The Color Purple

Amid the debate about more rail lines as a way of reducing traffic, transit officials have quietly changed the color palette. MTA officials didn't run out of red ink when they printed the new subway maps. They've changed the name of a portion of the Red Line. Passengers traveling west between Union Station and Wilshire Boulevard at Western Avenue will now board the Purple Line. That's also the line that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants to take to the sea. How will the new color resonate on the Westside? And why is the MTA having some much trouble picking color (the Expo Line still doesn't have an color designation because of politics squabbling)? Comment below.

-Jean Guccione (Jean covers the MTA for The Times)

Comments

[Greg Kay]

Renaming the Koreatown red line stub to the purple line is obviously a promising development for the Subway to the Sea, but hardly enough. I would like to see a consistent, concerted and documented effort to secure funding for not only this line, but an actual subway network. One more subway line is not convincing evidence of a Los Angeles that has confidence in its future.

Mexico City or Tokyo or Osaka are all good examples of subway networks that stitch their cities together providing a usable alternative to the above-ground automotive gridlock. Look at any population distribution map of the Los Angeles metro area - not coincidentally the area afflicted with the worst traffic problems. There are multiple areas of high population density that need to connect to multiple areas of commerce. This requires a woven network that connects the nodes, not just a north-south line and an east-west line.

Los Angeles should prioritize and take the 2 billion it proposes to spend on the river, the 400 milllion it will spend on a new police headquarters, the millions it will spend on improving Griffith Park and instead invest in a subway network. If the economic costs of gridlock and the environmental costs of automotive emissions are truly accounted for, such an investment is a bargain. The great cities of the world - New York, Paris, Tokyo, London - developed because of their transportation networks, not in spite of them.

What is the point of developing attractions (the L.A. River, Griffith Park) or civic services (the police department) if there is no workable plan for the transportation of the millions of new inhabitants expected to become Los Angeles county residents in the next 25 years? How will the city and its amenities function and be of value if no one can move?

[Sherie Marshall]

I love your columns Steve! And thanks for writing about this issue, that gets worse every single day. Of all the many places I have traveled all over the world, L.A. is one of the worse for driving and getting around.

I was in Australia, and I am writing to Arnold because they have the greatest transportation down there. In Melbourne you have the trams, they are just wonderful, they go all over. I took the train everywhere, like all the Aussies do. Same in Sydney, the monorail of course to Darling Harbour and the shopping mall, trains go everywhere. Transportation is cheap, plentiful, and often. To park in Sydney on a Sat. night is very expensive, like $75, everybody takes the train. And all over the harbour in Sydney, you take ferrys. L.A. had great transportation when they had the red cars, the need to lay those tracks again, and do trams like Melbourne. I can't believe the fwy here now. It took me 4!!!! hours to go on the 91 to Palm Springs leaving on a Fri. at 2:30 p.m. It's gone beyond something people can live with anymore. Politicians need to tax something and take the money and build now or there will be no future. It will be Mad Max. Go to Australia politicians and look at how great they get around.

[Jeff Gross]

The only reason that the Expo line doesn't have its color is the asinine intransigence of one man: LA 8th district councilman and MTA board member Bernard Parks.

The MTA was all ready to assign Aqua to Expo and has its rationale and supporting information in this document:

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2006/08_August/20060824RBMItem37_Handout.pdf

One would think that assigning a color to a transit line would be a trivial matter. Not in Los Angeles, where the whims of one MTA board member have far too much influence.

The reason Expo needs a color is because the line is part of the whole MTA transit system. It's not just a small piece of railway that happens to pass through Bernard Parks' little fiefdom. It's part of the current and future rapid transit system that will help move everyone in LA County around.

The whole issue with the Expo line's color is so illustrative of the piecemeal approach taken to rapid transit in LA. Political concerns (and whims) trump all other concerns. If this weren't the case, we would already have our Aqua Line running directly down the Exposition right of way to Santa Monica.

Fortunately it's not too late to make things better. Steve Lopez's articles are bringing the necessary attention to how sick we all are of the traffic and the political/NIMBY nonsense that gets in the way of a more comprehensive transit system.

If I were the MTA board, I'd take a long, hard look in the mirror at how stupid you all look bending to the will of one member who doesn't like the color aqua.

I have a scandalous idea. Let's all just start referring to Expo as the Aqua Line. It will drive Bernie nuts.

And by the way, the Purple Line is a great name for the former Red Line segment from Union Station to Wilshire and Western. The name provides a focus for those of us who would like to see the line extended to the ocean. Besides, purple is a nice, pleasant color.

[Chris Yang]

I thought the Expo line was going aqua? Either way, purple, red, whatever it is, just get it done so people can get around.

And while you're at it, perhaps do a feature story about the scandalous demise of the Red Car.