bought the fabled Red Line Trolley Car Company after World War II in Los Angeles and promptly set about bankrupting it. They were following in a long line of companies that changed our tastes and our habits in ways we have yet to fully comprehend. From learning where a hemline should sit, to buying that first house in the “clean” suburb, Hollywood dictated what was acceptable. We must take a look at where we’re heading (and where we came from) if we want to keep the drama of civilization moving and make life more livable.

In 1963 the Alweg Monorail Company purposed building a system of almost 70 miles connecting downtown, the Westside and the San Fernando Valley with no cost to taxpayers. There was widespread support for this until according to reports, which included thoughts from science fiction writer Ray Bradbury who even attended the city commissioner meetings, Standard Oil’s lobbyists became involved. The monorail proposal was roundly defeated. I am sure that overall costs, individual freedoms, and neighborhood concerns became an issue in the decision. The monorail that could have been built for a total cost of about $100 million would have been paid for by fares. Wow. As Bradbury remarked, “northern, colder climates are more suitable for below ground, enclosed environments, while we living in warmer climate are better suited to being above ground in light and air.” The distant snow-capped mountains or the many beaches and coastlines would have been a truly inspiring sight as seen through a gliding train.

As Angelenos who live and work here in this sprawling yet amazing megalopolis, we must realize that our future is in our hands. The future of other cities, in no small part, depends on us as well, since Los Angeles creates the dreams and the visions of much of the world. And that future is now.

In our June issue we will update you to what MTA’s current plans are since there is currently an important discussion within both the political circles and the MTA on what is the best way to handle future Westside development.  We at h Magazine invite readers to email us comments, information, and any resources or organizations that would help our readers to further engage in this dialogue concerning mass transit in 21st Century L.A.  Please email us at TheRobertGroup@gmail.com  Thank you for your interest. Robert Burnside is an agent at Sotheby’s International Realty on Sunset Blvd. He writes about art, urbanism, psychology, and metaphysics.